Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:56:48 -0000 To: From: Pamela ADVERTISEMENT I want to clarify my position: When I described some of the animals that might be killed for food as "sad-eyed" I was exaggerating, the way most militant vegan groups do. And I gave= the example of the dog being thrown out the window as a case where "absolute truth" isn't always absolute. I'm not setting veganism as my goal, or even a "purer" vegetarianism. In fact, most vegans acknowledge that their diet requires vitamin supplements, and is more a moral than a personal= health choice. Reflecting one's morality in one's diet I can respect, but not when it endangers one's health. Or, worse yet, encourages others to do so.(I said "respect" not "accept"; I'm= not compromising my libertarianism, at least not here.) I did'nt realize that I hadn't clearly delineated my essay, my= post here, and my intro to the essay in-between. So, mea culpa. Most of all, I don't consider any type of diet (well...maybe cannibalism...) immoral, or as a topic to be used as a= libertarian issue. I think a lot of us got off-topic that way. Getting back on topic, did anyone see the commercial for a= "smoke- free" New York? It shows two workers, in a seemingly abandoned subway station, talking about how people stopped riding the= subways as soon as smoking was banned there. The point of it was "If they= could get used to it then, they'll get used to (the ban in bars= and restaurants) now. So, we should all not worry about business loss or inconvenience,= but let the state do it's job. They know what's best for us, after= all, dont they? After all, they're doing this all for our own good!!! Please, don't take THAT last statement as my literal opinion!!! Love Ya All, Pamela Message 7124 of 7124