[Sca-cooks] English Doctors want to ban pointy knives...

[Celia des Archier]

maire said (refering to my disagreement with 'Lainie's statement):
> She didn't specify human-on-human violence, just violence.  

True, but the context of her statement, the context of the discussion and
the content of her reply to my disagreement all connote human-on-human
violence. 

> And taking the life of an animal would certainly qualify, 
> especially from the animal's point of view.  

Well, again, being from my specific cultural background, which includes
quite a bit of Native American philosophy (even when not recognized as
such), I can't necessarily agree with you there, either, as it depends upon
too many points which are unsupportable, including the individual's
connotative concept of "violence" and a POV which we can't verify.  In
Native American belief, the animal actually cooperates (at least to some
extent) in the hunting process, thus supporting the circle of life.  Which
is why many Native American blessings thank the spirit of the animal for
giving up it's "life" to support more life. 

As for myself, I am not a Medicine Woman and I don't presume to know what
the animal's point of view is, but I recognize that the animal is
cooperating in the wheel of life is a  valid viewpoint.  I acknowledge that
some human PoVs would consider hunting a violent act.  I, however, don't
consider it a violent act, as "violence", to me, has a connotation of
"abusive or unjust exercise of power", whereas killing on the food chain to
eat is just a part of the natural process of life.  So to me words can be
violence where killing may not be.  But that's *my* PoV. From my PoV, the
process by which animals are raised on factory farms is much more "violent"
than hunting is. 

> The end result 
> might be food for someone or something, but the inbetween 
> parts are hardly non-violent.
> And before I get every gun-rights activist coming out of the 
> woods to flame me, I should point out that I'm an omnivore 
> like most of my species, and grew up in a hunting/fishing 
> family, took Hunters' Safety when I was 13, etc., etc.  Heck, 
> I even own a gun, even if I never intend to use it....
> --maire, who notes that our pre-gun ancestors managed to get 
> game without them just fine, and who also notes that people 
> can eat lots of things besides meat.....

All of which is true, but not relevant to the point that I was making, which
was simply that guns can be just as utilitarian as knives, and that guns are
not simply for the purpose of doing violence, specifically they are not
simply for the purpose of doing violance to other humans, which was the
initial topic of discussion.  I certainly respect the rights of those who
believe that eating meat is not compassionate or who choose for religious,
political or health reasons to restrict their diet.  When I said that my
family hunted for sustainance, I did not mean to imply that it was the only
way of life that they could pursue, but it is consistent with their beliefs
and it is not a violent way of life and it is certainly their right to
choose to live that way.  Indeed, from my PoV their way of life, which
includes both raising livestock free range and hunting, is much less violent
than the "factory farms" that produce most of the meat that we purchase from
the grocery stores.  So, from my PoV, they're participating in less
"violence" than I am when I go out and buy a hamburger, or when I purchase
poultry from my local supermarket (which doesn't carry 'free range' or
'organic' poultry.) Ethically, I would much rather eat game killed quickly
or livestock that I know was treated humanely while alive and then killed
humanely, and with respect for the life and spirit of the animal that is
providing me sustainance, than that purchased it at the grocery store,
knowing what I now know about how factory farm animals are treated. But I
certainly respect the rights of others to feel and believe differently than
I do.  

And while our pre-gun ancestors did indeed manage to hunt with other
weapons, for the most part those weapons were specifically weapons as well,
which was where I believe that the discussion began; as bows, spears and
slings don't really have any other more utilitarian purpose except to kill
or do injury either (the one exception besides the knife that I can think of
is actually the tomahawk, which is also a small hatchet, and has been used
for more utilitarian purposes.)  

But I think that the main point is that, even in our society, where gun
control is a heated topic we recognize that attempting to ban other weapons
begins an irrational slippery slope, and thus the issue brings up the long
standing arguments that banning guns would do the same.  One of the reasons
I brought it back to the fact that guns do have a utilitarian purpose
related to food was to try to bring the conversation back (at least
tangentally) to the topic of the list, since the many socio-political
arguments pro- or con- gun control which could easily come up seemed likely
to drive things way off topic.  

In Service to the Society,
Celia