Paul Howard

Recent Activity

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  A Side of Rotting Baby Carcass with Your Morning Milk?

  Stephanie wrote, "And it most certainly is not my duty to allow people to not only encourage the purchase of products for which animals are exploited but even promote where people can get them." 
  
  
  
  For the record, the ghee that the Gita-nagari farm is selling is from two cows that were purchased from a local dairy farm where the farmer thought these two heiffers were infertile and were therefore just waiting to go to the slaughterhouse.  Our temple president bought them just to prevent them from being slaughtered, and everyone was surprised when after they were bought it was discovered that both the cows were pregnant.  No one is getting rich off of this.  Actually the chief cowherd is a celibate monk who lives a very simple and austere life dedicated to God.  The money from the ghee sales helps to fund the cows' lifetime maintenance.  Other than these two, I would estimate there are about 20 other cows and oxen on this farm, none of whom are producing milk, and several of which are elderly.  This is not an animal exploitation enterprise, and I am extremely offended that Stephanie would characterize it as such.

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  A Side of Rotting Baby Carcass with Your Morning Milk?

  That's a very good question; thanks for asking.  If you live in a city there will probably be no option to buy dairy products from protected cows.  An alternative then is to buy the best (from the cow's perspective) that's available to you and offset your purchase by donating to a cow protection program.

  
  

  ....

  
  

  Some of the folks doing this calculated a few years back that the cost to protect a cow for its natural life duration works out to about $12 per gallon of milk it produces.  Since then, the price of hay has about doubled, so the cost would be somewhat more, maybe $16-$20 per gallon I would guess.  
  
  
  One cow protection program in Poland is desperately in need of funds due to a recent fire that destroyed the barn and living quarters of the cowherds.

  
  

  ....
  
  Since offering milk to Krishna is part of the religious duties of Hare Krishna devotees, and many devotees live in cities, this is an option that is standard practice and highly recommended.  Although the Vedic scriptures indicate that with the offering Krishna removes any sinful reactions involved in the milk (or vegetable) production, the duty to protect cows none the less remains.  Due to the circumstances of our national economy, these programs need this kind of outside support.  
  
  It may seem to some vegans that drinking milk from an unprotected cow implicates a person in the killing that takes place in conventional dairy operations, however the benefit of one person obstaining from milk is only theoretical.  A vegan cannot normally identify any specific animal who is saved from harm by his abstaining from milk.  On the other hand, a person who offsets his involvement in the dairy industry by donating to a cow protection can actually say that he is doing something tangible for cow protection.  Although I'm not personally familiar with the details of all the programs listed in that article, I know at least some of them (and possibly all) will give you the name of the cow you're sponsoring along with a photo and other background information.  These are people who really care about what they're doing.  I know that for sure.  To me that seems better than an individual abstaining from milk and hoping it makes a difference.

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  A Side of Rotting Baby Carcass with Your Morning Milk?

  OK, so I peeked.  I got a friend request from someone in this discussion, and it lead me back here.  I'm also getting e-mails even though I unsubscribed.  I've been considering how to separate myself from this blog, but I know it will be difficult because other bloggers often link here.  So I am still not quite sure what to do.

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  Stephanie, You cannot take the spiritual aspect out of me.  It's my core, and I cannot avoid expressing it.  I speak about God, whom I know to be Krishna, but I also have an unbroken philosophy leading there.  I cannot force a different conclusion.  When I say there is no real basis to ethics without reference to God, you call it a belief, but it is also well-supported by logic and empiricism.  (As Krishna says in B.g. 5.4, “Only the ignorant speak of devotional service as being different from the analytical study of the material world.”)  Modern material science does not recognize a spiritual soul, which leaves the body as a moving bag of chemicals sustaining reactions for some time while producing the illusion of free will associated with its activity.  Such a situation gives rise to an ethical system that is nothing but a social construction based on sentiment and mental speculation with its ultimate purpose being gross and subtle sense gratification.  (Some people eat animals because it feels good to do, while others avoid eating them because it feels good not to.)  In the supposed absence of spirit, regardless of what happens the whole show goes to zero in due course of time.  If you think it is otherwise, then I would be interested to know how that is.

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  I make arguments like this, which are philosophical in nature, but instead you attack me for occasionally mentioning God.  Why would I want to participate in such an intolerant, atheistic forum?  Instead of taking my statement about ethics and ruling it out of bounds for the religious reference, why can't you respond with your supposed basis for your *beliefs* about ethics?  Are you afraid of scrutiny?  What I see is that your view looks more like religious fanaticism than mine does.  You’re the one condemning others apparently based on your personal sentiment.  Otherwise, please explain why it is wrong for people to be indifferent to the pain of other species.  If we’re all just walking bags of chemicals, why does it matter when or how inevitable death comes? 

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  I only mentioned the Bhagavad-gita verse in response to the condemnation of all lacto-vegetarians.  That was an offense to me.  Nearly everyone of my faith currently and historically are lacto-vegetarians.  It is our prescribed diet.  Technically we are “Krishnatarians,” because we eat foods only after they're offered to Krishna, and His diet is lacto-vegetarian.  The person in effect said to me that "Not only you but practically everyone of your faith and even God Himself is unethical."  It was an ignorant comment, and it appears that you support it, but I cannot remain here without challenging that kind of thinking.

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  Furthermore, I do not know how you can justify your extreme position of condemning anyone who has dairy in their diet.  You've argued that my religious view is a small minority, but the same argument applies to strict vegans.  If the average person were given a choice between treating cows compassionately and getting some milk, versus treating cows compassionately but not getting any milk, what do you think they would choose?  Realistically, how much public impact do you expect to have with such an extreme position that is analogous to ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’?  (Of course, I do not at all condone throwing out the actual baby, the calf.)  Why not accept that if cows are treated well and take obvious pleasure in getting milked by a gentle person with loving affection, as is the situation on Hare Krishna farms, there is nothing wrong with that?  It should be encouraged.  What is the benefit of arguing for an extreme that is not even ideal, while dismissing people who are actually living the ideal or close to it?  Sometimes it seems like a big part about being vegan is feeling oneself better than everyone else.

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  You said, "For humans to have milk, cows must be repeatedly impregnated and must have their calves taken away from them shortly after birth. And the calves must be killed," but is not true. Commercial milk production is not the only way it can be done.  Why must you give false statements just to artificially support your extremist position?  A few months ago I posted a link to the standards of care established by the International Society for Cow Protection, and here they are again: ( http://tinyurl.com/2jo2qa ).  There are many farms getting ahimsa milk according to these standards, which strictly forbid any killing of cows.  We are giving cows a good life, despite having no support from people like you who want to pretend we don’t exist.  Why present “no life” for cows as the only solution to a bad life, when a good life is possible? 

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  It's wrong to assume that cows do not like being milked.  Our cow has never been pregnant, but she is producing a little milk due to phyto-estrogens in the pasture, and my wife has recently started milking her.  The cow clearly likes it.  Cows are social animals, and they appreciate relationships with gentle human beings.  When was the last time you affectionately touched a cow?  I do it almost every day.

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  A Side of Rotting Baby Carcass with Your Morning Milk?

  What am I supposed to do?  I've been told that I'm not welcome here, but I'm still getting comments addressed to me.  Am I allowed to respond or not?
  This is basically a discussion of ethics, and the principles of ethics have to be based in the Absolute, in other words, the Personality of Godhead, or they have no real basis.  Without reference to God, ethical principles would be determined according to whomever in the limited population is the best at argument.  Indeed I would say that without reference to the eternal spirit soul, life ultimately has no value because time reduces all material life to zero.   
  If our standard is whatever contemporary science has to say, then ethical principles will change according to whatever science says; and if there is one thing consistent about science, it's that it is always subject to revision.  A science-based ethical rule would therefore be nothing but a social construction and have no real basis.
  One may argue, for example, that evolution by natural selection indicates that selfishness is the ultimate principle.  If I am strong, then I should kill the weak or employ them in my service because that will preserve the best genes.  The goal in the game of life would be to win.  The principle of natural selection supports that, and it can be seen it all over nature.  Since the weak are naturally food for the strong, the only reason for arguing in favor of animal rights would be for some selfish motive such as gaining the support of the ignorant masses.  Or, maybe someone will come up with a better argument, but there that is no guarantee that it is correct.  
  Furthermore, one cannot address the question of nature's intention without reference to God because from an atheistic perspective nature cannot have any intention.  It just is what it is.  Only a personality can have an intention.  
  Still one may wonder why a cow can produce ten times the milk that its calf requires.  Why did nature make cows and humans so that the former would be easily domesticated by the latter?  We could come up with many questions along these lines.
  High dairy consumption is one thing, but that is not the issue here.  In this blog, any consumption of dairy is condemned.  In present day materially developed countries, the diseases you list are problems, but historically poor nutrution and lack of food were much bigger problems.  Do you know of a better way to get food from grass and other inedible (to us) plants than by drinking milk?  
  I have no problem with the objection to large-scale animal agriculture.  In fact I've been fiercely arguing against it for about fifteen years.  My problem is with the notion that there is no way to humanely employ animals.  In fact, I say that service is what gives value to life, including my own.  Why should we deprive animals of the opportunity to give service?  It was said above that there is no such thing as an ethical vegetarian, and I take offense at that.  Stephanie wants to minimize the Hare Krishna position, but our view is based on the same Vedic texts that form the basis for Hindu thought.  Since before Western history, the Vedic tradition viewed all life as equal on the spiritual platform.  It is the original animal rights movement, and it describes the ideal relationship between cows and humans with  emphasis on cow protection and the use of all the cow's products including dairy.  It is not only religion; there is also a great depth of science to it.  Perhaps you have heard of Ayurveda, the Science of Life.  It's more than I can get into here (especially since Stephanie already threatened to delete mycomments), but you might find a search of related to Ayurveda and milk to reveal some interesting results.
  Now I'm going to "uncheck" the box for getting e-mail notices of responses, since these notices give incentive to check back here.  It's funny how over at the Sustainable Food blog here I'm almost banned because I'm persistently arguing the importance of animal rights in food sustainability; while on this blog I'm considered against animal rights and also told that my views are unwelcome.  I hope I'm not the only one who can see the irony.

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  A Side of Rotting Baby Carcass with Your Morning Milk?

  Ok, so you do not respect a diversity of views regarding animal care here, I know. But when someone says there are no ethical vegetarians, I feel obligated to speak up. Vegans do not hold a monopoly on ethics. As a matter of fact there are are at least several hundred million people who believe in the Vedas, which require cow protection and recommend milk for nourishing the finer brain tissues used for understanding spiritual nature. I realize that's not "most people," but it's not a number to be dismissed. Of course "most people" also are not the least bit interested in giving up milk, so you might consider pushing for humane treatment of cows so that milk can be taken without cruelty. When the cow is seen as a mother, it makes sense that rejecting her milk is an extreme reaction that is inconsistent with an ideal relationship between humans and cows.

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  A Side of Rotting Baby Carcass with Your Morning Milk?

  "The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin." http://vedabase.net/bg/3/13/en. Cow protection is essential, but milk should not be rejected. Offering cow's milk to Krishna benefits everyone according to the principle of ajnata sukrti, pious activities performed unknowingly.

• 

  Paul signed the petition | almost 3 years ago

  Act Now to Protect the Rights of Animal Activists
• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  News Flash: Lettuce Ladies Will Be Ogled and Not Listened To

  Excepting those rare persons immersed in pure love of God, everyone in this world is engaged in some kind of prostitution, sacrificing pure ideals for material maintenance and desires. Pointing fingers is one way to keep from seeing ourselves. Can we lay off the attacks against others trying to stop animal abuse? Are we not different players on the same team?

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Dear Skinny B*tch, Abusing Women Is Disgusting

  (Of course, I meant "Rory and Kim" in the second paragraph.)

• 

  Paul commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Dear Skinny B*tch, Abusing Women Is Disgusting

  This whole situation exists here because Natasha used her family history as a weapon against Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouinin in a misguided attempt to support her grossly offensive contention that they are "disgusting *ing people," and I am being portrayed the same way for coming to their defense with a combination of scientific, philosophical, and spiritual arguments.  
  
  
  Although I do not personally know Rory and Rory, they are both heroes to me for their effective work in not only protecting animals but also aiding the world's food sustainability as a natural consequence.  Neither of them had anything to do with Natasha's history of abuse, which she was not only born into but also consciously entered into as an adult by her choice of husband.  I don't suppose either her father or her husband have been given an opportunity to offer any defense here, but we presume them guilty as a courtesy to Natasha, so she can have a weapon in her favorite activity of attacking vegans and animal rights activists.
  
  There is nothing sacred about feeling oneself a victim, however I am representing a sacred religious tradition that exists from beginningless time, based on the sound vibrations that eternally vibrate from the Lord's own mouth.  You may argue that I am not a good representative of this tradition, and would wholeheartedly agree, but I am none the less trying my best and will continue to do so wherever I go, because that is the order from my spiritual master. 
  
  
  
  Your allowing of Natasha to use her victimization as a weapon against other people, calling vegan women misogynists and "disgusting *ing people," when in fact they are merely, as they say, "using one thorn to remove another," is shameful.  I stand by every statement I have made here.  If any of you don't like it, you can do whatever you feel you need to do to get me off this board.  I really don’t care anymore, because I'm beginning to see that this blog isn't worth reading, what to speak of participating.  I have much better things to do than associate with you.
  
  
  p.s.  Anyone who doesn't like getting e-mail updates on blog comments can uncheck the box toward the top of the page, and those notifications will stop coming.  We're supposed to be adults here, aren't we?  No one is forcing anyone to read this.  As with everything, you're here because of a mixture of your own free will and as a consequence of your own prior activities; but I don't expect most of you to understand that.  You can continue considering yourselves victims if you think that illusion somehow helps you.