[email protected]

In a message dated 12/17/2001 1:28:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


> These animal rights conversations have been very intersesting to me
> and have made me realize a few things.
>
> While some unschoolers might claim to allow their children to make
> their own moral decisions and take their own paths in life, there are
> probably very few who actually do.
>
> Whether she's a fundamentalist Christian who draws the line at reading
> Harry Potter or a liberal pagan who who draws the line at animal
> experimentation, most unschoolers do draw a line.
>
> It is probably very important to both moms that they pass on their
> world views to their children, whether it is a Christian mom being
> concerned that her child accept Christ as Savior and follow the Bible,
> a atheist being concerned that her child be accepting of all beliefs
> and lifestyles, or a pagan who is concerned that her child consider
> animals as important as humans.
>
>

Ultimately, we have no control, whether we want it or not, over what moral
decisions our children make. They take what they have learned from us and
what they have discovered for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.

I don't believe anyone ever said that Unschooling families do not try to
communicate their values to their children. They do it by how they talk to
and treat their children and others, by the other people they hang out with,
and by the manner in which they tread on the earth. They do it by the limits
they set for their children (And I guarantee that every parent here sets
limits for their children. What they try not to do is to set arbitrary or
unreasonable limits.)

Kathryn


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cally Brown

Goodness! What a busy list! Just finished catching up and there was
just one thing that caught my eye that has not been addressed by anyone
else (though after reading 99 e-mails, I might have missed something),

>... I feel strongly that
>I do not want toys in *my* home whose sole purpose is to enact wounding
>and killing.
>
I didn't like it when my oldest was little but I soon realised that he
would only do it next door anyway, and besides it wasn't possible for me
to decide what he enjoyed playing. I could enforce rules against him
playing what he wanted (by keeping him home, totally controlling his
environment), but I couldn't make him enjoy the things I felt were better.

But what I really wanted to ask was, does every member of your family
have their own separate home? I doubt it. I worry when one member of a
family claims the home as their own. Our home is OUR home. Our home
belongs to me. And to my dh. And to my 14yo. And to my 17yo. And to
my 20yo. And to my 23yo who physically lives two days drive away, for
him to return to whenever he wants.. And my daughter-in-law knows that
this is her home too, for her to return to whenever she wants. And it
will always be a second home for my grandchildren.

If one person is doing something that disturbs others in the family, we
discuss it, work it out, but I do not believe that our home is MINE and
that I therefore have the right to determine other people's learning /
playing / eating / singing / laughing / thinking etc etc.

Cally

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/17/04 7:23:41 PM, hayes@... writes:

<< I do not want toys in *my* home whose sole purpose is to enact wounding
and killing. >>

What might they want in their home?
Do they have to grow up and move out to have any say?

<<I try hard not to judge the decisions of others, though I
am only human and not always successful. I hope this, too, this
unwillingness to be judgemental of other people, is a value I'll pass to
them. >>

If they want toy guns, won't you judge their decisions?

That won't help them not judge others. It will tell them something other
than you hope, I think.

-=- And I said, "You know honey, if you want to try it
it's okay with me. I think you're old enough to choose whether to eat
animals or not," and she decided to be a meat eater. -=-

It's called "meat" when it's on the plate, not "animals."
That was a manipulative way to say it was okay with you if she wasn't
vegetarian, don't you think? Kinda like calling venison stew "Bambi stew"?

-=-But what was
interesting was the discussion that came later - one value I've tried to
share is the idea that all life is equal; we live in an intricate web
and no one life is more important than another. -=-

If you get mice in your kitchen will you decide their right to live there is
as great as yours?

If not, what will you do?

If so, why would mice have more rights in your house than your own children?

It's rhetorical, and you don't have to tell us, but if no one life is more
important than another, are your children not special? Special enough to play
with rubber knives?

-=-When we discussed it
later, the choice of eating meat, I told her that if she wanted to try
other kinds of animals she'd have to talk with her daddy or her
grandparents, because, I reminded her, I choose not to buy or cook them.
She looked out her windows and started a line of thought - "I'd like to
eat squirrels, and fish, and seagulls. But I couldn't eat a cat,
because cats are people's pets. -=-

See? You had her thinking of eating seagulls?
Why? For the purpose of maybe discouraging her from eating meat by calling
it "animals"? English has lots of words for reasons. You knew that and you
chose to use that word?

-=-Incidentally (was it Sandra?) had mentioned we have to kill to eat. Not
true. -=-

I don't think it was me, but I'm used to being blamed with anything people
don't like to read.

-=- There are people who only eat food that does not require the
killing of a plant - for example, eating animal products that do not
require killing of animals, eating vegetables and fruits that do not
require death of a mother plant (eat a strawberry but not a potato;
broccoli but not a head of lettuce, etc.). Not the lifestyle I lead,
but one that is possible. -=-

I know, but it's contrived and unnatural.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 9:23:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hayes@... writes:
>>>>>When we discussed it
later, the choice of eating meat, I told her that if she wanted to try
other kinds of animals she'd have to talk with her daddy or her
grandparents, because, I reminded her, I choose not to buy or cook them.<<<<
>>>>So I went from being sad to being
glad - she didn't share my value of not eating animals, but she shared
the larger, more important value of the equality of life. <<<<

Even though meat may be what she needs to be healthy? Do you know her blood
type? Certain blood types require meat, while others are natural vegetarians.
It is natural for our bodies to crave what they need. Both of my daughters are
A blood types, and have never really liked meats. I am an O blood type, which
requires red meat to be healthy, and I naturally crave it.
I would never try to make them feel bad or manipulate them into eating what
isn't healthy for them.


>>>>Incidentally (was it Sandra?) had mentioned we have to kill to eat. Not
true. <<<

In most cases this IS true in order to maintain proper health

>>>>There are people who only eat food that does not require the
killing of a plant - for example, eating animal products that do not
require killing of animals, eating vegetables and fruits that do not
require death of a mother plant (eat a strawberry but not a potato;
broccoli but not a head of lettuce, etc.). Not the lifestyle I lead,
but one that is possible.<<<<

May be possible for you, but may not for your children and your husband.

Do the research.

Elaine


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tara

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> -=- And I said, "You know honey, if you want to try it
> it's okay with me. I think you're old enough to choose whether to
eat
> animals or not," and she decided to be a meat eater. -=-
>
> It's called "meat" when it's on the plate, not "animals."
> That was a manipulative way to say it was okay with you if she
wasn't
> vegetarian, don't you think? Kinda like calling venison
stew "Bambi stew"?

I was going along, getting some very interesting ideas out of all
the discussions here, but this I have to disagree with. It reminded
me of someone who was on another list who had this same arguement.
She went on to say that she was horrified, when she was younger, at
the idea of the chickens they were eating being real chickens. Her
mother told her that they weren't the real chickens, they
were "eating chickens" and they were not the same thing. She said
that this is how she got over the idea of eating animals. THis I
find to be manipulative. In the above quote she was not calling
it "bambi stew" she was calling it animals, which is what they are.
I am not against eating animals, but changing the word to meat
doesn't change what it is.

>
> -=-But what was
> interesting was the discussion that came later - one value I've
tried to
> share is the idea that all life is equal; we live in an intricate
web
> and no one life is more important than another. -=-
>
> If you get mice in your kitchen will you decide their right to
live there is
> as great as yours?
>
> If not, what will you do?

> Sandra


You take them out into the country so that the hawks and owls can
have them to feed their young, and have more owls and hawks to keep
down the mice population in the first place. - Tara

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/18/04 2:54:40 PM, tarasamja@... writes:

<< She went on to say that she was horrified, when she was younger, at

the idea of the chickens they were eating being real chickens. Her

mother told her that they weren't the real chickens, they

were "eating chickens" and they were not the same thing. She said

that this is how she got over the idea of eating animals. >>

Those aren't the only two examples.
Those are two dishonest examples.

It is possible for people to just use English the right way, and to be honest.
Not shocking, not covering, just in the middle, fair, honest zone.

-=-I am not against eating animals, but changing the word to meat

doesn't change what it is.-=-

If there's a hamburger on a plate, that is food. It is meat. It is not an
animal.

People who eat chicken don't eat the beak and the feet and the feathers and
the guts.
They eat the meat.

-=-changing the word to meat

doesn't change what it is.-=-

It's not a change of word to call it meat. That word is hundreds of years
old. Maybe thousands.

It seems to me to be a change of words for the purposes of emotional
maniupulation, to call meat "animals."

-=You take them out into the country so that the hawks and owls can

have them to feed their young, and have more owls and hawks to keep

down the mice population in the first place. - Tara-=-

If you're in New Mexico, you risk hunta virusby being around the droppings of
infected deer mice, and bubonic plague from rodents and their fleas. We're
smack in areas where infected mice have been found. It's not just a bucolic
jaunt into "the country" to leave them where an owl can find them. And they're
not always easy to catch alive and transport/outbreak.htm

There's a drainage (once an arroyo, now a concrete-lined ditch) that was one
block from our old house and two from where we are now which is a conduit for
mice coming into Albuquerque from the mountains ("the country"?).

Not the simplest of problems.

Sandra