Whats the point of not eating meat?
Veggie
think about it the more unsure I become.
After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
we do the same.
I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
veggy.
I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
there will be no adverse consequences.
Richard Head
Marketing
myo...@cdzone.co.uk
steve
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
>
that just ain't right, sonny. some animals kill, some don't. whatever personal
system of beliefs you hold may say that animals were 'put' on this earth,
possibly even for humans to kill and eat. but that's not a scientific system of
beliefs.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
no sir. in fact, you will be healthier by going veggie.
DorothyIams
slaughtered. That is distasteful to us. Secondly, I feel better as a vegan.
It might have something to do with that serotonin idea that has been going
around. There is a lot of mighty tastey vegan food available in our corocopia
of plenty economy so I see no need to kill. I can't equate a radish with a
lamb in terms of killing.
Paul Groves
anti-biotics and other drugs, BSE etc. etc.). Big difference from hunting
for food in "primative" societies...
Paul
"Veggie" <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more
I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature
that
> we do the same.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
FitWell
>think about it the more unsure I become.
Understandably and invariably, changes to core beliefs such as the
lifestyles we follow involve challenges. You have doubts and
concerns, however, or you wouldn't be addressing this issue.
>After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
>they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
>we do the same.
Not to get into individual spiritual and/or metaphysical beliefs,
there is the danger when we rely too much on finding answers in that
area that we forget to look at one that avoids many problems. Look to
nature (without abandoning your other beliefs, as one really has
nothing to do with the other). From a strictly physical point of
view, even from a superficial and common sense perspective, it is easy
to disprove all of the so-called 'evidence' that we must eat meat.
I won't go into more than a couple, but, did you know?...
- we, like all other vegetarian animals, do not produce uricase to
metabolize uric acid, a by-product of meat-eating. This is not true
for carnivores (true carnivores, not carnivore-wannabes like most of
the human species, do). Since we don't break it down, as uric acid
has an affinity for cartilage, it settles in the joints. Ever wonder
why arthritis is on the rise?
- we are one of the few species which does not produce its own Vitamin
C. My reading has produced the apes and guinea pigs as the only
others, so far, but there are probably a few more. All other species
seem to produce their own. Predominantly fruitarian animals have no
need to as it occurs naturally when eating their species-specific, raw
diet.
- our teeth, hands, intestines and other physical resources are not
those of a meat eater. Carnivores have short intestines in general
and produce industrial-strength hydrochloric acid in their stomach and
salivas that are quite strong. Our is a long intestine (but not as
long as the animals who need the longest ones, herbivores, the grass
eaters, etc.) We lack the teeth structure or strong jaws to crush
bones. We are also not omnivores since we lack the broad range of
those physical resources needed for that diet. Omnivores, for
example, produce many types of (7 or so?) starch-splitting enzymes to
cope with their diets. We only produce 2 if memory serves and they
are not all that strong, ptyalin and amylase.
- One day, after several weeks of reading a variety of books, I sat
down and wrote up a list of what came to memory and in about 20
minutes had in point-form a couple of pages of items like the above.
Still, I like the various metaphors that have been written up - for
example, you're walking along a path in a forest or park and you see a
chipmunk run across it. Is your first impulse to run after it,
salivating over crushing it in your mouth, bones, blood and all? Or is
your first thought of how cute it is and you'd like to hold it, etc.
(or ignore it. Maybe you're not a nature nut; but, I highly doubt
your first thought would be on what a tasty morsel it would be. Watch
how fast Minou or Spot would take off after it, though...)
An even better one is Harvey and Marilyn Diamonds': put a baby in a
crib with a rabbit and an apple. We'd all be terribly surprised if
the baby tried to seriously eat the rabbit and it just played with the
apple (teething babies, notwithstanding, and the fact that babies like
to put EVERYTHING in their mouths. They're not trying to really eat
things, though.)
There are tons and tons of these types of things that keep slamming
you against a brick wall. Whenever I see/hear accepted evidence for
the present way of living, there's no getting around nature. When
someone says, 'you *have* to eat meat for protein', how do you get
around the fact that elephants build protein from grasses/leaves (they
look pretty strong and big to me), horses from grasses (few grains in
wild), many monkeys from fruits, cows/oxen/mules also from grasses
(they're pretty big and strong themselves), some large marine life
live off seaweeds, etc., etc., etc. (Protein is built from amino
acides, not primarily from cannibalizing other protein. Also, as I
mentioned in another post, carnivorous animals need to get their
greens somehow. Notice how they don't eat other carnivores? What do
they eat? Vegetarian animals and they eat their prey **raw**. Try
eating that steak without cooking, spices, sauces and utensils next
time...!)
We just don't have the instincts to kill. Not naturally, anyway,
despite all the evidence to the contrary. What we're seeing in
today's world is precisely due to the fact that we are not living
healthfully. As many people who have converted to a non-meat
lifestyle can attest, one of the first things you notice (especially
the more raw matter you eat over cooked), is how much more serene you
become, or how much more free of pain and irritations, etc., your life
is. Life becomes more glorious, overall.
>I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
>eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
>veggy.
Many of the difficulties first-generation converts going to a more
healthy lifestyle experience is due to their systems not working
efficiently/properly. It takes time to restore organs, etc., (which
can always be done to one degree or another, esp. if organic
derangement hasn't set it). Some people do go wrong, admittedly, but
it is through lack of understanding/knowledge not in the diet itself.
Anyone who has ANY doubts whatsoever, like in all areas of life,
should research and seek out truly knowledgeable people and get help
in that way.
>I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
>to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
>there will be no adverse consequences.
The best book in my view, though it does not deal with raw foodism,
per se (diet of raw fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds) is FIT FOR LIFE
by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond. It is ideal for mostly everyone. I
find it a sane approach and you just modify your eating habits, not
change them completely. And the fact that you can modify to the
degree you want is perfect, too. You can keep whatever you want in
your diet with this plan, too (or, indeed, you should anyway).
Despite the fact that I believe raw foodism is the ideal diet (it is
our biological diet), I am a serious advocate that each person should
do what they can in accordance to what their lifestyles will allow.
There are many factors involved and only each individual person knows
what challenges they face. Yes, if we all converted to this or that
diet, Utopia would be possible. However, one isn't always in the
position to do so. ANY step in a more healthy approach is positive.
And sometimes, one step at a time is what leads to success.
If you adapt the following into your life from their advice you will
see tremendous change:
- have only fruit in the morning
- try not to eat after 8 p.m. at night whenever possible (just common
sense, tool)
- and for the rest eat a large salad with your meals while keeping to
at least minimum food-combining
(- and, personally, if you have a choice between eating a food raw
over cooked, go for the raw!!!! - but that's from me)
this coupled with their advice about what currently is being advised,
that the more harmful substances you give up, etc., the more you'll
feel great - i.e., giving up smoking, exercising more, giving up
coffee, or salt of whatever - doing the above with any of the current
medical advice will result in really great rewards!!
Good luck to you in your fascinating journey!!
FitWell
Yes, I feel the same way. Even in raw foodism there is a little bit
of 'killing' going on because other than fruits, we are actually
'killing' the plant we are eating.
How to resolve that dilemma? I guess, for me, it's the thought of
eating sentient life over plant life. Even the lowliest animal that
is eaten has some form of sentience (yes, even fish). The thought
that for the last 10 years, no animal has died for me to eat is
personally fulfilling. I just wish I could have been successful at an
earlier attempt at vegetarianism about 18 years ago. Still, better
late than never.
MSU
FitWell <NoS...@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
news:391825e9...@news.magma.ca...
But that simply is not true. Many aniamls ahve died so that you might eat
vegetables and grains. Check out other threads on collateral deaths.
>
mrfalafel
the best you can come up with...I mean sheesh!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
MSU
mrfalafel <mrfalafe...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:11392e64...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com...
> Oh don't start that 'collateral death' crapola again! If that's
> the best you can come up with...I mean sheesh!
Good response. if there is something you can't do anything about jsut
ignore it. How is it crap? Are we lying when we say that we ahve seen
aniamls that ahve been killed?
mrfalafel
Ok, one more time...
It's 'intent'.
If you deliberatly do something then you mean it. If it happens
accidentilly, then you didn't.
Can you wrap your head around that one?
James Hepler
Veggie wrote:
>
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
Wow.
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they?
That's up to you to decide.
> Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
We are animals. But some say that we have the ability to say no to
that. That is, the fact that animals kill animals is hardly the best
argument for eating meat.
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
I agree. What was your main reason for going veggie?
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
The adverse consequences come about as a result of not eating a healthy,
balanced diet. You don't need meat, but meat provides a lot of
nutrients, and a lot of veggies are not easily digested by the human
body. Going veggie is fine, but if you have the ability and the
opportunity, see a nutritionist about how best to go about it. No
reason to put your health at risk if you don't have to. That goes for
meat eaters too.
--
James Hepler
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
For your listening pleasure, Chapel Hill Music Online!
http://www.unc.edu/~hepler/CHMI.html
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to
prayer." -mark twain.
James Hepler
steve wrote:
> > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> > veggy.
>
> no sir. in fact, you will be healthier by going veggie.
Can you explain to me how giving someone a false sense of security does
anyone any good? You don't automatically become more healthy as a
result of going veggie.
FitWell
>> eating sentient life over plant life. Even the lowliest animal that
>> is eaten has some form of sentience (yes, even fish). The thought
>> that for the last 10 years, no animal has died for me to eat is
>> personally fulfilling. I just wish I could have been successful at an
>> earlier attempt at vegetarianism about 18 years ago. Still, better
>> late than never.
>
>
>But that simply is not true. Many aniamls ahve died so that you might eat
>vegetables and grains. Check out other threads on collateral deaths.
Very true if we begin splitting hairs; all life comes from death if
you want to put it that way. We are talking about a question of
degree or how far back you want to go. I have not eaten an animal in
10 years and that is an important thing for me since I never liked the
idea of eating flesh food from my earliest memories. I felt that I
was wrong, though, and that meat was necessary for life (after all, we
have a history going back a long time telling us so, by all accounts).
So, no, for me it is only necessary to go back to what I directly eat.
That many animals died to replenish the earth so that plants could
grow so that I could eat is not something I was directly responsible
for myself. Nuff said, in my view ...
steve
become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie and watch your
diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and watch your diet.
many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet' to achieve
greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
steve
> Can you wrap your head around that one?
yeah and check your spelling while you're at it, slacker.
steve
> Can you explain to me how giving someone a false sense of security does
> anyone any good?
>
also i think you overreacted a bit there.
steve
Laurie
> more I think about it the more unsure I become.
> they?
earth"; are you assuming that everything is for us to eat? How about rocks,
bacteria, viruses, insects, molds, fungi, poisonous plants, poisonous
animals, trees, ...
The question that needs to be answered is what was the natural human
diet BEFORE tools and fire.
I certainly commend you for thinking about a veg diet, BUT did you ever
"think" about the diet you were programmed to eat as an ignorant,
defenseless child, without your consent, by ignorant parents and the huge
advertising budgets of the cowboy and junk-food industries. No!
So, if you want to learn about human diet, do think about the local
cultural diet as well. You will find no scientific evidence that suggests
the human is a natural carnivore! And you will find mountains of evidence
that supports the reality that most degenerative diseases are caused by
animal flesh/product eating.
> Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
Severe non-sequitur: you are ASSuming that ALL animals 'kill for food',
and thus the human (being an animal) must/should do the same, and that is
simply not true.
A very small percentage of the animal species on this planet are natural
carnivores, and if you were to look at the physiology and biochemistry of
same, you would discover that they all run down their prey, kill it and tear
it apart with their natural physical equipment, and eat it in raw chunks.
Like it or not, you will have to start learning physiology and biochemistry
to get to the facts, as fuzzy-wuzzy 'ethical' or 'spiritual' arguments will
get you only more confused.
So, if you really want to be a carnivore, why don't you do it as ALL the
natural carnivores do? Of all the meat-heads I have met in the past 30
years who tenaciously believe that they are a natural carnivore, NONE of
them have the courage of their convictions to do it the same way as ALL the
natural carnivores do. Why?? Understanding this is imperative.
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting ...
No one can convince you of anything, you will have to do your own
homework. But if you would like some facts to help you clarify your
thinking and discover some of the more widely held errors in various dietary
dogmas, then see my articles at the link in the sigfile below.
> I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
If you were to search PubMed,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
you would soon discover that all the major 'degenerative diseases' are
closely associated with consumption of animal flesh/products. Would not
carnivores' cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and osteoporosis be considered
adverse consequences?
Don't assume there is only one 'veg*n' diet; there are many, and most
are horrible from a nutritional point of view. Most are centered on cooked
grains/beans, and as such provide far too much cooked protein and starch for
a healthy diet, long-term. Cooking alters the molecular structures of
nutrients, severely diminishing their digestibility, and is just a bad idea
as flesh-eating -- which only cooking makes possible for the human.
Find out what the rest of the apes eat, and that would be a far better
diet than the cooked-glop veggie diet books tout.
As you clean up your diet, sometimes spectacularly severe cleansing
reactions (discharge of mucus and stored toxins) occur, and these should not
be confused with an "adverse consequence". It is necessary to understand
these and know how to control them, such that you can continue with your
planet-side trip. You won't find this info in pop-veggie cook books.
Laurie
_____
Get my diet articles free: | Bust SPAMMERS!
http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm | http://spamcop.net/
Newsgroups: delete "X" for legit e-mail. |
BIG 1
FitWell <NoS...@NoJunkMail.com> wrote the AFV FAQ in
news:39181ef1...@news.magma.ca...
well done :)
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> eating meat or 'being veggie' does not make someone healthy, that's true. you
> become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie and watch your
> diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and watch your diet.
In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
Nothing resembling what you just said has ever been proven as far as I
know. Not only does it lack logic, it reflects a very popular trend
among newsgroup posters to post their beliefs as facts. If it is a
belief, designate it as such, please. If it is a fact, back it up.
> many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet' to achieve
> greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
you will have to document.
steve
> In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
> that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
> forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
>
i don't have to do shit. i'm vegan, i watch what i eat, i'm healthier than most people
i know.
> Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
> actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> you will have to document.
i'm not in court, here, asshole. i don't have to present any research. i know it's
available. if you want to go look it up, be my guest. i've read conclusions of plenty
of studies.
James Hepler
So you can't explain it to me? By telling someone that they will
instantly be more healthy by removing meat from their diet, you are
giving them the impression that it is that simple. People need to make
informed choices. Judging by some of the posts I have seen in this
thread and a few others, you seem to treat the vegetarian issue like
some kind of contest, by which the team with the most players wins. It
isn't a contest. It is a lifestyle choice. You can't be right or wrong
because of it.
steve
information that has been posted here before. the readers of alt.food.vegan have seen
it enough times. i really don't care about the availability of information on the other
ng's that this has been cross posted to. i also don't care about what you know to be
true, what research you have seen, etc. i have something more valuable than
scientifically conducted research- my own personal experience. this i will continue to
share with other readers. if they want to know if it's healthy to be vegetarian, the
answer is yes- i can be far healthier than non-veg diets. that is plain and simple
fact. you could not have possibly seen any research w/in the last 10 years stating the
opposite, unless the vegetarian is eating grass clippings and watching tv all day, and
the carnivore is working out daily. (those are external factors that would
theoretically have no place in a scientifically conducted test, though that doesn't
mean they wouldn't be there anway. i've participated in university-conducted
experiments. they're often run by students under the guidance of professors, and
university students just aint the most responsible people)
don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
'scientific' facts. you can't prove the validity of any test unless you watched it
yourself. but your behavior is just plain rude. you didn't back anything up that you
said, anyway, so fuck you.
David N. Harrison
>I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
>think about it the more unsure I become.
Good! Keep thinking...it is when you become unwilling to continue
thinking open mindedly, that you will seek refuge in some supposedly
simple solution, like becoming a veg*n, imo.
>After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
>they?
We don't really know that, do we? The Bible tells us that it's ok to
eat meat, if that means anything to you personally (some examples are:
Genesis 9
Deuteronomy 12:15
Deuteronomy 14:4
Mark 7:18
Acts 10:9
Romans 14 --this last one is my favorite :-), but we really can't "know"
what the truth behind our existence is yet, can we?
> Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
>we do the same.
Surely humans have as much "right" to kill other animals, as any of
those other animals have to do the same. One thing that makes humans
different in our killing is that we provide life for the animals which we kill.
Animals don't exist before they are born, or after they are killed. Veg*ns
encourage the same thing for future meat animals, that those animals
would experience after being killed: non-existence. Of course meat
consumers encourage that also, but they encourage something else
which veg*ns do not: the animals' lives. Meat is life.
>I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
>eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
>veggy.
>
>I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
>to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
>there will be no adverse consequences.
Why go out of your way to intentionally become such an extremist? Why
limit your diet in such a way? If you just cut down on the amount of meat
that you eat--even if you eat veggie meals more often than not--you will be
benefiting from that approach, and still leave yourself the flexibility to enjoy
meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
feel have decent lives.
You are a human, and have the ability to think open mindedly. Enjoy that
ability, instead of trying to restrict your thinking as some/many people would
encourage you to do. The topic of raising animals for food contains many
complex issues. To say that the whole thing is "bad" is obviously just a
method some people have of trying to oversimplify many complex situations.
It is a method of restricting what people allow themselves to think about imo.
By putting such restrictions on what we allow ourselves to think about, we
surely would develop a growing inaccurate interpretation of the way things
really are...which would strengthen our confidence in the correctness of our
original beliefs, which caused us to choose that path in the first place...
Please think very hard, as open mindedly as possible, about what you are
considering doing to yourself.
steve
> So you can't explain it to me? By telling someone that they will
> instantly be more healthy by removing meat from their diet, you are
> giving them the impression that it is that simple. People need to make
> informed choices. Judging by some of the posts I have seen in this
> thread and a few others, you seem to treat the vegetarian issue like
> some kind of contest, by which the team with the most players wins. It
> isn't a contest. It is a lifestyle choice. You can't be right or wrong
> because of it.
1) i'm giving the reader the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he is an
intelligent person. you are assuming he is a dumbass who needs me to give him
step by step instructions on how to live their life. i don't feel that is
necessary.
2) i would say that you treat this as a contest, not me, by demanding
'scientific proof'. presumably, whomever has the most of that wins. i won't
participate in that, since you can pretty much find 'proof' to back up
anything.
Victor
I have been a committed Vegetarian for 15 years, in all that time I have
never
suffered any adverse effects from my diet, on the contrary, I noticed I have
a
great deal more vitality than in my meat eating days.
Best wishes
Victor
(The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They
were not made for humans any more than black people were
made for whites or women for men)
Veggie <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more
I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature
that
> we do the same.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting -
just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
> Richard Head
> Marketing
> myo...@cdzone.co.uk
>
>
MLM
[...]
> don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
> 'scientific' facts.
Don't go around making unsupported wild-ass and inaccurate
assertions.
[...]
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> i don't need to spend my time flipping through old posts looking for links to
> information that has been posted here before.
First of all, I don't even know what you are specifically responding
to. Second, this tired excuse does nothing but illustrate the fact that
you aren't serious about this debate. If you were, you would back your
claims up with something substantial.
> the readers of alt.food.vegan have seen
> it enough times.
Bullshit. If they care, they CAN'T see it enough times. IF you care,
you would have the shit SAVED on your DESKTOP for when outsiders like
myself want to learn. But you don't want to teach. You want to
COMPETE. Well, I'm good at that too.
> i really don't care about the availability of information on the other
> ng's that this has been cross posted to.
Why not? Because it doesn't result in the comforting mass back
patting? Are you only concerned with preaching to the saved? What a
lame attempt at an excuse for your LAZINESS.
> i also don't care about what you know to be
> true, what research you have seen, etc.
That's what takes this out of the realm of DEBATE and into the realm of
RELIGION. The willingness to toss aside arguments to the contrary in
favor of BLIND FAITH, RHETORIC, and PROPAGANDA. You are a poseur.
> i have something more valuable than
> scientifically conducted research- my own personal experience.
Your arrogance is duly noted. Shall I infer from this statement that
you are under the impression that what you experience is what EVERYONE
experiences? That you are some kind of cosmic trendsetter?
> this i will continue to
> share with other readers.
You didn't share any personal experience in your last post. You made
assertions that you now refuse to support. Based on that, and the fact
that you snipped it all, which indicates that you KNOW you are LYING,
your personal experience is nothing other than: "lying is OK".
> if they want to know if it's healthy to be vegetarian, the
> answer is yes- i can be far healthier than non-veg diets.
This much is true. But will you grow a pair and admit that one can eat
meat and be more healthy than a vegetarian?
> that is plain and simple
> fact.
This is true, as I stated already.
> you could not have possibly seen any research w/in the last 10 years stating the
> opposite, unless the vegetarian is eating grass clippings and watching tv all day, and
> the carnivore is working out daily.
Exercise notwithstanding, one can eat meat and be more healthy than a
vegetarian. THE KEY IS NUTRITION. You can attempt to oversimplify the
issue, but you can not dispute the fact that a healthy diet is
INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANT than whether or not it contains meat.
> (those are external factors that would
> theoretically have no place in a scientifically conducted test, though that doesn't
> mean they wouldn't be there anway. i've participated in university-conducted
> experiments.
Show me where I can find the results. Otherwise, you might as well be
claiming that you flew to the moon and back.
> they're often run by students under the guidance of professors, and
> university students just aint the most responsible people)
Neither are people who can't back up their assertions.
> don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
> 'scientific' facts.
I don't. I only demand that they back up their ASSERTIONS with
evidence. If you wish to state an opinion, you are free to do so. But
don't pass off rhetoric as fact. That gets us nowhere. What we end up
with is two bickering children saying, "Is too." "Is not." "Is too."
"Is not."
But then for you, that is enough, right? For you, it is a pissing
contest. If you aren't interested in debate, just say so, and I will
leave you to make your IDIOTIC CLAIMS. Otherwise, grow the fuck up and
debate like an adult.
> you can't prove the validity of any test unless you watched it
> yourself.
What? Is this a thinly veiled attempt to question the integrity of
scientists in general? IS this an early attempt for you to discredit
sources I haven't even posted yet?
> but your behavior is just plain rude. you didn't back anything up that you
> said, anyway, so fuck you.
What I said is backed up by common sense. I haven't said anything
questionable. But here, chew on this:
M Kestin, IL Rouse, RA Correll, and PJ Nestel
Cardiovascular disease risk factors in free-living men: comparison
of two prudent diets, one based on lactoovovegetarianism and the other
allowing lean meat
Am J Clin Nutr 1989 50: 280-287.
FM Sacks and EH Kass
Low blood pressure in vegetarians: effects of specific foods and
nutrients
Am J Clin Nutr 1988 48: 795-800.
All I have to prove is that including meat in one's diet is AS HEALTHY
AS excluding meat from one's diet, AS LONG AS both diets are balanced
and healthy. It should stand to reason that a balanced meat eating diet
is MORE HEALTHY than an unbalanced vegetarian diet. But for some reason
you want me to prove it. Unfortunately, it is hard to find any studies
to prove my point, due to the fact that it is so INTUITIVE. So give me
more time to find stuff. In the meantime, enjoy reading the articles I
have provided.
Stuart Dunn
>
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they?
Universe was created spontaneously by the Big Bang. All life on Earth
originated from a common anscestor over 4 billion years ago. More
recently, the evolutionary paths of Monerans (bacteria) diverged from
all other life, then the anscestors of Protists and Archeans became
seperated, and then Protista gave rise to three other Eukaryote kingdoms
of life: animals, plants, and fungi. Of all the inhabitants of the four
Eukaryote kingdoms, only animals other than sponges have a nervous
system, and it should be obvious that mammals, birds, and quite possibly
other animals have wills of their own. Any animal that has a will of its
own has a right to life, and eating meat violates that right.
Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
predators, our mouths would water whenever we had the oppurtunity to
handle raw meat. If we were naturally carnivorous, we would be able to
kill without remorse. If we're naturally carnivorous, then why were so
many people shocked a few weeks ago when an innocent dog was thrown out
into the middle of traffic and killed?
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
steve
posted them. i'm not doing it for you.
Andy Domonkos
ATD
FitWell wrote:
> On 09 May 2000 11:31:57 GMT, dorot...@aol.com (DorothyIams) wrote:
>
lilweed
*
*
Highly interesting material.
http://lettersfromandromeda.com/dsg1/chapter1.html
Living Thought Forms... etc
http://www.trufax.org/w9.html
Leading Edge International Research Group
http://www.trufax.org/w1.html
*
Raspberry
alt.food.vegan. We swap recipes and hold peaceful discussions. Take your
lame effort elsewhere. It is blatantly obvious that you just posted your
message to antagonise a group of people who make a point of not harming
others. So just leave it alone!
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:39188225...@email.unc.edu...
ResNovae
that's bad news. So's cross posting in general. If you seriously want to
discuss this, you should try each group individually.
Veggie wrote:
>
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
> Richard Head
> Marketing
> myo...@cdzone.co.uk
ResNovae
Reduced risk of contracting zoonoic diseases from your dinner.
No animal protein byproducts in your blood stream, scarring your
arteries and paving the way to artherosclerosis.
Less crappy, greasy fast food available to you means you eat less of it.
Removing 1 level from the food chain improves efficiency of energy
absorbtion (80 energy loss in consumption per strata).
More fiber in diet means less constipation and overal anal retentiveness
:-)
Salgar
>
>FitWell <NoS...@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message
>news:391825e9...@news.magma.ca...
>> On 09 May 2000 11:31:57 GMT, dorot...@aol.com (DorothyIams) wrote:
>>
>> >I think many of us react negatively to the way animals are kept and
>> >slaughtered. That is distasteful to us. Secondly, I feel better as a
>vegan.
>> >It might have something to do with that serotonin idea that has been
>going
>> >around. There is a lot of mighty tastey vegan food available in our
>corocopia
>> >of plenty economy so I see no need to kill. I can't equate a radish with
>a
>> >lamb in terms of killing.
>>
>> Yes, I feel the same way. Even in raw foodism there is a little bit
>> of 'killing' going on because other than fruits, we are actually
>> 'killing' the plant we are eating.
>>
>> How to resolve that dilemma? I guess, for me, it's the thought of
>> eating sentient life over plant life. Even the lowliest animal that
>> is eaten has some form of sentience (yes, even fish). The thought
>> that for the last 10 years, no animal has died for me to eat is
>> personally fulfilling. I just wish I could have been successful at an
>> earlier attempt at vegetarianism about 18 years ago. Still, better
>> late than never.
>
>
>But that simply is not true. Many aniamls ahve died so that you might eat
>vegetables and grains. Check out other threads on collateral deaths.
>
While I rejoice at the number of new posters to the group I must ask:
How the hell did MLM get in here?(BTW MLM, the other threads are on
the other NG's you post to, not AFV)
Raspberry
have to eat animals to survive. If we can't save both, at least try and save
one! Is it that difficult to comprehend?
MSU <nob...@vt.edu> wrote in message news:8f9bv1$b9v$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>
> mrfalafel <mrfalafe...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:11392e64...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com...
> > Oh don't start that 'collateral death' crapola again! If that's
> > the best you can come up with...I mean sheesh!
>
> Good response. if there is something you can't do anything about jsut
> ignore it. How is it crap? Are we lying when we say that we ahve seen
> aniamls that ahve been killed?
>
>
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network
> *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> >
>
>
BIG 1
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> has been wrote and re wrote
but don't worry - U'r mum loves U
BTW why don't U take the personality tests at
http://keirsey.com/cgi-bin/keirsey/newkts.cgi
and
http://pigment.lcs.mit.edu:8080/~becca/enneagram/
I'm sure folk would be interested to see the results ;¬)
Swamp
Apologies in advance if I screwed it up.
"Stuart Dunn" <dun...@erols.com> wrote in message news:391862...@erols.com...
> No. The world was never created. The Earth and everything else in the
> Universe was created spontaneously by the Big Bang.
You might not want to word that so precariously.
-snip-
> Of all the inhabitants of the four
> Eukaryote kingdoms, only animals other than sponges have a nervous
> system, and it should be obvious that mammals, birds, and quite possibly
> other animals have wills of their own.
False equation. Thats an "all dogs are poodles" argument.
> Any animal that has a will of its
> own has a right to life, and eating meat violates that right.
Wills, at various levels on a broad spectrum, are compromised daily.
What makes a 'will' so special that it becomes a qualification of rights?
> > Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> > we do the same.
> We don't kill and eat animals instinctively. If we were natural born
> predators, our mouths would water whenever we had the oppurtunity to
> handle raw meat.
Ummm, my hand is raised (anyone else?)
> If we were naturally carnivorous, we would be able to
> kill without remorse.
We are naturally omnivorous. FWIW, I think we've been killing
animals for food with-and-without remorse for a couple of years
now, at least.
> If we're naturally carnivorous, then why were so
> many people shocked a few weeks ago when an innocent dog was thrown out
> into the middle of traffic and killed?
Maybe because it had nothing to do with eating.
> > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> > veggy.
> > I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> > to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> > there will be no adverse consequences.
> Go for it!
Indeed, you are free to choose your own diet, just like any other healthy adult.
--
ã‚¥Swampã‚¥
Sanna
> > we do the same.
>
> that. That is, the fact that animals kill animals is hardly the best
> argument for eating meat.
Thank you James for some logic! Good postings. Possibly a bit on the heavy
side as regards language, but otherwise a solace for the brain:)
Someone mentioned the fact that humans don't have carnivore teeth and
therefore we shouldn't eat meat. What if we DID have carnivore teeth? Would
that "justify" the eating of meat, meaning is biology what we should go by?
We would probably still have our own free will to decide what we want to
eat...
For me personally my part time veganism is largely based on a decision.
There are arguments for and against eating this or that, but *I* have
decided that *I* want to eat such and such for emotional reasons among
others. Others make other decisions. I think it's very hard to establish
what's "natural" or "biological" in any given situation, it doesn't have to
do with food. Take other issues like homosexuality, gender and race. How can
we say what's "natural"? And can we really assume that because something is
"natural" it is automatically right, and the ONLY right way?
So, no answers, only questions. And decisions. For ME. :)
Sanna
Sanna
natural
> carnivores, and if you were to look at the physiology and biochemistry of
> same, you would discover that they all run down their prey, kill it and
tear
> it apart with their natural physical equipment, and eat it in raw chunks.
> Like it or not, you will have to start learning physiology and
biochemistry
> to get to the facts, as fuzzy-wuzzy 'ethical' or 'spiritual' arguments
will
> get you only more confused.
> So, if you really want to be a carnivore, why don't you do it as ALL
the
> natural carnivores do? Of all the meat-heads I have met in the past 30
> years who tenaciously believe that they are a natural carnivore, NONE of
> them have the courage of their convictions to do it the same way as ALL
the
> natural carnivores do. Why?? Understanding this is imperative.
A thought: How come we assume all "natural" carnivores have to be the same?
After all, you could say humans are carnivores who need to cook the meat
before they can eat it.
Sanna
David Lindsay
: Veggie wrote:
: >
: > I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
: > think about it the more unsure I become.
: >
: > After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
: > they?
: No. The world was never created. The Earth and everything else in the
: Universe was created spontaneously by the Big Bang. All life on Earth
: originated from a common anscestor over 4 billion years ago. More
: recently, the evolutionary paths of Monerans (bacteria) diverged from
: all other life, then the anscestors of Protists and Archeans became
: seperated, and then Protista gave rise to three other Eukaryote kingdoms
: of life: animals, plants, and fungi. Of all the inhabitants of the four
: Eukaryote kingdoms, only animals other than sponges have a nervous
: system, and it should be obvious that mammals, birds, and quite possibly
: other animals have wills of their own. Any animal that has a will of its
: own has a right to life, and eating meat violates that right.
Then you are saying that if it's a choice between killing an animal with
say a kidney that could save a man's life, you'd let the man die and
don't kill tne animal
: Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
: > we do the same.
: We don't kill and eat animals instinctively. If we were natural born
: predators, our mouths would water whenever we had the oppurtunity to
: handle raw meat. If we were naturally carnivorous, we would be able to
: kill without remorse. If we're naturally carnivorous, then why were so
: many people shocked a few weeks ago when an innocent dog was thrown out
: into the middle of traffic and killed?
Again we should be able to steal without remorse either say a few
hundred dollars from a guy whose net worth is 4 billin dollars [Bill
Gates] ... surely he won't miss the money ...
: >
: > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
: > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
: > veggy.
: >
: > I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
: > to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
: > there will be no adverse consequences.
: Go for it!
I would suggest doing it gradually ... I eat vegetarian but still eat
meat on occasion [Kosher] just not as often as i used to ...
--
David Lindsay bg...@torfree.net or bg...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Rebbe Nachman of Breslov's Teaching: it's a great Mitzvah to be Happy always
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> >
> > In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
> > that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
> > forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> > point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
> >
>
> i don't have to do shit. i'm vegan, i watch what i eat, i'm healthier than most people
> i know.
Good for you. That doesn't excuse a blanket statement though, does it?
Doe it justify spreading myths?
> > Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
> > actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> > you will have to document.
>
> i'm not in court, here, asshole.
You might as well be. YOu are taking the position of expert witness.
> i don't have to present any research.
That's like saying, "I don't have to debate responsibly". But then you
aren't here for that, are you?
> i know it's
> available. if you want to go look it up, be my guest. i've read conclusions of plenty
> of studies.
Just point me to them, lest ye be branded LIAR.
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> actually i'm the king of overreacting so i guess i can shut up.
Can I be a member of the round table of overreacting?
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> >
> > So you can't explain it to me? By telling someone that they will
> > instantly be more healthy by removing meat from their diet, you are
> > giving them the impression that it is that simple. People need to make
> > informed choices. Judging by some of the posts I have seen in this
> > thread and a few others, you seem to treat the vegetarian issue like
> > some kind of contest, by which the team with the most players wins. It
> > isn't a contest. It is a lifestyle choice. You can't be right or wrong
> > because of it.
>
> 1) i'm giving the reader the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he is an
> intelligent person. you are assuming he is a dumbass who needs me to give him
> step by step instructions on how to live their life. i don't feel that is
> necessary.
You should have read his original post before saying that. Here is the
relevant text:
-------------------------------------
I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non
meat
eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of
going
veggy.
I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting -
just
to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances
that
there will be no adverse consequences.
-------------------------------------
Now, if he NEEDS advice (emphasis NOT added), based on health concerns,
it seems as though you would be doing him a service by including ALL the
information regarding this issue and nutrition, not treating him like a
dumbass. After all, it IS the information he is asking for.
> 2) i would say that you treat this as a contest, not me, by demanding
> 'scientific proof'. presumably, whomever has the most of that wins.
You know, by posting support for your claims, any person who feels the
way the original poster did can get a decent amount of information on
the subject. You are doing people a disservice by withholding this
information. Granted, the original poster could have found information
by his or herself, but the fact is, the person asked US. Those of us
who already have access to the information (IMO) have an obligation to
provide the information we have if we choose to participate in the
thread. If you aren't prepared to have your ideas questioned, you
shouldn't be so quick to post.
> i won't
> participate in that, since you can pretty much find 'proof' to back up
> anything.
And the honest person uses BOTH sides of the issue to make an INFORMED
(EDUCATED) opinion. Isn't that the whole point? Granted, it would be
great if everyone here were credible enough to be considered an
authority on these subjects. But when you make a claim like "Not eating
meat is more healthy than eating meat", you invite a myriad of queries
as to not only your idea's credibility but your own. And you don't
separate yourself from anyone else, because EVERYONE makes assertions
that they can't, won't, or don't support. For that reason alone, you
should have information ready to back you up. Then, any given reader
will say to him or herself, "This person really knows what he/she is
talking about."
If your assertion is right, then proving it should be no sweat. I think
the reason why support for assertions is met with so much defensiveness
is the fact that few people actually HAVE support. Not that there is
any out there. Just that the person posting is ill prepared for the
debate. And that's how flame wars get started.
ResNovae
James Hepler wrote:
>
> steve wrote:
> >
> > actually i'm the king of overreacting so i guess i can shut up.
>
> Can I be a member of the round table of overreacting?
>
steve
The Invisible Kid
<san...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My standard answer when confronted with this issue, most recently posed
to me regarding why its ok for my cat to eat meat, or something like
that, is, "because I have a conscience." sometimes i add "and my cats
just a stupid animal." (no insult to my cat!) that usually shuts up
meat-eaters who are trying to convince me that I'm wrong. Nobody's ever
given me a good answer to that one, they just sort of roll their eyes
at the suggestion that there could possibly be anything ethically wrong
with abusing animals to stay alive.
> > > Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> > > we do the same.
> >
David N. Harrison
>
>David N. Harrison <kl...@mindspring.com> wrote (amongst other things)
>news:391861b...@news.mindspring.com...
>
>"One thing that makes humans
>different in our killing is that we provide life for the animals which we
>kill.
>Animals don't exist before they are born, or after they are killed. Veg*ns
>encourage the same thing for future meat animals, that those animals
>would experience after being killed: non-existence. Of course meat
>consumers encourage that also, but they encourage something else
>which veg*ns do not: the animals' lives. Meat is life."
>
>Who provides life? Wow us humans are so god like aren't we, so considerate?
Humans are as considerate of animals as they allow themselves
to be. Humans are not god like imo.
>"If you just cut down on the amount of meat
>that you eat--even if you eat veggie meals more often than not--you will be
>benefiting from that approach, and still leave yourself the flexibility to
>enjoy
>meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
>feel have decent lives."
>
>Who says veggie people would not want these animals to live? The difference
>is we would want those animals to live to the end of their natural lives,
That is not an option. They get what they get...it is that or nothing.
>not by murdering them first.
>
>And before you reply about the amounts of animals that wouldn't have had
>lives if they weren't bred for slaughter, consider this:
>
>Firstly, the majority of these animals (eg. chickens, cows, sheep, lambs,
>fish etc.) exist due to factory farming, so when considering what you said,
>that Richard should " still leave yourself the flexibility to enjoy
>meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
>feel have decent lives" you wouldn't wish for such animals to exist, if
>existing means living such miserable lives.
I don't believe that all of their lives are worse than no life at all.
>Secondly, those animals (cows, chickens etc.) would naturally reproduce far
>less offspring (ok, nature can be cruel, but why be an extra cruel-factor,
>when we can be compassionate and kind?)
That is an option that human meat eaters have, but nonhuman meat
eaters do not, imo.
>Thirdly, veggies think the right to life extends not just to humans but to
>all other creatures. By right to life I mean fullfilling their lives
>naturally, not by being alive just for the predetermined goal of being meat
>on our plates. We don't need to eat them to survive, so why kill them?
They depend on meat eaters for their lives. Veg*ns do not contribute
to the fact that they live.
> Of
>course other animals kill each other, but we seem to have more than just
>basic instinct (not wanting to judge what other animals have or don't have,
>but this is just what I observe from nature) and that is the ability to
>assert our compassion with the reasoning mind.
>WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE, SO WHY EAT IT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN
>ANIMAL SUFFERING?
I'm in favor of reducing the suffering, not eliminating the animals.
>I've seen some excellent posts in response to Richard's enquiry, which cover
>other issues regarding this (eg. that physiologically our bodies do not need
>meat to survive and of how animals and vegetables are entirely different. So
>there's no use going over old ground. Regarding animals and vegetables being
>entirely different - as if you need someone to point this out to you. As far
>as we can see, we can observe how different an animal is to a plant with
>regards to amount of sentience.
>
>A friend who used to regularly eat excessive amounts of meat turned veggie
>after this experience:
>He had hitched a lift with a sandwich deliverer, who on the way had to make
>a stop at a nearby slaughter house. When they arrived, men came out for
>their beef sandwiches wearing aprons covered in blood. Then a lorry pulled
>up, it opened and a load of cows/bulls ran out. My friend said they were
>screaming, he didn't know it was possible for cows to scream. They had a
>look of immense horror on their faces. He said they certainly knew why they
>were there.
I have killed pigs in the pen they grew up in, next to their mother and
brothers and sisters. None of the other pigs showed any sign of fear. I've
seen a young bull shot in the head, its throat was cut to bleed it, and then
it was butchered while the next one in line stood by and calmly observed the
procedure--showing no sign of fear. Animals are scared to be forced into any
new situation, whether it is a slaughter house or not. But they are not afraid
when their brother is killed beside them, because they don't know what death
is.
>Shortly after this he became vegan, because there is as much cruelty in the
>dairy and egg industry, if not more, because they have to experience a
>longer life of cruelty and torture before their death.
Why do you feel that no life at all is better than life as a dairy cow?
> Of course, this is
>factory farming.
>But even of those "meat animals which you
>feel have decent lives", I and many others would rather they lived
>naturally, with a chance of them leading happy, content lives, than meeting
>with a definite, bloody, predetermined end.
As I said before, that is not an option. They get life in the meat industry,
or they get nothing. If some of you veggies want to change that, then buy
some animals which are headed for slaughter, and free them to enjoy the
happy content lives you feel they could have.
>By the way, with regards to the bible. Maybe it would be better if people
>would go by their "gut feeling"/"inner tuition" (or even common sense)
>regarding such issues, instead of doing what a book tells them. I think the
>reason why the majority of people don't do this already is due to a lack of
>self-confidence (with regards to thinking for themselves) because they think
>"how could anything I think of possibly have any truth?"
Maybe. The animals which humans raise do depend on us for their lives
though. That is a definite truth, and we are aware of it.
>Basically, treat others the way you'd like to be treated yourself. Would you
>like the kind of lives those animals have, even the ones who you think have
>better lives than other factory farmed animals?
I would rather have the life of some factory farmed animals than no life
at all. I would rather have no life at all than the lives of some factory farmed
animals. I feel the same way in regards to wild animals...don't you?
> Would you like to know that
>whatever you do, you would still meet the same bloody ending as they do?
They don't know what their fate is, so that is not an issue. We may be in
the same position that they are, but not know it. We do know that all animals
will die (including ourselves, our friends, our family...), which is something that
the animals we raise to eat do not know.
>Most people wouldn't want such a life. We have a choice to help out our
>fellow creatures, to help them attain freedom just as much as we strive for
>it.
>
>Let's not be their captors. Let's be their friends.
Their "captors" have been dead for thousands of years in most cases.
We that are alive today are not cheating the animals out of any part of
their lives because we raise them to eat, but instead we are providing them
with whatever life they get to have. Their "friends" would like to improve
the quality of whatever life they get to have , not deprive them of it, imo.
Tricia
"David N. Harrison" <dh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Humans are as considerate of animals as they allow
themselves
> to be.
Right.
I'm totally sick of paying by the second to download
x-posted rubbish.
*We* are human, x-posters are a new animal sub-set
with a 24/7 open season for extermination.
It is vegan to hunt down these x-posting animals, but
ONLY in their own habitat.
>
> That is not an option. They get what they get...it is that
or nothing.
>
Yeah, well I disagree - you have a choice.
Stop x-posting, and live.
> I don't believe that all of their lives are worse than
no life at all.
>
I do.
>
>Why do you feel that no life at all is better than life as
a dairy cow?
>
> I would rather have the life of some factory farmed
animals than no life
> at all.
Ok.
Come on over.
I *guarantee* to treat you with all the care and
consideration
you deserve. A day's notice should suffice.
[build a crush pen, buy a butchers knife, starve the dogs].
T5NF
You wouldn't have to starve either of my dogs--they both dislike people--both
of them were abused before they came to live with me. No life at all would
have been better than the ones they were living.
If animals don't know death, why do they mourn?
>t...@finnish-spitz.demon.nl
>Message-id: <958154460.2455....@news.demon.nl>
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> i'm done with you, forget it. if the original poster wanted backup claims, i would have
> posted them. i'm not doing it for you.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, partner.
James Hepler
Huria
what do other vegans think about these comments?
rasiel <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:12ff9a62...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> "Who says veggie people would not want these animals to live? The
> difference is we would want those animals to live to the end of
> their natural
>
> i'm with you that this is one of the lamer arguments proposed for
> justifying the killing of animals for food. the quality of life
> for chickens or cows or whatever bred specifically to end up at
> the dinner table must be terrible. and, personally, if i had the
> choice of living that life or not living at all i'd choose the
> latter.
>
> "Thirdly, veggies think the right to life extends not just to
> SURVIVE, SO WHY EAT IT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN ANIMAL SUFFERING?"
>
> VEGGIE DIET. people eat meat mostly because meat tastes good. and
> people , me included, are willing to trade off the necessary evil
> of animals dying in order to have a good meal. it's a lot more
> justified in my eyes than killing animals senselessly or for
> trivial reasons like fur coats or similar things.
>
> as for environmental impact, most activities that you do harm the
> environment in one way or another (even if not very much). eating
> veggies vs. meat just happens to be your pet issue but,
> admittedly, in the overall scheme of things a pig farm in north
> carolina contributes relatively little pollution to the ground
> water compared to the impact of other industries.
>
> remember that just about ALL animals on the planet die a violent
> (or at least unpleasant) death. few animals die as peacefully as
> your average pet being put to sleep in a vet's office. dignity in
> death is reserved just for us humans who have the luxury of dying
> in ways other than being devoured.
>
> it could even be argued that if you were a deer and given the
> choice of being shot or disemboweled by wolves you'd pick the
> bullet. or if you were a chicken you'd probably prefer being
> beheaded after a stun bath than being chewed on by another
> animal.
>
> "Regarding animals
> and vegetables being entirely different - as if you need someone
> to point this out to you. As far as we can see, we can observe
> how different an
> animal is to a plant with regards to amount of sentience. "
>
> and plants. the point is that plants have every much of a "right"
> to live as do animals. they may not have a brain, sentience as
> you call it or a mouth to voice their opinions but it's
> self-evident that plants have a vested interested in continuing
> to live. the evidence is in their self-defense mechanisms like
> poisonous resins to ward off harmful insects and many other ways.
>
> so when you eat a carrot you should be fully aware that you took
> the life of an animate object that would've resisted being eaten
> if only it could. iow, eating that carrot did nothing whatsoever
> for that carrot's well-being.
>
> "A friend who used to regularly eat excessive amounts of meat
>
> well, good for him. by his dropping out of the market he's done
> his small part to drive down the price of beef which makes it
> more affordable for me. again, in an ideal world no animal would
> have to suffer for my sake. but i don't live there yet. maybe
> some day they'll be able to grow t-bone steaks in labs with no
> bone or gristle. when that happens i'll vote with my dollars.
>
> "Basically, treat others the way you'd like to be treated
>
> aw, please pass the kleenex cuz i'm all choked up!
>
> Ras
> ras...@rasiel.com
> http://www.rasiel.com
Huria
Emz
modernisation. Many veggies agree with this statement.
Yet often it is not the meat eating itself that is the concern of veggies.
It is the way in which animals are treated in the production of meat
products. Animals are kept in terrible conditions and treated badly. In this
not a reason for going veggie in itself.
I am not a preaching veggie, but what can be a more natural way of eating
and its healthy, its interesting (loads of pulses, lentils, salads). Things
that many think are horrible, but can be the most amazing tastes around.
I have been veggie for 7 years and it is the best thing I have ever done.
go veggie!!!!!!
Emz
Tricia
"T5NF" <t5...@aol.com> wrote
>
> You wouldn't have to starve either of my dogs--they both
dislike people--both
> of them were abused before they came to live with me. No
life at all would
> have been better than the ones they were living.
>
> If animals don't know death, why do they mourn?
>
Animals can, and do, mourn.
Only pre-programmed cretins prefer to ignore this.
AverageJoe
family the vegetarian way". its written by an RD and a Ph.D. and its chock
full of reasons to go vegan and its got tons of references to studies that
support the opinion that a vegan diet is healthier than the average western
diet.
im sure there are many more books out there, i like this one though its
pretty detailed and it covers a lot of specific health issues.
take care, and i hope this helps
joe
Veggie wrote in message <8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
David N. Harrison
>
>"David N. Harrison" <dh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Humans are as considerate of animals as they allow
>themselves
>> to be.
>Right.
>I'm totally sick of paying by the second to download
>x-posted rubbish.
>*We* are human, x-posters are a new animal sub-set
>with a 24/7 open season for extermination.
>It is vegan to hunt down these x-posting animals, but
>ONLY in their own habitat.
What I originally responded to was a post with the
heading: "Whats the point of not eating meat?", which
was posted to the groups to which I sent the message
you are responding to.
Huria made a reply to my response under the heading:
"Do human killers provide life or meddle with and use life?"
I included the groups to which the original message was
posted in my reply to Huria. It is only because I have some
interest in what people like you think, that I came (to this
ng--alt.food.vegan--for the first time) and saw these replies.
Why did you snip the other groups that it was posted
to?
>>
>> That is not an option. They get what they get...it is that
>or nothing.
>>
>Yeah, well I disagree -
What I said is obviously true, so how can you disagree?
> you have a choice.
>Stop x-posting, and live.
>
>> I don't believe that all of their lives are worse than
>no life at all.
>>
>I do.
Why?
>>Why do you feel that no life at all is better than life as
>a dairy cow?
>>
>> I would rather have the life of some factory farmed
>animals than no life
>> at all.
ResNovae
Huria wrote:
>
> rasiel posted this in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> what do other vegans think about these comments?
> rasiel <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:12ff9a62...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> > "Who says veggie people would not want these animals to live? The
> > difference is we would want those animals to live to the end of
> > their natural
> > lives, not by murdering them first."
I missed a few posts (they keep expiring faster and faster- another good
reason to discourage crossposting, BTW), but this sounds like a response
to the old "if you don't eat them, they'll never be concieved- veggies
must hate animals!" argument. Obviously, if an animal is never born,
nothing is lost to it... I hardly find this kind of bent logic worth
responding to. If every potentialiy existed simultaneously, this
wouldn't be the universe, it would be the multiverse. You can't deny
life to a being not in existence.
> > i'm with you that this is one of the lamer arguments proposed for
> > justifying the killing of animals for food. the quality of life
> > for chickens or cows or whatever bred specifically to end up at
> > the dinner table must be terrible. and, personally, if i had the
> > choice of living that life or not living at all i'd choose the
> > latter.
It is, and it's too bad. I do believe animals probably could be raised,
bred, and slaughtered humanely- I also believe they typically aren't.
But I think the respondent is opening themself up to more trouble than
the argument is worth with using this example as a response to that
particular question. It was a stupid question based on faulty logic to
begin with- trying to provide a logical answer is impossible, other than
pointing out it was an illogical question.
> > "Thirdly, veggies think the right to life extends not just to
> > humans but to all other creatures... WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO
> > SURVIVE, SO WHY EAT IT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN ANIMAL SUFFERING?"
> >
> > MAYBE WHEN EGGPLANT TASTES LIKE FRIED CHICKEN I'LL SWITCH TO A
> > VEGGIE DIET. people eat meat mostly because meat tastes good. and
> > people , me included, are willing to trade off the necessary evil
> > of animals dying in order to have a good meal. it's a lot more
> > justified in my eyes than killing animals senselessly or for
> > trivial reasons like fur coats or similar things.
I believe in social obligation. The person has the right to this
opinion, as long as society supports it and I'm not being harmed by
their decision. "Tasting good" is subjective- I can't argue that as it's
an opinion.
I'm not really sure anyone has a "right" to exist. It's generally
conceded no human has the right to take another's life except in self
defense, however, and I do agree with that. Animals don't willingly
contribute to society, however, so we can't really hold them to the same
social standards. However, I respect their existence and prefer to leave
it unmolested whenever possible. That's a personal obligation on my
part.
> > as for environmental impact, most activities that you do harm the
> > environment in one way or another (even if not very much). eating
> > veggies vs. meat just happens to be your pet issue but,
> > admittedly, in the overall scheme of things a pig farm in north
> > carolina contributes relatively little pollution to the ground
> > water compared to the impact of other industries.
A lousy comparison, but I'll take it on anyway. Compare one farm to the
entire spectrum of other industries, and of course the farm (the part)
will produce less damage than "other industries" (the whole). However,
the collective environmental impact of animal husbandry is staggering,
not just in water pollution but in land area cleared to grow feed,
transportation/fuel usage, water purification and consumption. In
addition, pigs and their waste products carry diseases humans can
aquire- and so does their meat. Do we have to choose only one source of
pollution to eliminate? Because that would be the only reason I can
think of this comparison would even be relevant.
> > remember that just about ALL animals on the planet die a violent
> > (or at least unpleasant) death. few animals die as peacefully as
> > your average pet being put to sleep in a vet's office. dignity in
> > death is reserved just for us humans who have the luxury of dying
> > in ways other than being devoured.
Dignity is in living, not dying. How I die is not relevant. However, the
offense to my sensibilities would be if my death occured due to the
deliberate decision-making of someone else... particularly if it were
entirely avoidable. If someone slits my throat today, should I be
grateful since I might have died of cancer next year?
> > it could even be argued that if you were a deer and given the
> > choice of being shot or disemboweled by wolves you'd pick the
> > bullet. or if you were a chicken you'd probably prefer being
> > beheaded after a stun bath than being chewed on by another
> > animal.
Apparently the writer and I disagree on this point. I don't even
consider the hypothetical preference to be an issue. If we are going to
anthropomorphise, however, and time-travel as well, I absolutely prefer
being devoured by wolves when I get older and feeble to being shot down
in my prime.
> > "Regarding animals
> > and vegetables being entirely different - as if you need someone
> > to point this out to you. As far as we can see, we can observe
> > how different an
> > animal is to a plant with regards to amount of sentience. "
> >
> > it's not that i don't recognize the difference between animals
> > and plants. the point is that plants have every much of a "right"
> > to live as do animals. they may not have a brain, sentience as
> > you call it or a mouth to voice their opinions but it's
> > self-evident that plants have a vested interested in continuing
> > to live. the evidence is in their self-defense mechanisms like
> > poisonous resins to ward off harmful insects and many other ways.
Biology=vested interest in survival. Society=vested interest in survival
of the genotypes most like yours. Other animals are genetically more
like me than plants. I see no conflict here.
I've already disavowed the whole "rights" thing, so the above pretty
much sums up my answer.
> > so when you eat a carrot you should be fully aware that you took
> > the life of an animate object that would've resisted being eaten
> > if only it could. iow, eating that carrot did nothing whatsoever
> > for that carrot's well-being.
It is not about some abstract concept of "rights". It is about a
personal respect for existence, and a choice to make the least harmful
decisions that do the greatest good. I don't cultivate nor mourn the
hair I lose, the bacteria in my mouth, or the skin I shed, either.
Carrots are not beings. They don't think. My respect isn't for life, per
se, it is for the ability to make decisions.
> > "A friend who used to regularly eat excessive amounts of meat
> > turned veggie after this experience:..."
> >
> > well, good for him. by his dropping out of the market he's done
> > his small part to drive down the price of beef which makes it
> > more affordable for me. again, in an ideal world no animal would
> > have to suffer for my sake. but i don't live there yet. maybe
> > some day they'll be able to grow t-bone steaks in labs with no
> > bone or gristle. when that happens i'll vote with my dollars.
> > "Basically, treat others the way you'd like to be treated
> > yourself... Let's not be their captors. Let's be their friends."
> >
> > aw, please pass the kleenex cuz i'm all choked up!
Nothing here worth commenting on, except perhaps the obvious= Ras is no
economist.
Cat
David N. Harrison
>Well... item by item...
>
>Huria wrote:
>>
>> rasiel posted this in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>> what do other vegans think about these comments?
>> rasiel <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:12ff9a62...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
>> > "Who says veggie people would not want these animals to live? The
>> > difference is we would want those animals to live to the end of
>> > their natural
>> > lives, not by murdering them first."
>
>I missed a few posts (they keep expiring faster and faster- another good
>reason to discourage crossposting, BTW), but this sounds like a response
>to the old "if you don't eat them, they'll never be concieved- veggies
>must hate animals!" argument. Obviously, if an animal is never born,
>nothing is lost to it... I hardly find this kind of bent logic worth
>responding to. If every potentialiy existed simultaneously, this
>wouldn't be the universe, it would be the multiverse. You can't deny
>life to a being not in existence.
You can only deny life to a being not in existence.
>> > i'm with you that this is one of the lamer arguments proposed for
>> > justifying the killing of animals for food. the quality of life
>> > for chickens or cows or whatever bred specifically to end up at
>> > the dinner table must be terrible. and, personally, if i had the
>> > choice of living that life or not living at all i'd choose the
>> > latter.
>
>It is, and it's too bad. I do believe animals probably could be raised,
>bred, and slaughtered humanely- I also believe they typically aren't.
I am in favor of improving animal welfare, not eliminating the
animals instead.
It will be at some point.
> However, the
>offense to my sensibilities would be if my death occured due to the
>deliberate decision-making of someone else... particularly if it were
>entirely avoidable. If someone slits my throat today, should I be
>grateful since I might have died of cancer next year?
>
>> > it could even be argued that if you were a deer and given the
>> > choice of being shot or disemboweled by wolves you'd pick the
>> > bullet. or if you were a chicken you'd probably prefer being
>> > beheaded after a stun bath than being chewed on by another
>> > animal.
>
>Apparently the writer and I disagree on this point. I don't even
>consider the hypothetical preference to be an issue. If we are going to
>anthropomorphise, however, and time-travel as well, I absolutely prefer
>being devoured by wolves when I get older and feeble to being shot down
>in my prime.
Nonhuman predators kill more baby animals and pregnant females
than human hunters do.
>> > "Regarding animals
>> > and vegetables being entirely different - as if you need someone
>> > to point this out to you. As far as we can see, we can observe
>> > how different an
>> > animal is to a plant with regards to amount of sentience. "
>> >
>> > it's not that i don't recognize the difference between animals
>> > and plants. the point is that plants have every much of a "right"
>> > to live as do animals. they may not have a brain, sentience as
>> > you call it or a mouth to voice their opinions but it's
>> > self-evident that plants have a vested interested in continuing
>> > to live. the evidence is in their self-defense mechanisms like
>> > poisonous resins to ward off harmful insects and many other ways.
>
>Biology=vested interest in survival. Society=vested interest in survival
>of the genotypes most like yours. Other animals are genetically more
>like me than plants. I see no conflict here.
>
>I've already disavowed the whole "rights" thing, so the above pretty
>much sums up my answer.
>
>> > so when you eat a carrot you should be fully aware that you took
>> > the life of an animate object that would've resisted being eaten
>> > if only it could. iow, eating that carrot did nothing whatsoever
>> > for that carrot's well-being.
>
>It is not about some abstract concept of "rights". It is about a
>personal respect for existence,
Existence is what veg*ns do not contribute to.
Tricia
"David N. Harrison"
is literally cutting and pasting all his outpourings
from another ng.
D'you think, if we ALL ask him nicely, he'll go
read the replies he got at the time <grin>?
David
What are you talking about Tricia? If there are
replies in ngs which I haven't read, I'd like to see
them.
Kaimyn Ressik
--
-Kaimyn Ressik
While in the vicinity, please adhere to the following rules... No swimming,
swearing, laughing, crying, talking out of turn, line dancing, moose
calling, sword play, pumpkin carving, mummified cat juggling, wallowing in
your own self pity, circumstantial evidence, walking on the grass, pancakes
on monday, dessert until you eat your vegetables, balloon animals, and
absolutely, positively, no barking like a seal. It upsets me!
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:39185A99...@email.unc.edu...
>
>
> steve wrote:
> >
> > eating meat or 'being veggie' does not make someone healthy, that's
true. you
> > become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie and
watch your
> > diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and watch
your diet.
>
> In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
> that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
> forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
>
> Nothing resembling what you just said has ever been proven as far as I
> know. Not only does it lack logic, it reflects a very popular trend
> among newsgroup posters to post their beliefs as facts. If it is a
> belief, designate it as such, please. If it is a fact, back it up.
>
> > many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet' to
achieve
> > greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
>
> Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
> actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> you will have to document.
>
MLM
>
> Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
[...]
FitWell
>
>Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
>only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
>
>If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
Come now, MLM, that is a non sequitur. If that were so, then it would
follow that the reverse would be true. (i.e., all levels of
substance uses/abuses are very common practices; is all of this based
in common sense?) Such a statement is not valid.
Pls tell me what ng you are writing from? It is obvious that you are
anti-vegetarianism, which is fine. It just makes one wonder, however,
which one of the groups being x-posted to above you are in (and
obviously not in alt.food.veg.live).
One last item, I find the second sentence in your first paragraph
disturbing and I wish clarification - there is no validity in the
vegetarianism practiced other than by western countries?
Cheers everyone!!
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Many of you know the vegan/vegetarian sites; if you're curious about
raw/living foodism ones (vegetarianism, not animal products), here are
3:
http://www.living-foods.com/
http://www.rawtimes.com/index.html
http://www.livingnutrition.com/
(there are others; a web search brings links up.)
MLM
>
> >> Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
> >
> >Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
> >only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
> >
> >If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
>
> Come now, MLM, that is a non sequitur. If that were so, then it would
> follow that the reverse would be true. (i.e., all levels of
> substance uses/abuses are very common practices; is all of this based
> in common sense?) Such a statement is not valid.
Very good - you get the point - Kaimyn Ressik's "common sense"
statement was not valid.
> Pls tell me what ng you are writing from?
I've told you before - you seem quite selective in the posts you
read.
> It is obvious that you are
> anti-vegetarianism, which is fine.
I am a vegetarian.
> It just makes one wonder, however,
> which one of the groups being x-posted to above you are in (and
> obviously not in alt.food.veg.live).
>
> One last item, I find the second sentence in your first paragraph
> disturbing and I wish clarification - there is no validity in the
> vegetarianism practiced other than by western countries?
You find your inference disturbing, not my statement - I did not
make the claim you assert.
[...]
lilweed
[..]
> I am a vegetarian.
You seem rather selective in what you say Martin,
you really should tell that it's not by choice.
MLM
[...]
> If that were so, then it would
> follow that the reverse would be true.
Not all dogs are poodles Fitwell.
[...]
MLM
WTF does that matter? Am I somehow unpure?
Get over it Lilweed - I am a vegetarian whether or not you like
it.
I do have other choices BTW.
FitWell
>> >
>> >Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
>> >only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
>> >
>> >If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
>>
>> Come now, MLM, that is a non sequitur. If that were so, then it would
>> follow that the reverse would be true. (i.e., all levels of
>> substance uses/abuses are very common practices; is all of this based
>> in common sense?) Such a statement is not valid.
>
>Very good - you get the point - Kaimyn Ressik's "common sense"
>statement was not valid.
I see. It really looked like your point MLM.
>> Pls tell me what ng you are writing from?
>
>I've told you before - you seem quite selective in the posts you
>read.
No, just in a hurry. I only slip into this ng when I have a moment,
like now.
>> It is obvious that you are
>> anti-vegetarianism, which is fine.
>
>I am a vegetarian.
That is interesting.
>> It just makes one wonder, however,
>> which one of the groups being x-posted to above you are in (and
>> obviously not in alt.food.veg.live).
>>
>> One last item, I find the second sentence in your first paragraph
>> disturbing and I wish clarification - there is no validity in the
>> vegetarianism practiced other than by western countries?
>
>You find your inference disturbing, not my statement - I did not
>make the claim you assert.
The language structure completely infers otherwise. Thank you for
clarifying.
FitWell
>> follow that the reverse would be true.
>
Exactly. You understood the point.
MLM
[...]
> >You find your inference disturbing, not my statement - I did not
> >make the claim you assert.
>
> The language structure completely infers otherwise.
Don't blame me for what YOU chose to read into the statement.
[...]
MLM
Fitwell - I get the impression you missed it completely. If all
poodles are dogs, it does not follow that all dogs are poodles
("if that were true, then it would follow that the reverse would
be true")
Your logic is faulty, the reverse is not necessarily true. To
make it perfectly clear - That's the point of "not all dogs are
poodles" (your statement would mean that all dogs are poodles).
The reverse of a statement (all poodles are dogs) does not
automatically follow (all dogs are poodles is incorrect).
MLM
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2000 16:38:49 -0700, MLM <stout.@brew-master.com>
> wrote:
>
[...]
> >Don't blame me for what YOU chose to read into the statement.
> >
> >[...]
>
> Fair enough (you should be careful of your grammar, however, otherwise
> other such misinterpretations will occur with other people).
Excuse me?
I write: "Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
only around 1% of the population of most western countries?"
you respond with: "there is no validity in the vegetarianism
practiced other than by western countries?"
And you are claiming that your false interpretation is a result
of *my* grammar?
Give me a break - my statement is accurate - your interpretation
is a non sequitur.
MLM
[...]
> <whoosh...> that was the sound of something overhead, MLM...
>
> Re-read my post. I think you need to.
Feel free to lay it out. YOU are, in effect, claiming that all
dogs are poodles.
[...]
BIG ONE
Weirdo - U'r scaring the children
FitWell
wrote:
>FitWell wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >You find your inference disturbing, not my statement - I did not
>> >make the claim you assert.
>>
>> The language structure completely infers otherwise.
>
FitWell
wrote:
<whoosh...> that was the sound of something overhead, MLM...
Re-read my post. I think you need to.
Anyhoo, as mentioned, I need to leave, so cheers everyone!!
Kaimyn Ressik
--
-Kaimyn Ressik
"I am the new ruler of this world. The era of my reign draws near!" -Mewtwo
MLM <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote in message
news:39255109...@brew-master.com...
> Kaimyn Ressik wrote:
> >
> > Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
>
> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
> only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
>
> If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
>
>
>
> [...]
>
Paul Groves
"MLM" <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote in message
news:39255109...@brew-master.com...
> Kaimyn Ressik wrote:
> >
> > Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
>
> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
> only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
Actually its more like 10% (and growing) in the UK, and *much* higher than
that for under 30s...
> If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
er... it *is* for the majority of the world's population (not everyone
live's in "the west", and just because the west is rich does not mean its
eating habits are healthy). There are aslo plenty of societies that whilst
not 100% vegetatian only eat meat on special occasions - even in the west,
eating meat *everyday* is a relatively new concept (since the middle of this
century), , and is only possible because of cruel factory farming methods
(and even then it has to be subsidised...).
Anyway, rant over! :-)
Paul
M
by 5.000 every single week
Donna Schakelaar
Chicken and beef - hormones, antibiotics used in growth promotion
Pork - probably the same [haven't looked into that one]
Fish - being over fished by huge factory boats.
Milk - lots of people are lactose intolerant and there are
plenty of milk alternatives.
Crocodile - what else has it eaten?
Buffalo - need to watch for parasites. Tastes great but hard to
find.
Kangaroo - great meat. Watch for parasites. Need to consider the
ethics of mass hunting of wild animals on a commercial basis.
This is not the product of a weekend hunting trip.
There are lots of good consumer reasons not to eat meat because
the various industries have changed dramatically in the past 30
years. I don't like feed lots, being a believer in paddocks, so
as an omnivore I stay away from grain fed animals.
Actually even being omnivorous I rarely eat meat simply because
it is not good value for money and my favourite butcher closed
down and the supermarket meat is a joke.
I believe in quality food amd preferably in organic form.
I rather eat vegetarian/vegan than expose myself to crap.
And I haven't even started on the health arguments...
Tricia
> > Kaimyn Ressik wrote:
> >
> > Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
>
> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet
practiced by
> only around 1% of the population of most western
countries?
17% in Holland a couple of years ago.
MLM
[...]
> You refute vegetarianism with the erroneous statement that if
> something was common sense, it would be common practice
I have yet to see you produce an example where this is
incorrect. You produced an example of the reverse and that is
not an appropriate rebuttal.
> (thereby using
> the same argument inherently wrong in 'all poodles are dogs;
> therefore, all dogs are poodles' - a common example of this type of
> error, as you know).
Your logic is flawed. I was not refuting vegetarianism but the
claim that "the practice of 'watching your diet' to achieve
greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat."
IOW, you are building a strawman argument here.
But nevertheless, I wrote the equivalent of 'all poodles are
dogs'. And that's it. No more, no less.
YOU continue to produce the equivalent of 'It's wrong because
all dogs are not poodles' as if that somehow makes my statement
incorrect.
> Further in my response, you refer to the phrase,
> >("if that were true, then it would follow that the reverse would
> >be true");
You are effectively writing 'If all poodles were dogs, then it
would follow that all dogs are poodles.' That's YOUR statement
put into the lexicon. THAT is the statement where YOU are
attempting to use the reverse.
IOW, YOU are the one who is attempting to say that all dogs are
poodles. This reverse would not necessarily true. (as you have
been trying to claim.)
> in the conditional words "if" and "then" in the above statement, note
> what role "if" plays (again, we both agreed that all dogs are not
> poodles).
You are the one who brought in the claim that the reverse would
be true - YOU are the one who turned all dogs into poodles.
> For a second time you concur that the statement you originally made
> in:
> >If it was common sense, it would be common practice.
>
> is incorrect (proof being given in but one example, that of substance
> use/abuse - very common practice but not [based on] common sense).
And once again you demonstrate that YOU are the one turning all
dogs into poodles. YOU are the one attempting to reverse the
statement in an attempt to show that my statement is wrong. Look
at the order of the statement - my reads A - B, yours reads B -
A (where A is 'common sense' and B is 'common practice')
You are attempting to refute the notion that common sense is not
common practice by noting a common practice that may not be
common sense. To refute my statement, you have to show
something that truly is common sense that is not a common
practice and not the reverse as you've been trying to do all
along.
IOW, if you want to show that all poodles are not dogs, then you
have to produce a poodle that is not a dog. All you've done is
produce a dog that is not a poodle.
> Now, MLM, this is called shooting oneself in one's own foot with one's
> own gun...
And you are doing it by constantly arguing the reverse.
I've said - If A, then B
You've said - If B, then A
IOW, you reversed the statement.
> Your statement above reproduced here:
>
> >Your logic is faulty, the reverse is not necessarily true. To
> >make it perfectly clear - That's the point of "not all dogs are
> >poodles" (your statement would mean that all dogs are poodles).
> >The reverse of a statement (all poodles are dogs) does not
> >automatically follow (all dogs are poodles is incorrect).
>
> Exactly.
Exactly - you have no clue? YOU are the one who brought in the
reverse statement. YOU are the one who is attempting to claim
that all dogs are poodles. WTF are you trying to point out? That
you will contradict yourself multiple times in a post?
Are you now admitting that your statement ("if that were true,
then it would follow that the reverse would be true") was wrong?
I write, all poodles are dogs.
You come along and write "if that were true, then it would
follow that the reverse would be true"
IOW, you are claiming that all dogs are poodles.
All poodles are dogs. You write "if that were true,..." Yes, it
is true. So your second part "then it would follow that the
reverse would be true" falls apart as all dogs are not poodles.
Feel free to continue to go around in circles but it is
perfectly clear as to who reversed the statement. It was you who
wrote - "if that were true, then it would follow that the
reverse would be true". As soon as you did that, you are the
person who, in effect, started arguing that all dogs are
poodles.
And please refrain from putting words into my mouth in the
future. Your style ill-suits me.
Mika-Petri Lauronen
>> >
>> > Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
>>
>> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
>> only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
>
course the fact that in non-western countries (which consists of about
80% of the people in the world), the amount is much bigger. I think
there are hundreds of millions of non-meaters in the world. I cannot
picture that as a fringe diet.
*******************************************************
* Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. -- YODA -- *
*******************************************************
Mika-Petr...@oulu.fi
Mika-Petri Lauronen
>news:39255109...@brew-master.com...
>> Kaimyn Ressik wrote:
>> >
>> > Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
>>
>> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
>> only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
>
in the western world (which means about 20% of world population)
Thus: what is the point of drinking milk?
Eating beef is also a fringe diet, mostly practiced in Argentina and
the western countries.
Thus: what is the point of eating beef?
Driving cars is a fringe habit, mostly practiced in the western
countries.
Thus: what is the point of driving cars?
Speaking English is a fringe habit, practiced by less than 30% of the
world population.
Thus: what is the point of speaking English?
Excuse my sarcasm...
Paul Groves
"Mika-Petri Lauronen" <Mika-Petr...@oulu.fi> wrote in message
news:392a3996...@news.oulu.fi...
> >> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
> >> only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
> >
> course the fact that in non-western countries (which consists of about
> 80% of the people in the world), the amount is much bigger. I think
> there are hundreds of millions of non-meaters in the world.
Most of India for a start (population 1 billion and rising...)
Paul
Wayne
the one before), I have been trying to get this sort of substantiated info
for a few months without any luck, these figures are far higher than
anything I have yet seen (usually 2-4% of population). I need the info for a
business plan by the way - as I said this isn't a troll.
M <M...@bogmyrtle.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8gbr82$11j$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Paul Groves
"Donna Schakelaar" <donnasch...@octa4.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:1e482586...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> As well as...
>
> Chicken and beef - hormones, antibiotics used in growth promotion
> Pork - probably the same [haven't looked into that one]
> Fish - being over fished by huge factory boats.
and quite probably fished from heavily polluted seas (e.g. for the UK, the
North Sea...) or factory farmed (e.g. salmon) and given growth hormones
> Milk - lots of people are lactose intolerant and there are
> plenty of milk alternatives.
and the hormones/antibiotic thing again...
Paul
Soren Dayton
> >"MLM" <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote in message
> >news:39255109...@brew-master.com...
> >> Kaimyn Ressik wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Dude, shut up! It's common sense!
> >>
> >> Really? Then why is vegetarianism a fringe diet practiced by
> >> only around 1% of the population of most western countries?
> >
> Another thing: milk drinking is also a fringe diet, mostly practiced
> in the western world (which means about 20% of world population)
> Thus: what is the point of drinking milk?
well. You did forget about India and lots of Africa. And large
portions of the Middle East and Central Asia. Probably over half the
world.
> Driving cars is a fringe habit, mostly practiced in the western
> countries.
Wrong! Mostly practiced by the rich!
> Thus: what is the point of driving cars?
Soren
MLM
>
> This isn't a troll, but where are these figures coming from? (this post and
> the one before), I have been trying to get this sort of substantiated info
> for a few months without any luck, these figures are far higher than
> anything I have yet seen (usually 2-4% of population). I need the info for a
> business plan by the way - as I said this isn't a troll.
Various published research and polls shows a couple of items -
The percentage of people who claim they are vegetarian has
hovered around 5% for the past few decades.
The percentage of people who don't eat meat has been pretty much
at 1% for the past few decades.
> M <M...@bogmyrtle.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8gbr82$11j$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > There are over 5.000.000 vegetarians in United Kingdom and its increasing
> > by 5.000 every single week
In the UK, the 1999 RealEat poll shows a decline over the
previous year. The BSE scare has passed.
MLM
>
> "Mika-Petri Lauronen" <Mika-Petr...@oulu.fi> wrote in message
> news:392a3996...@news.oulu.fi...
> > Well, the 1% has been corrected by many other people. Then there's of
> > course the fact that in non-western countries (which consists of about
> > 80% of the people in the world), the amount is much bigger. I think
> > there are hundreds of millions of non-meaters in the world.
>
> Most of India for a start (population 1 billion and rising...)
That's a myth. From what I've seen - vegetarians do not make-up
a majority of the population in India.
[...]
Vicky Conlan
Wayne <wa...@welshnet.co.uk> wrote:
>This isn't a troll, but where are these figures coming from? (this post and
>the one before), I have been trying to get this sort of substantiated info
>for a few months without any luck, these figures are far higher than
>anything I have yet seen (usually 2-4% of population). I need the info for a
>business plan by the way - as I said this isn't a troll.
I'm pretty sure that the "10%" was announced as a filler on a
news programme (News at Ten, or something similar) a few years
back. Since then I've seen it touted in lots of places.
Of course, if it's "10% of people in the UK call themselves
vegetarian", you only have to look a couple of threads back to
see the problem with that kettle of fish (or carrots, or maybe
even chicken)
--
UK Competitions: http://uk.comps.org/
Hourly prizes via freewin: http://comps.org/freewin.html
George Russell
> Of course, if it's "10% of people in the UK call themselves
> vegetarian", you only have to look a couple of threads back to
> see the problem with that kettle of fish (or carrots, or maybe
> even chicken)
"some 7%" of the UK population is vegetarian.
http://www.vegsoc.org/news/2000/21cv/introduction.html
Unfortunately it isn't clear where this figure comes from or what
they mean by vegetarian.
The Vegetarian Resource Group arrives at a figure for the US of
2.5%
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/poll2000.htm
Philosophically defining a vegetarian seems to me quite hard, because
there are a number of things some vegetarians worry about and others don't.
For example, rennet in cheese, isinglass in beer, gelatine in medically
prescribed capsules and so on. I suppose all these can be avoided but
I don't imagine that all those who claim never to eat meat actually do
avoid them. I still don't know whether some hens eggs I ate some months
ago were vegetarian or not; I was told that the slightly odd taste was
caused because the hens, being free-range, scratched around in the yard
and munched up the odd beetle. I wonder whether these eggs would still
qualify for the Vegetarian Society logo?
Vicky Conlan
are any more or less vegetarian. They are eggs. They are vegetarian.
They are not vegan. Whether someone wants to put an ethical slant
to it and say it's "bad" to eat battery hens, that's fine. That's
entirely up to them. But 'vegetarian'ism is not in the least
effected by the living conditions of the chickens.
Same with milk. Milk could be taken as a surplus from happy healthy
cows with lots of little cows. Alternately, the baby cows could be
slaughetered and sold for veal. Unless the cow is slaughtered and
_put into the milk_, the milk is still vegetarian.
Etc.
(And I can't imagine there is any possible taste difference between
free range and battery eggs, although I'm willing to admit, my sense
of taste isn'tt he most established in the world)
From a vegetarian that doesn't eat rennet, gelatine, or isinglas
when she notices it, but has been known to turn a blind eye on
occasions when she suspects she won't like to find what's in her
beer.
BIG ONE
> The percentage of people who claim they are vegetarian has
> hovered around 5% for the past few decades.
> The percentage of people who don't eat meat has been pretty much
> at 1% for the past few decades.
Where i live (In my house) it's 50% vegan (me) & 50% veg the dog
Donna Schakelaar
>(And I can't imagine there is any possible taste difference
between
>free range and battery eggs, although I'm willing to admit, my
sense
>of taste isn'tt he most established in the world)
>
the things anyway, but freerange eggs most decidedly have a
different taste. Homegrown freerange eggs have a different taste
again - ie they HAVE taste thanks to all of the insects polished
off by the little darlings. My chooks potter around the house
foraging all day as well as getting their chook feed. I won't
touch bought eggs now which is the reason I would rather use an
egg substitute when my chooks are off the lay.
BTW they are at no risk of being table birds...they have names
so noone has the heart to kill them.
Donna [and FourPack, Droopy, DirtyPants and OWC]
Tricia
> Mika-Petr...@oulu.fi (Mika-Petri
Lauronen) writes:
>
>
> Thus: what is the point of driving cars?
>
I'd re-cycle 'em all tomorrow : 0
amers
things many of us do in our daily practices are considered "fringe". For
starters, I'm 4'11" with my shoes on, several standard deviations away from
the average height for a healthy female. Doesn't bother me except when I
have to shorten pants. I took five years to finish college; the expected
time frame is four years.....I don't know what the average is. Maybe I'm
being trite, but the only thing I see the percentage-of-population stats
being good for is to get companies to cater to us more. I think the fact
that more people, regardless of whether the *never* eat meat or not, want
more meatless food choices has already started to have an effect in the
market. Maybe the number might make you feel like you're part of a great
movement, but when you come right down to it, you should eat what you feel
is the best diet for *you*, regardless of what other people are doing.
Just my two cents.
-Amy
MLM
> > FitWell wrote:
> > > You refute vegetarianism with the erroneous statement that if
> > > something was common sense, it would be common practice
> > I have yet to see you produce an example where this is
> > incorrect.
> I believe it is 'common sense' (as yet undefined) to not destroy the
> planet on which you live; however, current humanity, from aborigine with
> only fire and the sharpened edge to the most insane technomonster global
> corporation, is doing just that as we watch it on color TV. Human beings
> are causing the extinction of species at a rate not know since the
> 65,000,000 year ago dino extinction.
> All previous attempts at civilization rose, peaked, and ultimately
> obliterated themselves, generally because of destructive agricultural
> practices and overpopulation. This time, the rise, peak, and fall will be
> much sharper, because of the multiplicatively destructive effects of a
> greed-driven technocracy gone mad.
> It is 'common sense' not to do this, but this is the history of various
> civilizations, to date.
> Is it not only 'common sense' to not kill your own species; however, the
> human is the only one that has been attacking and killing its own for at
> least the entirety of its recorded history.
> The problem is that 'common sense' is not so common in a global culture
> based on greed. Civilizations based on greed can not stand.
> This is common sense, at least to me.
Curious rant. But what does it have to do with vegetarianism?
[...]