emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Hi Luddly thanks for the effort to read and reply.
I understand your point and sorry I was not clear;
my point should have been more clearly about
"relying on those PEOPLE" not relying on their choices of diet.
1. Even if these people don't "rely" on meat, if that is how those PEOPLE "naturally choose" to operate,
even by "free choice" it is STILL relying on those PEOPLE. (And yes, there are people like me working two jobs and not having time, but RELYING on any food I can get quickly just to sustain.
So this DOES apply to me at least, because of political strain I am under where I have been operating on this "crisis basis" for years until other help can take over the excessive burden on me.)
2. Laborers who have needed to work longer periods of time at harder labor DID rely on meat diets to be able to sustain. This may apply more in the past than it does today.
Maybe we need a different thread for this, because I think this same problem comes up with other issues, but in different forms.
This was not really the best example; the issue of SLAVE LABOR seems more important.
Because our economy does rely on that still, until we work out ways to convert sustainably.
Maybe we need a different thread for this:
This same problem happens with left and right, rich and poor, blaming the other groups for exploitation by not feeling "included" in the political equation but taken for granted:
a. The left complains that the right "didn't build businesses by themselves" but relied on the benefits and labor of others; while the right complains the left excludes the representation of taxpayers with dissenting beliefs, but "relies" on them to fund contested mandates.
b. with the Hobby Lobby case, the right argues that the left "does not need to RELY on federal govt health care mandated through private business"; but the left is using this federal policy as an assumed standard of "equal protection and access to care."
c. with marriage, abortion, gun issues, instead of arguing "one side over the other," including people regardless of belief takes pressure OFF "relying" on the state to impose laws one way or another, but allowing free and equal choice; and the issue is really about RESPONSIBILITY for one's choices instead of imposing the CONSEQUENCES on others.
I understand your point and sorry I was not clear;
my point should have been more clearly about
"relying on those PEOPLE" not relying on their choices of diet.
1. Even if these people don't "rely" on meat, if that is how those PEOPLE "naturally choose" to operate,
even by "free choice" it is STILL relying on those PEOPLE. (And yes, there are people like me working two jobs and not having time, but RELYING on any food I can get quickly just to sustain.
So this DOES apply to me at least, because of political strain I am under where I have been operating on this "crisis basis" for years until other help can take over the excessive burden on me.)
2. Laborers who have needed to work longer periods of time at harder labor DID rely on meat diets to be able to sustain. This may apply more in the past than it does today.
Maybe we need a different thread for this, because I think this same problem comes up with other issues, but in different forms.
This was not really the best example; the issue of SLAVE LABOR seems more important.
Because our economy does rely on that still, until we work out ways to convert sustainably.
Maybe we need a different thread for this:
This same problem happens with left and right, rich and poor, blaming the other groups for exploitation by not feeling "included" in the political equation but taken for granted:
a. The left complains that the right "didn't build businesses by themselves" but relied on the benefits and labor of others; while the right complains the left excludes the representation of taxpayers with dissenting beliefs, but "relies" on them to fund contested mandates.
b. with the Hobby Lobby case, the right argues that the left "does not need to RELY on federal govt health care mandated through private business"; but the left is using this federal policy as an assumed standard of "equal protection and access to care."
c. with marriage, abortion, gun issues, instead of arguing "one side over the other," including people regardless of belief takes pressure OFF "relying" on the state to impose laws one way or another, but allowing free and equal choice; and the issue is really about RESPONSIBILITY for one's choices instead of imposing the CONSEQUENCES on others.
Last edited:
