Vegetarian? Vegan? I Love Me Some Meat and Cheese!

So, about an hour ago, there was a young lady who came up to me while I was eating my lunch and asked if I would be willing to sign a petition to have more vegetarian/vegan-friendly choices for students at my school.  I am happy to sign a petition to show my support of vegetarians and vegans.  They deserve to have several choices of food too.  I agree.  So upon my signature I was given a pamphlet, from PETA2, claiming to tell me "everything I need to know about animal rights."  As I read through it, I found it to have good information, but it was obviously biased towards animal cruelty and why we should all be vegetarians and vegans.  I honestly didn't see a list of "animal rights," or anything related.  

This is my question for you:  "Is it a hypocritical way of life to be a 'meat-eater,' but then promote no cruelty to animals?"  

restated:  "Just because someone's a 'meat-eater,' doesn't mean that they endorse animal cruelty - does it?"

To continue, the pamphlet went on to say...

• Pigs are smarter than dogs and young children. They are affectionate and like to play video games.
• Hens and their chicks talk to each other ...even while the chick is still in the egg.
• If you give an apple or a small ball to a group of turkeys, they'll play with it together, kind of like they're on a football or soccer team.
• Cows are excellent mothers - they even take turns babysitting for each other!
• Fish grow underwater algae gardens.  Using their mouths like we use our hands, they weed out algae they don't like so the tastier kinds can grow. 

 So, as you can see, the authors are personifying animals, and discussing their lives as if they are, on the whole just as important (if not more important) than human beings.  This is a tactic to easily sway a reader on pitying an animal. 

My Physiology of Interpreting professor said (multiple times), "the only real difference between humans and animals is our thumbs," that move up, down and side to side.

I am one of those strong believers that everything that God put on the earth was put here for a purpose and I believe that animals serve various purposes and overall - they are to serve humans (in various forms).  I mean, I highly doubt that God just put animals on earth because they are pretty to look at.  And at the same time that I sit in a steakhouse with my medium-well 8 oz I am not thinking I hope that this cow was brutally slaughtered, abused or forced into stalls. 

Oh, and I just loved how the pamphlet used quotes from popular TV teen idols and their comments about how it's cool to be vegan or vegetarian.  Did you catch my sarcasm there?

Are all places that provides meat and animal bi-products really so violent?  Or is PETA just telling us about the few that are cruel to animals?

What's more, as I did some online searching for PETA, the first images that come up with their articles and on their official website could be considered pornographic, or at least inappropriate, in nature.  I'm guessing that PETA is putting a sexy-spin on their cause in order to gain more attention.  Not cool, not moral, not family friendly.  Nada. 

Now, my rant is done.  I am hoping that I get feedback from ya'll.  Tell me how you feel about being vegan/vegetarian.  Tell me what you know and how you feel about how some animals are treated in the mass production of meat and animal bi-products. Give me good links and sources so that I can be more informed in my opinion.  Because, for now, I am sticking with my Genesis reference of the King James Bible.  (Genesis 1:24-25 & 6:5 through 8:19).  I mean come on people, why would God ask Noah to bring animals aboard the ship he built, when the earth was going to be flooded for 40 days and nights, if not to preserve them for our use?  (LDS Primary Lesson) 

All I have to say for now is, "I love me some meat and cheese!"

Introduction to Understanding Disability Part 2: Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame

Previously Posted: Personal Preface

Introduction

Does the media provide a correct portrayal of people with disabilities? Is Quasimodo, of Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame, accurately portrayed as a person with a physical disability? To address these queries we will discuss, first, the plot of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, then examine the specifics of Quasimodo’s character, and last and most importantly, we will scrutinize whether or not the portrayal of disability is an accurate one. In order to understand the main character and his disability, we must first understand his story.

Plot Summary

What is The Hunchback of Notre Dame essentially about? As inspired by Victor Hugo’s classic novel published in 1831, the story takes place in medieval Paris in the year 1482, specifically starting on January 6 – the day of the historical ‘Festival of Fools,’ which really did annually occur in Paris.2 It begins with a flashback of Quasimodo’s infancy, showing how he came to be raised by the antagonist, Claude Frollo, the Minister of Justice.3 “Frollo, . . . . who detests adopted Quasimodo when he was a baby as a penance for killing his mother, . . . . but tells Quasimodo that his mother abandoned him at birth.”4 Clopin, the narrator, and male leader of the gypsies, explains the meaning of the cruel name Frollo gave Quasimodo – “half-formed,” then brings the story back to the present, twenty years later, introducing Quasimodo as a young man – “the man and the monster.”5 During Quasimodo’s first appearance, we see part of the monster.

After Quasimodo’s first appearance, we see the master/servant relationship that Quasimodo has with his “father,” Frollo. Despite Frollo’s sermon-like lecture to Quasimodo about the importance of staying in the bell tower, Quasimodo heeds his three gargoyle friend’s advice to, essentially, assert his independence and go to the Festival of Fools. Quasimodo has always watched it, for the past twenty years. He had been in fear of disobeying his master and not being accepted by the normal people. However, someone who grows to be more accepting of Quasimodo is Esmeralda.



At the festival, Esmeralda, a beautiful, tempting dancer as well as the female leader of the gypsies, mistakes Quasimodo’s appearance to be costumed and masked for the purpose of the festival’s King of Fools competition. She invites him up on stage and he is later discovered to be real (instead of masked). Clopin then invites the crowd to crown Quasimodo the King of Fools for having the ugliest face in Paris.

For a few moments Quasimodo is celebrated. Shortly after, however, he experiences a terrible humiliation, where food is thrown at him, and he is tied down like a wild animal. He sees the crowd’s tyranny and hears the awful calls and jeers reverberated in his ears. Esmeralda, soon realizes what is happening to the “poor creature,” and takes pity on him and the plight he is in.6 She cuts the ropes binding him and helps him to his feet.

Meanwhile, while this entire humiliating situation is going on, Quasimodo’s master sits back and watches while, in degradation, Quasimodo learns his lesson – essentially encouraging the peasant-crowd’s oppression of his would-be son. Frollo, regardless of the desire he feels for Esmeralda, charges her for the insolence she displays when he asks her not to help Quasimodo. At her retort of calling him the real King of Fools, he demands her arrest. The Guard then marks her as a fugitive, and Frollo marks her as an object of his desire. Frollo is not the only man who is spellbound by Esmeralda, there are two others – Phoebus, Captain of the Guard, and Quasimodo, Bell-Ringer of Notre Dame.

Realizing they have a common love interest, Phoebus sees past Quasimodo’s appearance when Quasimodo helps Esmeralda escape. Quasimodo and Phoebus become allies in aiding Esmeralda (and the gypsy population). Phoebus further encourages Quasimodo’s assertion to independence as well as acceptance. Quasimodo feels that friendship is strained for a time when Esmeralda chooses Phoebus as her love interest instead of Quasimodo. While Esmeralda is kind to Quasimodo, and even sort of identifies with the discrimination he experiences, it’s apparent that she is still somewhat repulsed by his appearance. This is an example of “the main theme of [Hugo’s] book…,” as well as the re-occurring theme in the movie – “…the cruelty of social injustice.”7

The violent search for Esmeralda and the gypsies is led by Frollo, and despite Phoebus and Quasimodo’s rebellious actions against Frollo, Esmeralda is apprehended and put to death by burning at the stake. In contrast to Hugo’s novel, Quasimodo’s rescue of Esmeralda, both of them live. In another contrast to Hugo’s novel, instead of Quasimodo throwing his autocratic master/father off of Notre Dame, Frollo falls to his death from a weakly attached gargoyle that gives way from his weight. Now that we understand the story surrounding Quasimodo, we can look further into his character.

References

#2

Wikipedia. (2011). The hunchback of notre dame. Wikipedia: the free

encyclopedia. Retrieved February 6, 2011, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunchback_of_Notre-Dame

#3 & 4

Wikipedia. (2011). The hunchback of notre dame. Wikipedia: the free

encyclopedia. Retrieved February 6, 2011, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunchback_of_Notre-Dame

#5 & 6

Hahn, Don (Producer). (1996). The hunchback of notre dame [VHS].

#7

Wikipedia. (2011).  Quasimodo.  Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Retrieved

February 6, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasimodo