Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Sarah Schimeck
Ada, MI
Recent Activity
-
Sarah commented on the article |Mr. Martin, I am unsure how this discussion evolved into a debate to legalize prostitution. It's a separate issue and not one addressed in this discussion.
It is well understood that rape is a crime of power and not solely of sex. Again, it's a separate issue; I only touched on it in response to a previous post.
My comments were in response to Oceania OZ's about $5m being better spend on a "no means no" campaign. While I agreed that such efforts are noble and perhaps a better use of that hypothetical sum, she posited that that would eliminate the necessity for abortion at its source. I pointed out that those are only 1% or fewer of total abortions (according to the 2004 numbers I was able to find). Thus, her logic appears faulty.
Reading further on in my post, you would see that I believe that the hypothetical $5m would be better spent helping women to carry to term and placing children in adoptive homes.
So I find myself scratching my head wondering why you are challenging me on beliefs you suppose I hold on an issue not related to the original discussion, but rather mentioned in response to someone else's comments?
-
Sarah commented on the article |
I misunderstand your logic, Rev. Boony. You're saying that innocent children/potential children are on the same level with rapists and child molesters? All deserve to die?
Oceania OZ, I agree that anti-rape campaigns are certainly and absolutely well worth the funding. But I'm not sure that it would address this problem at the foundation. The numbers of abortions resulting from non-consensual sex are 0.5%-1.0%. (I concede I do not know the total number of pregnancies resulting from rapes or correlation to this in percentages.) The other emotion-driven argument (health of the baby/mother, account for approximately 7%.) The vast majority (70% +) are the result of maternal age, finances, or ineffective contraception.
This would indicate that most of these pregnancies are through consensual sex. Granted, it is easier for men to take leave of the situation, and many do. Sadly, paternity testing won't curtail abortion significantly, nor will anti-rape campaigns. I am in full agreement with you that, as it took two to make the baby, both should take responsibility. Have you also considered those men who want a baby carried to term, when mom doesn't want to?
It seems it would be a more effective use of those $5m, to help women in this position to carry to term and help place the babies in adoptive homes. While it may be a more difficult endeavor, and not as expedient as abortion, it seems a more positive way to expend money and energy.
-
Sarah commented on the article |
Apology accepted, Olivia. I'm glad you took away a learning experience from this discussion, as have I. This is a really good forum to stretch our intellectual muscles on.
Your passion is to be commended, and I do believe that you are a genuinely caring person. Disagreement is not inherently about good or bad, and I'm very heartened that you see that.
While I admit those stories are compelling (and indeed very interesting), I keep in mind that those are wild animals acting outside of their nature. While I don't know the the whole of their stories, I am of the belief that wild animals should be just that -- kept wild, with minimal interference from man (and yes, some of that intereference is hunting). It is only through that interference that these animals you speak of have had this dietary change (though hippos, I believe, are herbivores; still, though, potentially dangerous animals).
-
Sarah commented on the article |
Olivia, before I go any further, I first have to say that to call me out on using a respectful term to address you is a little odd. Granted, my use of the titular "Ms." is a throwback to my parents having raised me to be respectful of superiors (either by virtue of position or age). When in doubt, as one will be in an online venue, it's best to err on the side of caution and use the more formal address, until such time as I hear differently. As I am relatively certain you are not my superior by position, you could most certainly be that by age.
Since I don't come from where I am, I very much doubt you know what it's like to think as I do. The condescension is palpable throughout your post, beginning very much with this point. Your assumption that I don't "WANT" to be convinced indicates that you believe me of lesser intellect or inherently flawed character. As you know nothing of me, that statement is excessively arrogant.
The general tone of your post indicates that you would assign some form of righteous moral score on someone because of what they believe or even eat. Frankly, I find that sad. But I'm not even going to bother with going through your post point-by-point. It would take too long and I have other obligations.
The only point of your long post that I think even bears response is that which Mr. Brouillette responded to. I will yield the fact that man can become that which he is told he is (to wit, the self-fulfilling prophecy); man has talked himself into many things, both good and bad. However, your over-the-top statement that apex predators are spiritual beings whose "real" nature isn't carniverous is absolutely without factual merit. Have you seen what they eat? Other animals! They are carnivores not because we CALL them carnivores; it's because they ARE. I honestly don't understand how you cannot see that biology does play a role. Look at the predators' teeth -- they are for ripping, gripping, and tearing. And, indeed, those apex predators serve a critically necessary funtion in keeping numbers of herbivores in check. To deny their nature is to deny nature. Killing and eating is their natural environment. Not good. Not bad. Just is.
You unilaterally reserved the right to reply privately to me; I would ask that you not. I tried to find common ground for us to build on and discuss and you denied me that olive branch (for lack of a better term). Anything else you say to me should be done in the open.
-
Sarah commented on the article |
Ms. White, thank you for the link to the video. I will watch it in a little while when I have a moment to myself and can pay proper attention to it. And I also thank you for the provocative and civil responses.
That said, your wish to "tug[] on ... heartstrings" implies that your arguments are fundamentally emotional; odd, since your other posts seem to strive toward reason. Believe me, I am not disputing the role of emotions in life here. They are quite fundamental and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. However, despite their important role, they also can be quite capricious and should not be the basis for all decisions.
As you seem interested in discussing this from mostly a moral perspective, I have found an interesting academic paper online: "Hunting as a Moral Good." (http://www.whyradioshow.org/lcahoone-hunting.pdf) The author lays out nicely the cases both for and against hunting from a moral/philosophical standpoint. Many of the points below come from the article, but he goes far more in-depth.
I absolutely agree with you about morality having nothing to do with political party. What is wrong is wrong. So, then.... lions (or other apex predators) are wrong to choose to eat meat? Your posts indicate that you feel that ALL animals are equal in their right not to be intentionally harmed. For the sake of that argument, are we not animals/apex predators choosing to eat and nourish our young? Do we (humans) not have the right to satisfy our omniverous diets? Or are lions and other predators okay, but it's just humans causing animal deaths is bad? This would seem contrary to the basis of the morality, assuming we all hold the same rights. If you were to counter with an argument regarding our advanced higher reasoning ability, then you are putting humans in a "superior" position to other animals, would you not?
Back to your original post, continuing on the same track. You state that it is wrong to enslave/kill nonhuman animals. This implies (and correct me if I've misunderstood), that we -- man -- are no better from a moral standpoint than nonhumans. Now, if we're no better, then I presume that we are the same (morally speaking). If we are equal, then are we not also equal in our right to live and, as intrinsically held within that, our right to eat?
Next point from your original post, that you are "...more and more struck by the depravity of needlessly taking the life of any inhabitant of this planet." I think the obvious first step is this: define "needless." Is feeding ourselves and those who depend on us "needless." How is someone defined as "depraved" to provide nourishment for their family? If we fish to eat, are we equally lacking in moral clarity? Perhaps what we should reach for rather than "needless killing" (because death is, after all, an inescapable part of life) is "needless SUFFERING."
Fortunately for humans, we do have dietary options. We can CHOOSE not to eat meat and shift our omniverous diets to vegetarian or vegan diets. Much better for wildlife, right? Surprisingly, no. According to the article I mentioned (and I, myself, was startled to find this out), farming harms or kills animals in at least five ways: 1) habitat destruction; 2)use of pesticides and fertilizer polluting groundwater; 3) ground-nesting animals are maimed or killed in breaking soil (tilling); 4) protection of crops from opportunistic wildlife; and 5) indirect harms from supporting technologies (these include fuels used to process, refrigerate, and transport). Food for thought.
For the sake of argument let's say that we are now in a "perfect world" where there will be no more deer hunting. What happens to the population of the deer (and I'm using them as an example, since they're the animals most commonly hunted)? Given that there is adequate food, their herd numbers will expand. Not just in remote forests, either, but in populated areas. Bad for animals and people. Just for starters there's the damage to your gardens. If you're working to grown your own organic veggies, you can kiss them (and your tulips) good-bye. Okay, so that's minor. Then there are increased possibilities for the spreading of diseases to domesticated animals and people. Alright, a little more serious, but not complete deterrent; we have medicines and all, so we can work around that. And there will also be more deer/car accidents. Now we're talking about car damage, human injury (or death), and suffering for the animal involved. How do we keep the herd numbers in check?
Last, but not least, there is the argument to be made for self-sufficiency. There are still many out there who prefer to provide for themselves, be it through gardening, hunting, or whatever.
I appreciate your arguments, Ms. White, but I don't agree with them. Perhaps in your view that makes me amoral. There are many good arguments both for and against hunting and (by extension) eating meat. Unfortunately, I find that most of those in opposition appeal either to our raw emotions or to a desire to be "moral" or "ethical" (inherently implying, of course, that to disagree would make one immoral or unethical).
Sorry, you'll have to do better (more reason, less emotion) to change my world view.
(Footnote: I suspect that you and I would agree -- at least in the basic premise -- with the angle of needless suffering. I don't think that's just a semantic difference, either.)
-
Sarah commented on the article |
Ms. Jackson, just because someone disagrees with you isn't cause to call names.
As one of the two on this thread who disagrees with your position, I can only assume that your labeling is directed toward myself and the other poster. I can assure you that I do not lack intelligence nor am I uneducated (both components of the word you chose).
Indeed, it is through the benefits of education that we as a people can look past our feelings and use reason to find positions on issues.
I support hunting. I don't partake in the activity, and (as one of my earlier posts states clearly) I cannot in good conscience support hunting solely for trophies. Do I think all hunters are bad? Ignorant? Unevolved? Barbaric? Absolutely not.
I choose to purchase meat to feed my family. Does that mean that I feel those animals raised for that purpose should be raised in horrific conditions? Again, no.
I understand that some find it difficult to come to grips with "killing Bambi" or a cute little cow for the purposes of sustaining a family. That is their choice, and there are many benefits to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Do I think that their decisions should be respected? Yes.
If you want to discuss the issue, this is a great venue to do so. That's why I've come here, though many of my opinions run counter to the predominant political tilt on this site. It have found it to be an invigorating place for debate. Calling names and using no facts to support your position isn't at all constructive and I would challenge you to exercise your intellect. I'd certainly welcome further civil, spirited discussion.
-
Sarah commented on the article |
Ms. Badham, you seem to be someone who truly cares about animals and has put a fair amount of thought and feeling into your position. I am, however, saddened that your post implies that that caring doesn't seem to extend to your fellow humans. I don't know where the contempt for people started. While there are certainly plentiful examples of man's inhumanity and stupidity, I believe those are the minority; although they should not be disregarded, those are not the qualities of most.
Guns are not inherently violent. As the old saying goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Granted, the inherently dangerous potential in a gun is greater than most, requiring exercise of caution (and training). Those who work or recreate or hunt with guns by and large understand this and use the correct precautions and safety procedures. Still, accidents do happen. Sadly, not all can be prevented, just as not all car accidents can be prevented.
I fail to understand how those who care for and feed their families don't have respect for life. How does it make us "a sick human race" that many choose to use meat in our diets as a source of protein? I, for one, don't believe that makes me somehow "superior" to animals. Many animals use meat in their diets -- are they inherently bad, too?
Indeed, your post's tone and pity for all the unenlightened masses indicates to me that the superiority is actually held by you. Perhaps you should rethink your judgement of others based on how they have chosen to eat (for those of the biblical point of view, "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself"). As I have found in periods of high-handedness in my own life, karma can indeed be a humbling thing.
-
Sarah commented on the article |
Mr. Davis,
Choosing to eschew meat is a personal decision and one that cannot be made for anyone else. In my own case, my family eats less meat than many, in part for financial reasons and in part for health.
Humans need protein. My family chooses to get at least most of its protein through a variety of meat or animal-based sources. Fortunately, evolution (or God, depending on your approach) has provided us with the tools to chew meat (teeth intended for ripping). I have squared myself and my moral values with the fact that an animal has died to provide us with these nutrients. The animals aren't going to waste.
These are the judgment calls I have made for my family. The particular "mix" is my and my family's choice; just as your dietary choices are your own. Your closing comments seem to indicate your feel your choices somehow are superior to the choices those of us have made who do eat meat. They're not -- they're just different.
Mr. Brouillette, in closing, I would like to thank you for your service. My husband is a retired Marine; I know it's not an easy calling.
-
Sarah commented on the article |
I've never been a proponent of hunting purely for trophy-gathering; it's a waste, in my opinion. But I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with hunting for food. Perhaps the pride comes from contributing to feeding the family (or donating the meat, if their family didn't need it, so that others could eat).
I'm not a hunter, a choice that comes more out of not liking early, cold mornings sitting in a hide doing nothing than out of opposition to the activity. Hunters do more to conserve wildlife than most conservationists, I'd wager, and they certainly help keep herds to manageable sizes.
Hunting does not teach violence, Ms. Ernst, as you infer.
I do get a bit uneasy when those who don't hunt choose to vilify those who do. Just because others live life differently is no reason to judge them as somehow "lesser" or "unenlightened."
-
Sarah commented on the article |Tom, that idea came from my education; college history classes and additional reading over the years (yes, I understand that American progressivism did produce some meritorious results). Yes, I understand the theory of an "MO." And no, I haven't gotten to all of the sites you listed yet, but to some. In the interest of fairness (and because I like to read material from as many viewpoints as possible) do you have a (reasonable) site with a dissenting opinion?
Take care.
Impact
1 Action
0 Recruits