Re: Setting the record straight...

[Guest guest]

>

> Fifth, I don't believe in covering my mouth when I yawn – to me

it's " not " rude.

>

>but if it is to OTHERS...shouldn't you reconsider?

[Guest guest]

On 7/12/05, richard s <grabbeeproduct@...> wrote:

>

> First, I am a member of Westin Price and believe in most of the research

> documented in his book - I find it funny that someone noted him because they

> thought I was clueless.

Ok, I apologize for making assumptions about with what work you are familiar.

> Second, I eat meat and vegetables - I never once said I was a vegetarian -

> reread my earlier posts.

I was wondering, and didn't make assumptions here. I honestly missed

quite a few of the posts because of the subject lines. It wasn't till

one said " reply to Heidi/MEAT-EATING " that I noticed the topic of

meat-eating was discussed, and after that I read the other's that were

marked " reply to... " that were posted around the same time.

> Fourth, I believe in a balance between meat and vegans - I am somewhere in

> the middle. For the more simple minds they see in black and white, I see in

> many colors and various shades.

Doesn't everyone who eats meat believe in a balance on the spectrum

between " all-meat " and " all-vegetables " ? In fact, they only people

who DON'T believe in such a balance are vegans!

Anyway, since you are familiar with Price's work, you are, then, aware

that some non-rich, non-modernized societies ate very large amounts of

meat, that rival, some of which surpass, our modern society? And you

are familiar with the fact that all the " sacred foods " of Price's

subjects were animal products? And you are familiar with the fact

that when animal foods were limited, they were prized? (All this

contrary to what you were arguing previously?)

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

>First, I am a member of Westin Price and believe in most of the research

documented in his book - I find it funny that someone noted him because they

thought I was clueless.

>

Are you a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation? Perhaps I did make

an assumption. But when you post things that recycle old, fallacious

vegan arguments, then it appears you are advocating a vegetarian, non

WAPF-friendly paradigm, as is quite plain by what you wrote originally.

richard s wrote:

-----------------------------------

>I agree with you that most Americans are living in " Disneyland "

concerning many issues facing this country. However, I disagree with

everything you wrote in your post. Vegetarians and PETA folks are " not "

divorced from reality. First, vegetarians have chosen a diet that works

for them and the added benefit to the world is that these vegetarians

" do not " place high demands on our environment to consume animal

products - animal products take enormous energy to bring to the market

for human consumption. I welcome " more " not less vegetarians in this

world. Second, PETA is for the human treatment of animals - again, this

is something I certainly welcome more of in this cruel inhumane world of

ours. I totally back what PETA stands for and we need " more " people not

less to join PETA.

>

>You wrote: " So, I think the current rise in vegetarianism is an

offshoot of our rather " rich " life in this country. " My reply: When a

country is developed and " rich " , they desire meats, and lots of them!

You could not be more wrong, ok.

>

---------------------------

, animals aren't human, so they should not be treated as such.

Cats are not vegans, yet PeTA advocates feeding this obligate carnivore

an improper diet. PeTA kills animals, as I already noted. With all of

their income, you'd think they could start a sanctuary for unwanted animals.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > Fifth, I don't believe in covering my mouth when I yawn – to me

> it's " not " rude.

> >

> >but if it is to OTHERS...shouldn't you reconsider?

As a foreigner, I may have missed any specious connotation in this

yawning thing. But as a matter of fact, I have to agree with .

Ok, definitions of rudeness vary from person to person, but I think

that it is better here to look for a global definition, that is, a

definition in terms of your own society. In my country at least, it

is extremely inelegant for any person to yawn before an interlocutor

and not to apologize immediately. It is a clear sign that you are

bored. No problem if you are, but there are more subtle ways to show

it. This has nothing to do with hypocrisy or dull formalities, but

with following the basic rules of the group. I love the human body,

but this doesn't mean that I will accept the sight of naked bodies on

a busy street and pretend nothing is happening. I am using an extreme

example here, but the point is, as put it, we can't ignore the

other. Rudeness is more than a personal isolated definition, it

happens or not when you are relating to someone else or to a group.

You are not free to do whatever you want and put on a pretty face.

That is the price you pay if you want to belong to the group.

Idiosyncrasies can be tolerated up to a certain point. Beyond that,

it is irreverence, and irreverence, as I see it, is for the stage.

This is my opinion. Maybe I am too old a man to be totally liberal. I

appreciate codes, you know, but I can be very amusing in any circle

and I am often amused by friendly people, despite the codes, and

maybe because of them.

I for one wouldn't probably talk a second time to a person who once

yawned before me and didn't excuse him/herself. Maybe

wouldn't mind. Unless it was a child, but then again children usually

fall asleep very quickly, often even before they are able to yawn.

JC

[Guest guest]

S said

> > Fifth, I don't believe in covering my mouth when I yawn - to me

> it's " not " rude.

That doesn't surprise me at all after reading your posts. Apparently your

idea of what is rude is very different than most people's.

Just so you know there are a LOT of people who lurk or only have the time or

energy to post every so often. I, personally, love to see what's going on

with the vibrant and intelligent people on this board every day. It's

really a bummer to see the kind of nastiness you have been perpetuating.

Please take a moment to consider what you are writing and how much

negativity you are spreading around.

Thank you.

Kim

p.s. Sorry if I am also spreading a little negativity but I just felt

something should be said.

[Guest guest]

[ wrote]> > Fourth, I believe in a balance between meat and

vegans - I am somewhere in

> > the middle. For the more simple minds they see in black and

white, I see in

> > many colors and various shades.

>

[wrote] Doesn't everyone who eats meat believe in a balance on

the spectrum

> between " all-meat " and " all-vegetables " ? In fact, they only people

> who DON'T believe in such a balance are vegans!

>

Well, maybe vegans are the most blatant example of this " imbalance " ,

but there are other groups of dieters who are so to say very heavy on

the other end of the spectrum, that is, they eat mainly meat and

animal by-products, sometimes to the exclusion of almost all plant

foods. I am simply stating a fact. We seem to know the consequences

of veganism, but we have yet to wait for and see the results

(probably better) of the other side of the coin.

José

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Well, maybe vegans are the most blatant example of this " imbalance " ,

> but there are other groups of dieters who are so to say very heavy on

> the other end of the spectrum, that is, they eat mainly meat and

> animal by-products, sometimes to the exclusion of almost all plant

> foods. I am simply stating a fact. We seem to know the consequences

> of veganism, but we have yet to wait for and see the results

> (probably better) of the other side of the coin.

I agree, but to my knowledge these folks are just very far on the

other end of the spectrum, whereas vegans lie on the pole. I'm not

aware of any groups who believe that eating plants is wrong as an

absolute. Vegans believe using animal products is wrong as an

absolute. So to my knowledge, although they are not the only

" extremests, " they are the only camp that does not exist somewhere

*between* the two poles.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Well, maybe vegans are the most blatant example of this " imbalance " ,

> but there are other groups of dieters who are so to say very heavy on

> the other end of the spectrum, that is, they eat mainly meat and

> animal by-products, sometimes to the exclusion of almost all plant

> foods. I am simply stating a fact. We seem to know the consequences

> of veganism, but we have yet to wait for and see the results

> (probably better) of the other side of the coin.

I agree, but to my knowledge, while there are extremists on the other

end of the spectrum, there are no groups who consider eating plant

products to either be morally and ethically wrong, or otherwise not to

be done as an absolute. So, as far as I can see, all dietary camps

like *within* the spectrum of the balance of meat and vegetable,

*except* vegans, who consider eating meat to be wrong as an absolute,

and lie at the pole, not somewhere on the balance.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I agree, but to my knowledge these folks are just very far on the

> other end of the spectrum, whereas vegans lie on the pole. I'm not

> aware of any groups who believe that eating plants is wrong as an

> absolute. Vegans believe using animal products is wrong as an

> absolute. So to my knowledge, although they are not the only

> " extremests, " they are the only camp that does not exist somewhere

> *between* the two poles.

>

>

The Jains.

http://www.ivu.org/congress/2000/jainism.html

" Vegetables and fruits that grow underground (roots of plants) are

prohibited as a general rule. Clearly enough, to procure such

vegetables and fruits, one must pull out the plant from the root, thus

destroying the entire plant, and with it all the other micro organisms

around the root. Fresh fruits and vegetables should be plucked only

when ripe and ready to fall off, or ideally after they have fallen off

the plant. In case they are plucked from the plants, only as much as

required should be procured and consumed without waste. Grains, such

as wheat, rice, maize, beans are obtained when the plants or the pods

are dry and dead. Cutting down of green trees for wood or any other

use is strictly prohibited. "

B.

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> The Jains.

>

> http://www.ivu.org/congress/2000/jainism.html

>

> " Vegetables and fruits that grow underground (roots of plants) are

> prohibited as a general rule. Clearly enough, to procure such

> vegetables and fruits, one must pull out the plant from the root, thus

> destroying the entire plant, and with it all the other micro organisms

> around the root. Fresh fruits and vegetables should be plucked only

> when ripe and ready to fall off, or ideally after they have fallen off

> the plant. In case they are plucked from the plants, only as much as

> required should be procured and consumed without waste. Grains, such

> as wheat, rice, maize, beans are obtained when the plants or the pods

> are dry and dead. Cutting down of green trees for wood or any other

> use is strictly prohibited. "

> B.

I was referring to people who eat only animal products, avoiding plant

foods as an absolute. These people avoid animal products *and some*

plant products as an absolute, correct?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>I think it's very, very hard to be consciously compassionate *and* kill an

>animal for food. Name the cow, watch it grow up, become aware of its

>personality, and then try to kill it. It's a hard ethical choice. Do we

>pretend the cow doesn't have an individual existence? Or do we take it upon

>ourselves to not eat the cow, possibly suffering from health problems?

Amazingly enough, one's mind changes when one DOES have to kill

the animal. I know this one particular hunter .. young " buck " kinda

guy, not who you'd normally think of as kind and considerate and gentle.

But he shoots elk, and cleans them himself, and he gets very

reverential to each animal he kills. It's almost like you hear about the

Native Americans ... he says when you kill an animal you are connected

to it in spirit and it becomes a part of you.

Temple Grandin is probably more connected to cows than most any

human being ... and she designs slaughter houses. Life for a cow

has *always* meant, at the end, being food for some predator.

What I've found is that when you are part of the process, the barriers

between you and the " food " come down in a weird way. It's kind

of like giving birth in reverse ... one moment something is part of " you " and

then it's " other " . After we butchered the second cow it came

to me that it would be ok if our roles were reversed ... and at

some point in the future our roles WILL be reversed, I'll be somebody

else's food, and that's ok. My body has borrowed molecules from a zillion

other creatures and these molecules will belong to a zillion other

creatures ... from dust to dust, or as Carl Sagan would have it, from stars

to stars. I think for the first time in my life I felt I understood death, that

it's ok. Which makes being alive a whole lot more fun and less

fearful.

Anyway, I got over my guilt about " killing things to eat " (even roots, huh?)

when I realized that no matter whoever or whatever you believe to have

designed the universe, " eating other creatures " is very much part

of the fabric of this world, from bacteria on up. What kind of chutzpah

do we have that we feel we can live apart from the fabric of the world?

OTOH I have enough chutzpah that I think " kindness " and " compassion "

are also part of *human* existence, and eating animals doesn't mean

you don't treat them with kindness. Of course I also grew up in

the days of " Old Yeller " ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> I was referring to people who eat only animal products, avoiding plant

> foods as an absolute. These people avoid animal products *and some*

> plant products as an absolute, correct?

Sorry if I misunderstood. I read that you said:

" ...to my knowledge, while there are extremists on the other

end of the spectrum, there are no groups who consider eating plant

products to either be morally and ethically wrong, or otherwise not to

be done as an absolute. So, as far as I can see, all dietary camps

like *within* the spectrum of the balance of meat and vegetable,

*except* vegans, who consider eating meat to be wrong as an absolute,

and lie at the pole, not somewhere on the balance. "

and it seemed to me that the Jains were more at the pole than vegans

since Jains won't eat any plant part that is living/attached to the

plant or disrupts the plant or living organisms in proximity.

never mind.

B.

[Guest guest]

>

> > Well, maybe vegans are the most blatant example of

this " imbalance " ,

> > but there are other groups of dieters who are so to say very

heavy on

> > the other end of the spectrum, that is, they eat mainly meat and

> > animal by-products, sometimes to the exclusion of almost all

plant

> > foods. I am simply stating a fact. We seem to know the

consequences

> > of veganism, but we have yet to wait for and see the results

> > (probably better) of the other side of the coin.

>

> I agree, but to my knowledge, while there are extremists on the

other

> end of the spectrum, there are no groups who consider eating plant

> products to either be morally and ethically wrong, or otherwise not

to

> be done as an absolute. So, as far as I can see, all dietary camps

> like *within* the spectrum of the balance of meat and vegetable,

> *except* vegans, who consider eating meat to be wrong as an

absolute,

> and lie at the pole, not somewhere on the balance.

>

> Chris

Rather than using the word " wrong " , I would in some cases

say " unnecessary " or " inessential " . What I mean is I have often heard

both vegans and vegetarians claim that eating meat or animal products

is unnecessary or inessential, they don't seem concerned

with " wrongness " . The same on the other end of the spectrum: " veggies

ad fruit are not essential, we eat them for just in case, meat gives

us everything. "

José

[Guest guest]

>

> >I think it's very, very hard to be consciously compassionate *and*

kill an

> >animal for food. Name the cow, watch it grow up, become aware of

its

> >personality, and then try to kill it. It's a hard ethical choice.

Do we

> >pretend the cow doesn't have an individual existence? Or do we

take it upon

> >ourselves to not eat the cow, possibly suffering from health

problems?

>

> Amazingly enough, one's mind changes when one DOES have to kill

> the animal. I know this one particular hunter .. young " buck " kinda

> guy, not who you'd normally think of as kind and considerate and

gentle.

> But he shoots elk, and cleans them himself, and he gets very

> reverential to each animal he kills. It's almost like you hear

about the

> Native Americans ... he says when you kill an animal you are

connected

> to it in spirit and it becomes a part of you.

>

> Temple Grandin is probably more connected to cows than most any

> human being ... and she designs slaughter houses. Life for a cow

> has *always* meant, at the end, being food for some predator.

>

> What I've found is that when you are part of the process, the

barriers

> between you and the " food " come down in a weird way. It's kind

> of like giving birth in reverse ... one moment something is part

of " you " and

> then it's " other " . After we butchered the second cow it came

> to me that it would be ok if our roles were reversed ... and at

> some point in the future our roles WILL be reversed, I'll be

somebody

> else's food, and that's ok. My body has borrowed molecules from a

zillion

> other creatures and these molecules will belong to a zillion other

> creatures ... from dust to dust, or as Carl Sagan would have it,

from stars

> to stars. I think for the first time in my life I felt I understood

death, that

> it's ok. Which makes being alive a whole lot more fun and less

> fearful.

>

> Anyway, I got over my guilt about " killing things to eat " (even

roots, huh?)

> when I realized that no matter whoever or whatever you believe to

have

> designed the universe, " eating other creatures " is very much part

> of the fabric of this world, from bacteria on up. What kind of

chutzpah

> do we have that we feel we can live apart from the fabric of the

world?

>

> OTOH I have enough chutzpah that I think " kindness " and " compassion "

> are also part of *human* existence, and eating animals doesn't mean

> you don't treat them with kindness. Of course I also grew up in

> the days of " Old Yeller " ...

>

>

> Heidi Jean

I don't know if this comes from Buddhism or not, but it is a

meditation in which you imagine you are a cow being led to the

slaughterhouse. One question: does the cow forebode she is going to

be killed?

JC

[Guest guest]

>

> I don't know if this comes from Buddhism or not, but it is a

> meditation in which you imagine you are a cow being led to the

> slaughterhouse. One question: does the cow forebode she is going to

> be killed?

>

> JC

And if I may add something, what are the consequences of her

presentiment, if she has one, in terms of the meat we are going to eat?

JC

[Guest guest]

On 7/14/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

>

>

> > I was referring to people who eat only animal products, avoiding plant

> > foods as an absolute. These people avoid animal products *and some*

> > plant products as an absolute, correct?

>

>

> Sorry if I misunderstood. I read that you said:

>

> " ...to my knowledge, while there are extremists on the other

> end of the spectrum, there are no groups who consider eating plant

> products to either be morally and ethically wrong, or otherwise not to

> be done as an absolute. So, as far as I can see, all dietary camps

> like *within* the spectrum of the balance of meat and vegetable,

> *except* vegans, who consider eating meat to be wrong as an absolute,

> and lie at the pole, not somewhere on the balance. "

> and it seemed to me that the Jains were more at the pole than vegans

> since Jains won't eat any plant part that is living/attached to the

> plant or disrupts the plant or living organisms in proximity.

> never mind.

> B.

I would consider them vegan... wouldn't you? I don't think they're

" more " at the pole, since the spectrum we were talking about had

all-meat and all-vegetation at the respective poles, but they're both

on the pole. Seems to me they're just a more specific form of

veganism.

Chris

[Guest guest]

This is how I understand it as well. I think a lot of veganism and

vegetarianism comes from people being so disconnected with what it means to

kill for food. I would like to get to a point where I could kill the cow I

eat. At this point, it would be dishonest. But again, I think that's a

problem with me.

I liked what you said about feeling okay about switching places with the

cow. I myself have no problem with my body being used as food (as long as

I'm done with the body!). I don't want to be cremated or embalmed. I'd

rather my body, which has used its fair share of food for the course of my

life, be given back to the food chain.

I know some people who are pagan reconstructionists. They practice a form

of religion based on what the Romans or Greeks did. Part of classical pagan

religious festivals was the sacrifice of one or more animals. These animals

were not usually burned up in the fire (that was a special case that

happened when people were working with certain gods). Instead, the animals

were made sacred in the ritual, sacrificed, and then eaten in a feast. The

sacred was meal was BBQ!

Some modern reconstructionists have done this as well, actually slaughtering

their own animals in a sacred manner. Other reconstructionists are appalled

by the idea. ly, although I'm not a reconstructionist, I love the

idea. I would like for all our " animals with faces " to be killed this way.

Not necessarily pagan - only pagans would need to do that, but *sacred* and

concious.

YR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Heidi Schuppenhauer

Amazingly enough, one's mind changes when one DOES have to kill

the animal. I know this one particular hunter .. young " buck " kinda

guy, not who you'd normally think of as kind and considerate and gentle.

But he shoots elk, and cleans them himself, and he gets very

reverential to each animal he kills. It's almost like you hear about the

Native Americans ... he says when you kill an animal you are connected

to it in spirit and it becomes a part of you.

[Guest guest]

> I would consider them vegan... wouldn't you? I don't think they're

> " more " at the pole, since the spectrum we were talking about had

> all-meat and all-vegetation at the respective poles, but they're both

> on the pole. Seems to me they're just a more specific form of

> veganism.

You are right, of course. I can miss the most obvious of things. It's

just that they do see eating plant products as morally and ethically

wrong--unless the fruit or grain has fallen off the plant and thus

doesn't do any harm to the plant's well-being--or that of of the

organisms around the plant roots. I've never seen that kind of

concern for plant/soil consciousness in the vegan community. I can see

the whole thing is negligible and I apologize for the distraction.

T

[Guest guest]

>I don't know if this comes from Buddhism or not, but it is a

>meditation in which you imagine you are a cow being led to the

>slaughterhouse. One question: does the cow forebode she is going to

>be killed?

>

>JC

I don't know. It's a good question. Near as I can tell their

minds just don't work that way: they deal with immediate

tactile sensations, not long-term anything. Like with chickens:

they may be " best friends " with another chicken, but if that

chicken dies, they will eat it.

Heidi Jean