Monday, November 30, 2009

Call of the Wild and AOTW

The Monday after Thanksgiving is a special day in our family.  Okay, it's a special day for the men, and a day of not putting up with the shit of the men for the women.  For today is the first day of deer gun season in the great state of Ohio.  And while it's been five years since I've been out there (kids and the Succubus), I still love to step out in the morning and mentally be back on the side of the hill.


Not today, as I had to shove coats on the kids and it was nut-icing cold.  Mind you, it's colder in the woods.  Usually, it's shortly after the sun comes up that the shivers set in.  And it's little things like that that make hunting what it is:  a series of experiences that connect Man with a part of himself that we too often lose in the daily grind of modern life.  Things like the cycles of nature.  The perilous nature of life in the wild.  How we get meat.

The last is most important, as we too often forget that for us to eat meat, we must kill animals to do it.  Hunting is the most organic way possible to get that meat. Ask Ted Nugent.  We get life from the life of the animal.  We kill the animal, remove the organs, skin it, process it into a storable form.  Then, as we do with meat from the store, we cook it and eat it.  And it is in understanding that process that we value that meat more.  In fact, since I was young, one rule was that we ate all the meat.  We may throw other stuff to the dogs, but the meat went into our bellies (with the notable exception of some 20-year-old cockfighting rooster meat we once had that only got tender after maybe 6 hours of cooking).

And it is an advantage growing up in the country.  We butchered chickens.  I vividly remember the fun of watching a headless chicken run around fountaining blood.  Then there was the pig we raised.  We named it bacon.  Want to guess what happened to him?  Then there was the time our dog had a big litter of puppies.  Well, I can say that they were not eaten, but I had to mention them so you wondered if we had fresh young hot dogs (bad pun I know) that winter.  Not that I'm opposed to trying dog, just not in this country because we don't raise them for food.  Although the last time I had Chinese....  The point is that I was never under any illusions about where meat came from.  This I will pass on to my kids.


I could go on about the good for the environment and for those game animals that hunters provide (like birth control, right), but that's what the comment section (and appropriate links) is for.  Plus, it's almost Tuesday and I really need to wrap up my hunting post.



And since the closest I'm going to get to deer this week (unless one runs across the road in front of me) is the TV screen:

Bambi is Asshat of the Week!

Like fellow AOTW Smokey Bear, the "beloved" Disney character has significant flaws.  In this area though, Bambi is the misrepresentation of Man.  I've been through this in the past, but let me quote from that post:


I understand why people who have never hunted or have never associated with hunters have a distasteful view of hunting. This is best reflected in the Disney movie, Bambi. The portrait of Man in that movie was as an infection, disturbing the peace of the woods by their evil presence. Then with a roar of death, they let loose a barrage of gunfire, brutally snuffing out Bambi's mom. Then, to top off their murderous spree, they set fire to the forest through sheer indifference. Damn, even I despise these assholes.

Of course, that's the point. These are not the average hunters. They're assholes.


While I enjoy the occasional Disney film now and then (3-year-old girl, Tinkerbell movies have been on the Disney channel both last night AND today, she wears her fairy wings from Halloween regularly, nuff said?), Disney has a bad habit of investing every damned animal in all their movies (with the exception of rare evil animals) with annoying dough eyes.  In essence, it invests children, and consequently adults, with the concept that animals are people too.  Ask anyone who really works with animals if they're people too. 

So unless your religious faith included a belief that people's souls are reincarnated in animals, and therefore you're killing people when you kill an animal (just covering the Krishna angle), you're falling for Disney asshattery.

21 comments:

TAO said...

Why not eat the dogs?

Meat is meat right?

For some reason you and your family have decided that dog meat is taboo...

Well, in other families 'Bambi' is taboo...

So, go thump your chest and play king of the jungle...if I want chicken I will go to KFC and get mine already cooked..

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I vividly remember the fun of watching a headless chicken run around fountaining blood.

That is some kinda Godawful bad sadistic horrible awful evil and I can't come up with any more adjectives to tell you how truly revolting of a concept that is.

And even though you covered killing animals=killing people, it's not really letting you off the hook in my opinion on this.

Meat=greed.

Satyavati devi dasi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

"If animals are our friends, why do they have to taste so good?"

dmarks said...

And "meat is greed" is like "apples are oranges".

Patrick M said...

Tao: I think there's be objections from may quarters if I started butchering dog, thus I hesitate.

My point (from which I meandered excessively) is that hunting is the closest to our nature we can get. Sometimes we forget this.

Saty: You know I was thinking about you when I wrote this post.

And until you've seen a chicken run around with it's head cut off, don't knock it. I think I was 6 or 7 at the time (and I wasn't scarred in the least). Also, from a technical standpoint, chopping the head is the quickest and cleanest way.

I'm just hoping for some field dressed deer pics for future posts. Just for you.

Dmarks: If I could afford it, I'd send Satyavati a side of beef or two. I'm that sadistic. :)

Also, I'll have to link to your worst holiday special post for my Obama speech post, for reasons mentioned in your comments.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

It fosters a sense, from childhood, of an abject lack of compassion for other living creatures, and finds humour in death.

It's revolting and disgusting. And meat IS greed, because there is no physiological reason that human beings require to eat the rotting carcasses of animals for survival.

Cats are physiological carnivores: they don't produce naturally all the amino acids they require, and can only obtain them from meat. Humans have no such biological restrictions on their diet. People kill and eat animals gratuitiously, not out of any necessity.

This is the core essence of, ultimately, everything that's wrong with us as a society; what we 'want' (as opposed to 'need') is so incredibly important that the suffering and torment of other living creatures means absolutely nothing to us. This is even a degradation from subsistence cultures that included meat in their diets, such as Native Americans, who revered the animals that gave their lives, and respected them. We really could give a shit these days about factory farming and horrific, torturous lifestyles and deaths of millions of livestock and billions of birds every year. We really don't care about that, because our wants are worth the needless suffering and death of others.

It's so incredibly disgusting and pitiful.

Beth said...

Patrick will probably delete this comment because it eludes to the "A" word, but I wonder if Saty thinks killing an unborn baby is greedy?

Patrick M said...

Saty: None of us condone needless suffering and torment of animals. We just don't have a problem killing them by the assload because meat is magnicifence.

And glad that you brought up the Native Americans. That's the respect we should have for the animals that grace our table. Even the ones that end up as Spam. That was my point.

Beth: Only if you eat the baby.

And no, I'll let it stand as long as it doesn't turn into a change of discussion.

(yes that's a warning for everyone)

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Beth,

Actually it crossed my mind as I wrote the post that the casual attitude towards the 'A' is basically traceable to the same lack of compassion towards animals. If you don't care about animals suffering needlessly, certainly it's only another very small step to not care about the suffering of other humans. You could call it greed if you like; in the end, though, it still comes all back to that carnivorous attitude.

This in no way changes my stance towards that particular issue, just that the mindset is very easily traceable back to that lack of compassion for other living beings. This is the attitude of a meateater-someone who directly or indirectly causes, condones and supports economically the systematic torture and suffering of living beings for no valid purpose.

Beth said...

By your logic, a person who doesn't eat meat because they have a great respect for living creatures should be the most pro-life person on the planet, Saty!

No, you've proven yourself here to be the type of person who wants to control everyone else's behavior to match what YOU think is moral and right! No wonder Obama gives you wet dreams, he wants to do the same damn thing.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Actually, Beth, what I do is keep my personal beliefs out of what I'm willing to impose on others.

I believe that every living thing has a soul, from trees to bugs to cows, and that those souls are in every way equal to me, just in different kinds of bodies. Every life has an equal value, and the human body I inhabit in this lifetime in no way provides me with a guarantee that I will inhabit a human body in my next life.

This is what I believe, and I live MY life accordingly. This doesn't change my stance on certain legislative issues, because despite what I believe, I can forsee the potential problems that would come from blanket, undiscriminating legislation.

In a perfect world, as far as I'm concerned, factory farming would be unequivocally illegal. Slaughterhouses would be banned. All restaurants would be required to be vegetarian. Any animal products such as leather, etc., would be required to come from animals that had died natural deaths. Hormone and antibiotic treatments, and genetic modification, would be illegal. Meat eating would be a crime.

This legislation, as much as I'd like to see it happen, wouldn't quite work in the United States. Therefore, I act according to what I know is right and let people deal with their own karma. The fact that it's legal isn't making it right, and trying to make blanket legislation against it would probably create more problems than it would solve.

There are other legislative issues that are on a par with this. While I personally condemn these things, I recognize that to create blanket legislation against them would create more problems than it would solve. Thus, in my personal life I act according to my beliefs in the sanctity of all life, and leave the karma of others to themselves.

It seems to me that the real hypocrite in this situation would be the 'pro-lifer' who continues to participate in the suffering and torment of animals by supporting the meat industry and continuing to eat meat. But again, that's the karma that their decisions will bring to them.

dmarks said...

SDD: "Meat eating would be a crime."

Well, there goes any last distinction or independence of culture in the many remaining indigenous tribes in the world still living their traditional lifestyle.

"You can't live off the land like you've done for thousands of years. Time to pack it up, an live in shanties at the edge of the city"

Satyavati devi dasi said...

The point being to distinguish that legislating according to one's personal convictions doesn't always work, and that although something being legal doesn't make it right, sometimes you have to step back and just let people choose their own karma.

Beth said...

I don't look to "karma", I look to the Bible, specifically Genesis:

Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

It would seem that destroying something made in God's image is worse than destroying an animal that God considers under our control, but if you can meet your Maker and think your karma of putting animals ahead of humans is the way to go, I'm sure there is nothing I can say to try to save you from that judgment day.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

OK, I'm not sure where you get putting animals ahead of humans out of anything I said, but then again, it's not like I'm surprised that you completely missed the point.

I'll try to use smaller words this time.

Let's establish one fact up front: according to my beliefs, ALL LIFE IS EQUALLY SACRED. Animal, vegetable, marsupial, mammal.. if it lives, it's sacred. This is what I believe.

I live *MY* life according to *MY* beliefs. I don't participate in the torture and suffering of innocent, helpless animals by eating meat. I also don't participate in any activity that would harm another human being. My life's work centers around helping people, not hurting them.

Maybe the point at which you get confused is this: I don't insist on legislating MY beliefs on YOU. I don't believe that it should be illegal to eat meat, despite the fact that I believe it is an evil thing to do. I also don't believe the big A should be illegal, despite the fact that I believe it is an evil thing to do.

This is where I differ with the religious right, who feel that whatever beliefs they hold dear need to be legislated onto the rest of the population, who may or may not believe accordingly.

May I refer you to the book of the prophet Isiah, chapter 66 verse 3, wherein I quote from the NASB:

"But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog's neck; He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine's blood; He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol. As they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations,

If you're a KJV-only person, you may look it up there, it's saying the same thing.

If you still don't get it after all this, I'm not sure what can help you. I can try rhyming it a la Dr. Seuss, but I don't know if I can make it clear in third grade english.

Maybe read it twice. There's nothing in there about putting animals ahead of humans, Beth. I value ALL life; I don't pick and choose.

dmarks said...

SDD said: "This is where I differ with the religious right, who feel that whatever beliefs they hold dear need to be legislated onto the rest of the population, who may or may not believe accordingly."

Well, the same applies to anyone who is actively pushing for or involved in legislation. And that's 100% of the people in Congress, only some of whom are in the so-called "Religious Right".

But all of them are trying to legislate their beliefs on the rest of the population.

Beth said...

Well Saty, I have some very good news for you, because if you have thought that eating meat was evil because of Isiah 66:3, then fire up the grill and get yourself a juicy steak for yourself, because that passage has absolutely nothing to do with killing animals for food. It has everything to do with God not being pleased with people who used animal sacrifice but were not sorry for their sins, if people thought the sacrifice would make them holy, they were as bad as someone who committed murder.

As for your not wanting to legislate YOUR beliefs, seems to me you believe in universal health care because you personally believe that to solve the problems with health care, it requires Congress to LEGISLATE it. Yup, dmarks has got your number, too.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

Yall aren't getting the point that I was talking about religious beliefs being legislated, are you.

And no, Beth, I don't think eating meat is evil because of anything whatsoever the Bible has to say. I think it's evil because like I said multiple times before: ALL LIFE IS SACRED.

Explaining shit to you is hard work. I can't write in third grade english.

Beth said...

Sorry you are stuck at the 2nd grade level since you say you can't write at the 3rd grade level, that explains a lot of why I don't understand you I guess.

Patrick M said...

Beth, Saty: The sniping of each other is getting tiresome now. Just kiss and make up.

And post the vid please. :)