ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/mobility/archive/v01.n324

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-02 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (mobility-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: mobility-digest V1 #324
Reply-To: mobility
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes

mobility-digest      Wednesday, February 3 1999      Volume 01 : Number 324



Re: (mobility) videos / thoughts / trades
Re: (mobility) Vegetarian split personalities
Re: (mobility) i am desprate
Re: (mobility) Your Ideal Videos
Re: (mobility) evil ninja moby the non-vegan
Re: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Ed & Tim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:54:35 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Beecher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) videos / thoughts / trades

By the way I never claimed to be intelligent - I'm just Mr.
Average okay, trying to voice my opinion and now I've said
my piece and it's going no further. It would be great if
everyone could voice their opinions and not just those that
claim to be intelligent or superior - which I never did, I
hasten to add. I'm all for the everyday man and woman
having a voice - I'm just one of you - an equal alright
(which is what all I said was about!)?

I just got really provoked earlier, now I'm over it!

T.

- ----------------------
Tim Beecher
Cranfield University
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:50:24 -0600
From: Christopher Michael Bourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Vegetarian split personalities

From Tim:

>If I'm not mistaken, you said you were vegetarian? If so on
>what grounds? If you are veggie because of cruelty to
>animals then how can you side with a system that causes so
>much suffering and destruction? Intensive and
>factory farming is due to the demands and excesses of a
>capitalist system. It is possible to feed separate
>communities across entire continents on more extensive,
>natural farming, especially if most people are vegetarian

I am a vegetarian based on the factory farm situation.  Pig farms pollute
ground water and the volume that farms deal in make the living conditions of
the animals abhorid.  I have nothing against eating animals in and of
itself.  However, as a PERSONAL decision, I have decided not to support such
an industry by not eating their products.  I don't proselytize others and I
certainly don't support government laws which would require people to become
vegetarianism.  Small family farms provide much better conditions for both
the environment and the animals.  If I could be assured that the products I
eat are from these farms and that in the process of raising them the
conditions characteristic of the factory farms were not there, then I would
have absolutely nothing against devouring all the meat in the world.  Free
range chickens for example are fine by me.  Milk from milk cows is okay
considering the pampered conditions they live in(of course injecting them
with BHC is not).  However, as you point out, such a system would severly
restrict the supply of animal products and consequently increase the price
of meat.  Would you be willing to pay 2-3 times as much for a steak?  I
don't know, but such as system is certainly possible, I would never advocate
its creation through government controls though.  Power to the Amish and
their farms!

And now from Kelly:

>Vegetarianism doesn't mean anything if you "break" it whenever you feel
>like it.  For most, it is a moral decision based on an overwhelming amounts
>of reasons.  If Martin Luther King Jr. had just decided to say "What the
>hell, let's kill some honkies, just this once", We would have absolutely no
>respect for him.  Integrity means sticking to  your (moral and ethical)
>guns.  snip...>>

It depends on your justification for not eating meat, read above for mine.
If I were assured that none of the negative effects were present in the
production of my meal(ie no pollution, chemical stimulants, or harsh
conditions) then I would have no problem with it.  Last summer in New
Orleans I ate seafood.  I don't see this as a major infraction against my
vegetarianism mainly because the sea food was always fresh and harvested,
not artifically grown, ie seamen caught the seafood, they didn't mass
produce it in a factory farm.  I've heard of, although never met, many
vegetarians who will eat sea food anytime for these reasons.  Additionally,
according to the biologists, creatures from the deep don't have a nervous
system like we do; as such they don't really feel pain in the same manner as
mammals, fowl etc...

I also ate prime rib with my family this past christmas.  I didn't consider
this to be too horrible of a thing since it was the only time in over 1 year
that I had eaten beef.  This small incidence in my eyes didn't affect the
overall picture.  I don't see the whole issue as a moral imperative at all.
It is a personal choice, not an ethical directive.

There isn't just ONE vegetarianism.  I think you'll find that each
individual's view varies a lot, whether its their justification or practice.
However you see it, you've got to accept that it is a matter of personal
choice otherwise you'll rack yourself crazy trying to turn the ignorant
masses.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:18:45 +0000
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) i am desprate

From:          "Geoffrey Sproule" <[e-mail]>
To:            "Moby (mobility) List" <[e-mail]>
Subject:       (mobility) i am desprate
Date:          Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:46:59 +0000
Reply-to:      [e-mail]

could someone please send me a Cdr of underwater

I hope no one is offended but I have tried everything I can possibly
do to get this disk I didn't have a CD player when EIW came out so
only bought the tape version


This is isn't on EIW is it?

Ed

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:33:55 -0800
From: "Kelbert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) Your Ideal Videos

>I'm curious - has
> anyone else been struck with these kind of ideas, i.e. this would make a
> good video?  if so, what would the video be?
>
> daniel

yo daniel.  thanks a bunch for a new thread.  yeah daniel!  and its a COOL
thread.  i never even thought about sharing my idea that struck me last
summer...

god moving over the face of the waters: flying over a beach with the waves
breaking below in the morning light.  kinda like a camera panning from a
low flying plane or something, as seen in countless movies... or maybe
something along the lines of the intro of I know what you did last summer,
over the breaking waves. Yes, horrid movie, but its the first one that
comes to mind.

into the blue:  a woman standing on the edge of the roof of a building with
her arms reaching out at her sides.  camera coming closer and backing away,
all the time circling her, but she never moves, aside from her long hair
blowing in the wind.  near the very end of the song you see angel's wings
(you know those big beautiful feather ones... *drool*) sprout from her back
and she jumps. the end.

say its all mine: moby in a room with a revolving chair (one of those big
egg shaped ones that are hollow on one side... urrggg... can't explain it
without sounding dumb). basically its him spinning side to side on the
chair, looking around but not singing the words. during the chorus there
are various takes of his face, practically screaming the lyrics to the
camera.  after the first chorus he gets up and wanders around the floor of
the room, which is empty aside from the chair, sometimes lies down,
sometimes rests his head against the wall and so on...  it continues until
the very end of the song when it fades out, and the camera looks up and the
roof is covered by a huge photograph of moby and some girl, (to me the same
woman i see in the into the blue video).

well, that's what i see...
maybe it makes sense,maybe it doesn't... i just thought i'd share tho.

- -kelly

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:31:09 -0800
From: "Kelbert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) evil ninja moby the non-vegan

> There's no "happy medium" in the methods of factory farming, in the
> torturous practices that animals used for human consumption are subjected
> to.  No "happy medium" in the environmental destruction for which the
> meat and dairy industry is responsible.

must... not... start... huge fight.

its nice to have high ideals, to live a cruelty free life.
but we all cant do it.

you can't save everyone.

and you can't expect EVERYONE to be willing to give up EVERYTHING. its a
nice thought, everyone on the face of the planet going vegan... but its not
a realistic goal now, is it? personally, i'd rather say "good for you!
you've stopped eating meat! i'm glad you found something that makes you
happy". instead of "shame on you!  put down that cheese pizza! tisk tisk
tisk... did you know a cow was forcibly impregnated to provide the milk for
that cheese? here, have some tofu instead".  it just won't work that way...
you can't guilt people into doing something they don't want to do.  people
need to find their comfort zone.  their "happy medium".  at least they're
doing SOMETHING.

and unfortunatly, people have selective memories.  no matter what horror
stories you tell them, they'll just do what ever they damn well please.
*sigh* c'est la vie...

so am i totally off base here?  is associating with meat eaters making me
soft? or am i just realistic? anyone?

and yes, im ready to get flamed to a nice toasty crust on the outside and
still tender on the inside from all the militant veggies out there who
think i have forsaken them...
*shrugs*
ya gotta do what ya gotta do. ya know?

- -kelly

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:28:19 -0800 (PST)
From: BRIAN HOVEY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Ed & Tim.

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mOBY OR hISTORY???????
Brian!!!!!!




- ---Christopher Michael Bourke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> First, Ed, please, "I'm afraid I just don't agree with this"?  It's
mainly
> accepted historical interpretation and points of fact.  Rebuttle if
you
> wish, but please elaborate.
>
> Secondly, on to Tim's letter:
>
>
> >Oh come on both Chris', let's get some reality here.
> >Britain was primarily interested in advancing it's own
> >wealth at the expense of the people it conquered - thank
> >God colonialism has virtually died amongst the European
> >nations. It was pure exploitation, and competition for
> >power that accelerated the ravaging of other cultures and
> >their wealth to be ahead of their other European rivals.
> >The French and the British were constantly at it and look
> >how the Spanish before them decimated the peoples of
> >Central and South America. They had a very advanced
> >civilisation compared to many money grabbing, war mongering
> >Europeans.
>
>
> Again, in historical context if you pick up any book on Britain's
history,
> instead of quoting the biased opinions of the "New Internationalist"
 you
> would see mounds of documentation.  While France, Portugal and Spain
> attempted to drain colonies of natural resources and violently put
down it's
> local people, enslaving them Britain had a much more positive
effect.  I'm
> not saying that colonialism was ever justified, just that
relatively, the
> Brits never went to the extent of the rest of Europe.  The Good that
they
> did far outweighed the bad, and their motives were just as I said,
attempts
> to open new markets and tear down trade barriers controlled by local
and
> regional tyrants.
>
> >I think it's pure arrogance to suggest that any nation
> >should be encouraged to force others to accept its way of
> >life, culture and religion. Some people in the West have a
> >serious superiority complex!
>
> Again, if you know anything of true history, the Brits allowed self
> government, freedom of religion and even went to great extents to
preserve
> language and culture in their colonies(observe for instance India,
in which
> each local state was given local rule and encouraged to keep the
mother
> tounge).  Not so with the rest of Europe.  Historical observation is
not a
> justification for colonialism.  I never suggested that any nation
should "be
> encouraged to for others to accept its way".  However, I will state
that
> there are objective rules/guidelines for morality.  Would you take
your
> cultural relativism so far as to say WWII Germany was justified in
their
> autrocities in so far as their own borders were concerned?
>
> >
> >Tribal wars in Africa were far less damaging to the world
> >and humanity than those fought by present 'first world'
> >nations over the centuries, but none so appalling as this
> >century.
>
> A result of Nationalism/Facism/and Socialistic trends, Capitalism
did not
> percipitate in any measurable degree the events leading up to the
Great
> world wars.
>
> >The U.S.A. was also built on colonialism to get where it is
> >today - the native peoples didn't get much say when it came
> >to living on their own land and what rights they had to
> >their own land. I don't think you'd be saying the same
> >things if the tables were turned.
>
> What the US Government did to the native americans was unforgivable.
 But
> one must understand the mentalities and situation involved.  The
Native
> Americans were largely Nomadic people who had no concept of "owning
land."
> Even if the "white man" were to pay the native Americans for their
land,
> they would see it as very odd and would probably not have anything
to do
> with such a transaction.  Europeans and Americans on the other hand
had very
> evolved and developed sence and legal definitions of ownership which
> included land and natural resources.  This culture clash was sadly
> inevitable, but I don't think that this country was build on the
Manifest
> destiny move westward.  The east already had highly developed and rich
> economic bases.
>
> >Capitalism and globalisation today, thanks to the 'free
> >market' has pushed its new brand of colonialism and
> >imperialism on other nations inside and outside the West,
> >to satisfy the minority rich in the rich nations and fuck
> >up the 'have-nots' in the process - the majority of these
> >people are forced into poverty by the current system. The
> >Majority world (Third World) nations are held to ransom by
> >the IMF and World Bank by never-ending debt and usury
> >(usury, at one time being a sin according to old
> >Judaeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs).
>
> Excuse me?  The Third world's economic capital comes from INVESTMENT
from
> the west, not extrodinarily high interest loans.  If anything The
third
> world nations would never (governmetns) would never get ANY loans
because of
> political turmoil making them extremely bad credit risks.  Instead
these
> countries tend to print more money which leads to hyper inflation,
ruining
> their OWN economies.  The have nots are have nots, not because of
external
> "multinational" corporations but because of thier own autocratic
governments
> controlling their economy and raping their resources in attempts to
continue
> their regimes.
>
> >Laissez-faire capitalism (sounds better than the present
> >form) but has led to ludicrous pacts between rich
> >governments allowing industry to have free reign, in
> >whatever countries industry chooses, i.e. the MAI pact
> >recently in Geneva. Industry will have no accountability -
> >so it can exploit workers, pollute the environment and just
> >continue to ravage about any decent thing left in society
> >and the world around us with no controls and governments of
> >poorer countries and even the rich ones won't be able to do
> >a damn thing about it unless this crazy notion is stopped.
> >So capitalism, laissez - frigging - faire or not, will
> >still exploit for capitalists' own ends; someone will
> >always suffer as a result.
>
> Ha!  You have shown that you have no concept of what Laissez-faire
> capitalism is!  No Government intervention in the economy is exactly
what it
> says!  NO INTERVENTION.  That means no FAVORS no SUBSIDIES no
FAVORITISM,
> period!  Capitalism extends from political and moral theories not a
need for
> economic development.  No controls doesn't mean no accountability!
Yet
> another way government controls in the form of tort reform pervert
the true
> principles of Capitalism!  Public resources such as drinking water
and the
> air would be subject to public protection, ie through civil action
against
> those who would polute the environment.  Exploitation in a true
> laissez-faire, free market economy is NOT possible.  Every man/woman
is free
> to decide who to work for and at mutually agreed upon wages.  Low
wages are
> NOT exploitation in and of themselves.  Please.
>
> >I'm not sure you can refer to Indonesia as a socialist
> >nation - it is still hands-in-glove with the capitalists of
> >the West, which helps fund it's repression of the East
> >Timorese and it's own people. Even China is more of a
> >capitalist nation with the gloss of communist principles
> >over it - now that is repressive to the extreme - the worst
> >of both bad worlds.
>
> ?!?!!?  Indonesia not a socialist country?  What praytell is it?  If
not
> socialist I would agree that it is ruled by a MILITARY REGIME, and not
> governed by capitalistic principles(which include respect of personal
> liberty against a tyrannical government)
>
> There is not a single private, major industrial entity in all of
China with
> the exception of HK.  Communisms death has been staved off and they
have
> made capitalistic reforms in the last few decades, but they are FAR
from
> capitalism.  Everything is still state owned.
>
> >As for the rainforests and indigenous peoples - I'm not
> >just referring to the Amazonian one. Their destruction is
> >fuelled by the insatiable desire of capitalist-driven
> >globalisation. Subsistence farmers wouldn't have to destroy
> >so much if they were in a state that provided controlled
> >and carefully managed agriculture and
> >conservation/ecological principles to benefit everybody and
> >everything. Let's also remember that the prime culprits of
> >rainforest destruction are the rich cattle ranchers, heavy
> >industry and dam builders funded by the World Bank, for the
> >rich countries own interest and usury.
>
> Just like Stalin's Russia huh?  The murder of millions of Kulaks in
the name
> of government controlled agricultural development.  Global warming
and the
> Rain Forests are scientifically questionable to begin with.  Ha!
You sound
> like a militia man they with your conspiritorial antagonisms toward
the
> World Bank.  They don't own everything my friend.  again, see above.
>
> >There is enough food to feed everyone in the world right
> >now, but under the current economic regime (which is out of
> >control and is on the verge of self-destruction)- the haves
> >get more and the have-nots get even less. Where does it end?
> >
> >Are you saying that all us comfortable, well-off types
> >(usually already born with a silver spoon in our mouths,
> >while others are trapped in poverty with no chance of ever
> >escaping, all because of past silver spoon, exploitative
> >bastards), should leave people starve to death? Do you
> >think they willingly let themselves starve to death and so
> >they deserve it? Should we exterminate all handicapped and
> >ill people because they are a drain on our military
> >expenditure because they deserve it? People must be fired
> >from there jobs and become homeless because they're human
> >and not running around like headless chickens for the sake
> >of the stock market to feed the fat bastards at the top.
> >Some of us have short memories.
> <<<<snip>>>>but simply self-destruction.
> >
>
>
> Atlas Shrugged.  You identify the prime mistake in all
statist/conrolled
> economy advocates.  First, you resort to pathos-like rhetoric trying
to
> appeal to people with the pathetic starving masses.  You ignore the
entire
> basis of WEALTH.  Wealth is not static, it is not given, it is
created!  The
> Atlases of our world create weath through hard work and earned(ie
deserved)
> endeavors.  In a free society wealth cannot be used to exploit put
down or
> influence anyone to do anything!  The only problem with today's
system is
> that people with money(the rich) aren't true to the ideals of
laissez-faire
> capitalism and the governments instituted allow such bribery.  the
wealth
> would rather not have to work to maintain or create weath and
instead buy
> influence with governments and those in control.  This is the TRUE
problem
> and why many people still suffer poverty.
>
>
> >True equality is liberty against economic and social
> >oppression.
>
>
=== message truncated ===

==
"How can I save you, I cant even save myself,
 ....so just save yourself!!!"


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

End of mobility-digest V1 #324
******************************

-------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [e-mail]
with the line "unsubscribe mobility-digest" in the body.