Re: Any difference between vegan activists & right-to-lifers?

[Guest guest]

> I've been gone a bit lately because I've been feeling so darned

> healthy. This health seems to be really fine and stayinf around and

I

> finally feel that, 2 years after the fact, this illness will be one

of

> my life's " stories " . yay.

>

> So now I'm trying to catch up on life outside the walls of my

house.

> That means getting out more often into the VERY vegetarian/vegan

> activist community of Sonoma/Marin Counties in Northern

California.

> Apparently we have one of the largest vegetarian activist

(terrorist,

> even) communities in the country and since I've been doing yoga

daily,

> the vast majority of people I'm seeing are either vegan or

vegetarian

> (and are also quite vocal about it..)

>

> As I may have mentioned before, I'm not a reformer. I really don't

> care what anybody does so long as it doesn't interfere with the

lives

> of others. I'm a real big fan of common courtesy. I detest making

laws

> for every little thing.

>

> I think this reformer role may be changing, however, because ever

> since this celiac thing, I seem to be getting royally pissed off by

> people basically telling me I'm a jerk (in so many words,) for

eating

> meat. So I guess I do have an enemy now and that is anyone who trys

to

> tell me what to eat; And they're doing it all the time! I don't

mind

> that people are vegan and they shouldn't mind that I'm an omnivore.

We

> should all just eat in peace.

>

> Ah. But as it turns out it DOES matter because they are speaking

for

> the innocents -- God's creatures who have no voice of their own..

>

> To that end, I just wrote a letter to the editor of the Chronicle

> newspaper here about the vegan activist groups and thought I'd

share

> it with you -- possibly the only friends I have left in the world :-

)

> The paper contained a rather pro-vegan activist article.

>

> Note: I need to point out that the worst thing you can do to a San

> Francisco area cutting edge liberal group like the vegans is to

> compare them to a conservative group. Here's my letter:

>

> " Dear Editor:

> I realize that vegan/vegetarian activists probably feel they're the

> voice of innocent animals when they proselytize and protest the

eating

> of meat, but how are these groups different from the right-to-

lifers

> who feel that they're the voice of unborn babies? It's all about

> choice isn't it? Will someone please explain why, in the Bay

Area,it's

> fashionable to be a Vegan but a social deathwish to be a Moral

> Majority type?

> ~Robin Reese "

>

> FYI, here's the article:

>

> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

> file=/c/a/2005/08/05/PNGILDVEHB1.DTL & type=printable

Hi Robin:

We don't have a very aggressive vegan/vegetarian movement here. I

presume this is the case for the First World rather than the Second

or Third. But I can relate to and sympathize with you. In fact, this

movement is based upon a chain of myths and contradictions (like the

one you mention), you know.

I would say that it is virtually possible to be a vegetarian, but I

am totally sceptic of vegans. If you are a healthy vegan, it is

because either you cheat, or you are right in the beginning of it.

And here lies the kernel of the problem: most of these people are

young and full of idealism. It is very uncommon to find a vegan over

50, maybe you will find a few vegetarians older than 50, but as age

advances, the number decreases quickly.

And because they are young and rebel, there is no way you can talk to

them without stress. I know it is revolting, but if you try, it is

like talking to the deaf. Most of them only need time to realize

their own mistakes.

" Look at what I am doing today. This is what you will be doing

tomorrow, " I would say this, if anything, to those brats.

I hope you'll be able to find some balance again.

Cheers,

José

[Guest guest]

Rather than Progressive, this recent vegetarian activism smacks of

Reactionary. Rather than Liberal, this moral outrage seems ultra

conservative to me.

For example, the latest victory for the vegetarian activists here

was to make it a crime to make or sell foi gras in California.

And I guess the distinction I was trying to make was this: What a

neat trick it is to combine organized (and sometimes destructive)

protests/rebellion with loving kindness. They get it both ways,

right?

Their message is, of course, this: Vegetarians love animals more

than carnivores hence vegetarians are nicer, kinder, better people.

Except for being a Republican party member, there is probably

nothing worse around here than being called a carnivore. I wouldn't

care so much except that it's starting to affect the already rather

limited choices I have in foods when eating away from home.

Around here, vegetarian activists are celebrated when they cause

damage to small food businesses that harvest or prepare animals for

food. These activists are protecting " defenseless animals " and I

imagine that in some circles, right-to-life protesters who cause

damage to abortion clinics might be celebrated in much the same way;

After all, they are protecting the rights of unborn children. So the

distinction I was trying to make was this: Are these completely

different issues? If not, why not? Both are trying to dictate what

others do based on personal moral values.. Aren't both reactionary

in nature?

Obviously, because of my regular yoga practice as well as the absurd

cost of land around here, I'm not exactly among the old salt of the

earth types in this county but it's a shame that healthy activities

like yoga and meditation have to be so permeated with an anti-meat

culture of grains and dairy. It comes up extremely often by young

and old alike. All sorts of events are advertised as serving

only " vegetarian food " . I was told once that is was so they were

sure to attract the " right kind of people " .

I guess with yoga it's the historical connection to India but I

suspect a slightly more sinister cause and that would be " food as a

kind of vanity " . Here's the equation: " I am good (or at least better

than you,) because I spare the flesh of living creatures. "

~Robin

Ps. Welcome back !!! Thanks for the card :-)

[Guest guest]

Robin:

>I think this reformer role may be changing, however, because ever

>since this celiac thing, I seem to be getting royally pissed off by

>people basically telling me I'm a jerk (in so many words,) for eating

>meat. So I guess I do have an enemy now and that is anyone who trys to

>tell me what to eat; And they're doing it all the time! I don't mind

>that people are vegan and they shouldn't mind that I'm an omnivore. We

>should all just eat in peace.

>

>Ah. But as it turns out it DOES matter because they are speaking for

>the innocents -- God's creatures who have no voice of their own..

Well, obviously we're preaching to the choir here, but ... GOOD FOR YOU!

Of course I get told I'm a jerk on a regular basis (even here, and by

my Mom who can't see why I just don't eat the silly hamburger bun)

but being Aspergerish is an advantage in these kind of situations.

You are correct in equating veganism PC

with abortion PC ... both are extreme positions.

Not a bad letter. It really frustrates me (and scares me) that people

are getting so polarized.

I mean, the fact I don't really like bombing

people and I'm believe in protecting the environment means, in

some circles, that I'm a flaming liberal and therefore should be Vegan,

and I've had people flaunt their fur at me like I'm supposed to

protest or something . Gets them confused when I start talking

about cow butchering ... most of those " fur bearers " have never,

ever, been near actual meat processing.

The celiac meetings are interesting because the disease tends to unite

people from all walks of life and political persuasians. It's a very difficult

disease to have if you are committed to veganism!

Vegans are particularly emotional for me too because my Dad was one,

and I'm pretty sure the gluten " fake meat " is what finally

did him in. He ended up with seizures, which as you probably

know are one of the celiac symptoms (he had others too).

I think we need to do a better job of marketing how environmentally

friendly grass fed meat is (not a hard job where I live: the cows are just

sitting there in fairly " natural " fields and it's pretty hard to grow crops here

at the best of

times). But the PETA people put forth what horrid lives such animals

live, and I guess if you live in the city you might believe it. Today from

Salon:

===============================================

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8BV3DO00.html

The animal rights group's " Animal Liberation " campaign included 12 panels

juxtaposing pictures of black people in chains with shackled elephants and other

provocative images.

The Norfolk-based group wrapped up the first leg of the tour in Washington on

Thursday, visiting 17 cities before deciding to put the tour on hold.

" We're not continuing right now while we evaluate, " said Dawn Carr, a PETA

spokeswoman. " We're reviewing feedback we've received -- most of it

overwhelmingly positive and some of it quite negative. "

One panel showed a black civil rights protester being beaten at a lunch counter

beside a photo of a seal being bludgeoned. Another panel, titled " Hanging, "

showed a graphic photo of a white mob surrounding two lynched blacks, their

bodies hanging from tree limbs, while a nearby picture showed a cow hanging in a

slaughterhouse.

=================================================

I really relate to animals, and I don't like to see them suffering. But the

animals I see around here aren't suffering: they live good lives and they are

part of an ecosystem. That ecosystem includes eating ruminants, which have in

fact always been eaten by predators of one sort or another. (I don't think

ruminants in the wild ever die of old age? Might happen if there are not many

predators ... but then there is usually overpopulation and starvation). There

seems to be a common thread on the Right and the Left which is a total lack of

appreciation of both Science and Environment ... people who are living in a

Disneyland world that has no connection to the world as we know it. Probably

comes from living in apartments, never having a garden or animals.

BTW I'm REALLY glad to hear you are feeling " so darned healthy " !

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On 8/13/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> But the PETA people put forth what horrid lives such animals

> live, and I guess if you live in the city you might believe it. Today from

> Salon:

>

> ===============================================

> http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8BV3DO00.html

>

> The animal rights group's " Animal Liberation " campaign included 12 panels

> juxtaposing pictures of black people in chains with shackled elephants and

> other provocative images.

They will stoop to the lowest level to get their point across.

Recently I got into a debate with a vegan spokesperson about Vitamin A

on another list. She quoted articles on studies that " proved " its

toxicity; when I read them, I found that they were referring to

synthetic vitamin A. When I pointed this out, she basically said " Oops

sorry, " but I don't believe she was sorry, and in fact was trying to

malign vitamin A from meat sources any way she could.

As for PETA, have you seen the site, http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ ?

" From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs,

cats, and other " companion animals " -- at its Norfolk, Virginia

headquarters...the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals

it took in during 2003 alone. "

Also:

" Two on PETA staff charged with cruelty to animals "

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87943 & ran=155298 & tref=po

Naomi

[Guest guest]

Marin is also a great place to get great grass-fed beef!

Robin Ann <grainwreck@...> wrote:I've been gone a bit lately because I've

been feeling so darned

healthy. This health seems to be really fine and stayinf around and I

finally feel that, 2 years after the fact, this illness will be one of

my life's " stories " . yay.

So now I'm trying to catch up on life outside the walls of my house.

That means getting out more often into the VERY vegetarian/vegan

activist community of Sonoma/Marin Counties in Northern California.

Apparently we have one of the largest vegetarian activist (terrorist,

even) communities in the country and since I've been doing yoga daily,

the vast majority of people I'm seeing are either vegan or vegetarian

(and are also quite vocal about it..)

As I may have mentioned before, I'm not a reformer. I really don't

care what anybody does so long as it doesn't interfere with the lives

of others. I'm a real big fan of common courtesy. I detest making laws

for every little thing.

I think this reformer role may be changing, however, because ever

since this celiac thing, I seem to be getting royally pissed off by

people basically telling me I'm a jerk (in so many words,) for eating

meat. So I guess I do have an enemy now and that is anyone who trys to

tell me what to eat; And they're doing it all the time! I don't mind

that people are vegan and they shouldn't mind that I'm an omnivore. We

should all just eat in peace.

Ah. But as it turns out it DOES matter because they are speaking for

the innocents -- God's creatures who have no voice of their own..

To that end, I just wrote a letter to the editor of the Chronicle

newspaper here about the vegan activist groups and thought I'd share

it with you -- possibly the only friends I have left in the world :-)

The paper contained a rather pro-vegan activist article.

Note: I need to point out that the worst thing you can do to a San

Francisco area cutting edge liberal group like the vegans is to

compare them to a conservative group. Here's my letter:

" Dear Editor:

I realize that vegan/vegetarian activists probably feel they're the

voice of innocent animals when they proselytize and protest the eating

of meat, but how are these groups different from the right-to-lifers

who feel that they're the voice of unborn babies? It's all about

choice isn't it? Will someone please explain why, in the Bay Area,it's

fashionable to be a Vegan but a social deathwish to be a Moral

Majority type?

~Robin Reese "

FYI, here's the article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

file=/c/a/2005/08/05/PNGILDVEHB1.DTL & type=printable

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive

with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Robin Ann " <grainwreck@g...>

wrote:

.....

> Here's the equation: " I am good (or at least better

> than you,) because I spare the flesh of living creatures. "

>

> ~Robin

Well, as always, I am going to say something that is apparently

disconnected to the point. But as a kid, one of my heroes was

Spartacus. I suppose many of you saw the film starring Kirk . I

didn't see it more than twice, however, which is strange, because when

I like a film, I usually see it until exhaustion. But one sentence that

was probably put at random into Spartacus' mouth (one will never know

if he actually uttered those words or not) was for ever imprinted in my

mind, and I have just recalled them now after I read Robin's equation.

I think Spartacus was trying to reassure his army of slaves now facing

the final battle against the Romans. He says something like this (I

don't remember the actual words):

" You don't worry. Why should you fear a people who is unable to produce

the very food they eat? "

What I want to stress is this: Not being able to produce even a small

part of what my family and I eat rather than deliberately using the

flesh of living animals is what in the first place can make me feel

ashamed and diminished (maybe even a little guilty) before those people

who are able fend for themselves.

I would duly appreciate those vegans and vegetarians if they left their

comfortable positions in town and went back to nature to produce their

own food. I bet they would probably resort to hunting or husbandry

again.

> Ps. Welcome back !!! Thanks for the card :-)

Thanks to you, Robin. You are welcome.

[Guest guest]

>

> ....

>

> > Here's the equation: " I am good (or at least better

> > than you,) because I spare the flesh of living creatures. "

> >

> > ~Robin

Hi

I want to make an addition. The other side of the coin. While it is

true that many vegans and vegetarians openly criticize, disdain or

have an aloof manner towards meat-eaters, we also find people from

other groups who display a similar behaviour. For instance, they may

compare cooked food or grains to poison, which is in a way belittling

those who are for some reason still eating those foods.

José

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>Ah. But as it turns out it DOES matter because they are speaking for

>the innocents -- God's creatures who have no voice of their own..

You might ask those vegan activists what the vast hordes of God's innocent

creatures killed by big agricultural harvesters which are required to feed

them have to say. And you might want to ask how those legions of senseless

killings compare to the comparatively few deaths those of us who eat

grass-fed meat are responsible for.

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Robin-

>

> >Ah. But as it turns out it DOES matter because they are speaking

for

> >the innocents -- God's creatures who have no voice of their own..

>

> You might ask those vegan activists what the vast hordes of God's

innocent

> creatures killed by big agricultural harvesters which are required

to feed

> them have to say. And you might want to ask how those legions of

senseless

> killings compare to the comparatively few deaths those of us who

eat

> grass-fed meat are responsible for.

>

>

>

>

> -

, you are right, but I have been through that before, and I know

what they might respond.

First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental, the

other (slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

Second, that we raise to kill.

Third, that we don't lead a lifestyle to be supported by all that

meat-eating.

And last but not least, they often say carcass instead of meat.

Certainly they want to reduce us by implying that we have bad tastes.

Cheers,

JC

[Guest guest]

-

>, you are right, but I have been through that before, and I know

>what they might respond.

>

>First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental, the

>other (slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

>

>Second, that we raise to kill.

>

>Third, that we don't lead a lifestyle to be supported by all that

>meat-eating.

I'm not sure I understand the third response, but the first one is simply

incorrect. Once it's understood that a given method of harvesting kills a

lot of animals -- many more than are killed by grass-fed animal husbandry

-- it's no longer " accidental " if it is allowed and encouraged to

continue. As to the second, well, yes, but so what?

That said, I'd have little interest in arguing with a really fervent vegan

activist. There's no common ground, and vegan activists are genuinely

incapable of rationally considering any arguments that our species requires

meat. I've already broken my heart innumerable times trying to help people

out of their own private sloughs of despond; why waste my time and energy

on religious zealots?

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >, you are right, but I have been through that before, and I

know

> >what they might respond.

> >

> >First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental, the

> >other (slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

> >

> >Second, that we raise to kill.

> >

> >Third, that we don't lead a lifestyle to be supported by all that

> >meat-eating.

>

> I'm not sure I understand the third response

** Well, they say sedentary civilization doesn't need all the energy

given by meat. (I ask the same question about grains...)

, but the first one is simply

> incorrect. Once it's understood that a given method of harvesting

kills a

> lot of animals -- many more than are killed by grass-fed animal

husbandry

> -- it's no longer " accidental " if it is allowed and encouraged to

> continue.

** Yes, , none is so blind as those who don't want to see.

> As to the second, well, yes, but so what?

** They also raise their crops and then harvest (cut) them, often

with the help of machines, don't they? In a way, they don't avert

cruelty, do they?

> That said, I'd have little interest in arguing with a really

fervent vegan

> activist. There's no common ground, and vegan activists are

genuinely

> incapable of rationally considering any arguments that our species

requires

> meat. I've already broken my heart innumerable times trying to

help people

> out of their own private sloughs of despond; why waste my time and

energy

> on religious zealots?

>

>

>

> -

** All right. I expect you didn't find this debate a waste of your

time, either.

Good night.

JC

[Guest guest]

A little sidenote on this..my CSA farmer " paid " dearly the other day for our

conversation in front of a devout vegan. Went something like this:

Farmer: " So! Sharon! How do you like the pork? " (he's looking at me over

a woman in between us who is collecting her veggies)

Woman Collecting Veggies: (gives a visible shudder, takes a quick glance

at me over her shoulder..)

Me: " Loved it! I've never seen pork so red! Tender! Juicy! Got it all in

the freezer. Didn't know if we had room for half a hog, but we did! " .

Farmer: " Oh, you are going to love that. Wait until you try those ribs -

meat falls off the bone. We made them last night and. "

Woman Collecting Her Veggies: " We're big greens people " . (she readjusts

baby in a sling across her chest, patting its head)

Farmer: " Oh! Oh! Sorry! I forgot. Here! Have another one of those. (grabs

large eggplant). In fact, take two! "

Woman Collecting Her Veggies: " That's very nice " , (throws look over

shoulder at me, one of those up and down looks), " and I was wondering if you

have kale this week " .

Me: " Hi, how are you " (smile on my face)

Farmer: (rushes to refrigerator) " Yes! Big beautiful kale! " .

Woman Collecting Veggies: " Oh, how I love kale. It's my favorite green.

Don't you just love kale, ? " .

Farmer: " Well, to be honest, I'm a Chard man. " (Looks over her shoulder

at me.) " Hey! Sharon! Have you cooked up that chard in a little bit of the

bacon grease from my bacon?! "

Me: " Just did it last week, . Heaven! Threw in some of your

potatoes..lots and lots of bacon fat - the chard - heaven. The kids wolfed

it down. In fact, we had it with your pork chops! " .

Farmer: " Hey! Don't let me forget.. (he pulls a large box out of the

freezer which is next to the refrigerator - opens it, take out a ham hock).

" The smoked part of your pork order is ready to go. I'll carry it to the

car. "

Woman Collecting Veggies: (voice is noticeably higher) " We're big greens

people. BIG greens people. Really, that's all we like..lots and lots of

greens.. "

Farmer: (goes a little pale under the healthy suntan) " Oh! Oh! Forgot!

Hey! ! I keep forgetting you really don't..don't..well, eat meat. "

(searches around his produce then turns back to the refrigerator) " Here!

Kale! Let me just get you some extra here. The heat and the cows have been

killing the greens this summer, but here, take two. No Here. Take three. "

Woman Collecting Veggies: (shifting uncomfortable, voice cool) " Well.

Thank you. I won't turn down more food. "

Farmer: " Good. Well, good. Hey, how's that baby doing. Look. Here's one

of those new squash I was telling you about. It's the only one I have right

now, but take it. Try it. Let me know what you think " .

Woman Collecting Veggies: " Well, if you're sure.. "

Farmer: " The rest of the members will get this next week.. " (he glances

over at me...)

Me: " Can't wait - looks beautiful, . "

My Daughter Appears, Baby-Calf Following Her: " Did you name this calf

yet? "

Farmer: " We're thinking Brisket! "

Daughter: " Oh, that would be a good one! Your boy said I could help feed

the pigs so I did. Is that where our pig came from? "

Farmer: (face lights up) " Yep! And did you see the two big ones? One of

those will probably be your freezer this fall! " .

Daughter: " Cool! I sure wish I lived on your farm... "

Woman Collecting Veggies: (Shakes shoulders like a dog shaking off water -

briskly grabs couple more squash, throws them in her bag.) " Well, gotta go.

Thanks. " (she bolts out of the pick-up area..)

Farmer: (big smile on his face quickly changes to big-eyed-open-mouthed

concern as he watches her briskly walk down the drive..) Oh! Rebekkah.

Yes! Well, I, well, here.look. Did you get a napa? Really good this

summer. Try this napa. " (he follows her out of the pick-up area, grabbing

an extra bag of green beans, too, as he follows her, napa and green beans

down the driveway to her car...)

Just then, another CSA member approached him waving a plastic bag, " ,

I've been meaning to talk to you. Do you recycle these because if you

don't, you really should be... " .

This is only his 2nd year trying the CSA approach..hope he lasts the season

because he sure was mopping his brow when they left...

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

That said, I'd have little interest in arguing with a really fervent vegan

activist. There's no common ground, and vegan activists are genuinely

incapable of rationally considering any arguments that our species requires

meat. I've already broken my heart innumerable times trying to help people

out of their own private sloughs of despond; why waste my time and energy

on religious zealots?

-

[Guest guest]

Sharon, Thanks for the great story! I wanted to read on... felt like I was

right there.... I could just hear it. And, maybe more importantly, I could

SEE the looks the woman was giving you..

You know, when I first moved up to Sonoma County from the SF I worked at a

nature preserve where we taught 3rd and 4th graders in the classroom about

natural science concepts. The kids would come out the next week and get

divided up into groups of 4 or 5 per volunteer and we'd spend almost 4 hours

out in the woods -- far away from the others. We'd talk about what we

learned and do all sorts of experiments. There were so many trails and a

year-round stream -- really wonderful.

We taught concepts like " the water cycle " and " plant communities " and " the

food chain " . Well, as you might imagine, " the food chain caused some

problems with a lot of the volunteers who thought the idea of humans being

listed among the eagles, bears, wolves and owls as " Top Carnivores " was a

little inaccurate and hard to swallow because " it's not nice " and " we know

better " . They'd screw around with the concepts in the field to suit their

purposes and pretty soon kids were coming back spouting the personal

ideologies of the docents with whom they'd hiked..

So I got involved and soon became president of the nature preserve for that

one reason: to keep these people (there were many!) from messing around with

the science aspect of the nature preserve. They were screwing it up! I

figure that kids get preached to enough about recycling (they have to make

up for all their predecessors mistakes of course) and the " big footprint " we

horrible humans make on this planet, etc. I just wanted one little place in

the county where kids could think objectively for a few hours and carry out

simple science experiments. I'm glad to say that I prevailed and got enough

people like myself involved so that we could keep the proselytizing to a

minimum.

It sounds like the gal you mentioned at the co-op would have fit right in

with many of those at my preserve who were trying to create yet another

venue for advocating their personal agenda. It's really hard these days to

keep politics out of natural science!

By the way, it was *shocking* to see the processed crap these 8-9 year-olds

brought to eat for lunch!!! Beyond SAD...

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

> First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental, the

> other (slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

Second, that we raise to kill.

Third, that we don't lead a lifestyle to be supported by all that

meat-eating.

And last but not least, they often say carcass instead of meat.

Certainly they want to reduce us by implying that we have bad tastes.

' ,

What's the difference between deliberately raising animals to kill and

planting a seed to deliberately kill it? Nothing, unless there's a belief in

a hierarchy rather than an equality of purpose for all life forms.

Today's lifestyle doesn't alter away the requirement for meat for any

individual genetically predisposed. Man can and has altered the world

greatly but genes have altered only .002% in 12,000 years.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> -

> >, you are right, but I have been through that before, and I know

> >what they might respond.

> >

> >First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental,

> the other

> >(slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

Isn't that precisely the same argument which the vast majority of them

reject as an excuse for collateral damage in war?

P.S. Deanna: You were right, and I was wrong, about magnetic fields and

alternating current. It turns out that alternating current does produce an

electromagnetic field with the same frequency as the alternation of the

current. Sorry for not acknowledging this sooner.

[Guest guest]

>> >First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental,

>> the other

>> >(slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

>

>Isn't that precisely the same argument which the vast majority of them

>reject as an excuse for collateral damage in war?

>

>

That's a big part of a LOT of the arguments. Including the right-to-lifers

and the " right-to-deathers " too. If a person or fetus dies " of natural causes "

(even if those causes include 60 years of bad diet, living on a floodplain

where no one should be living, skydiving, rock climbing without ropes,

or driving too fast) then the person died because of " the will of God " .

So it's ok. But purposefully taking an overdose of morphine to kill

yourself is suicide, and so wrong. Ditto for vegans: accidental deaths

are ok, purposeful ones are not.

I'm trying to word that without taking sides, just that the " accidental "

part is, as points out, the very crux of the case for all of these.

There is a big philosophical issue here, for me. If you do cause damage

because you are just being an idiot and not paying attention, it's

ok. But if you mindfully do something it's wrong. So it's

better (more moral) to be a mindless idiot.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

>There is a big philosophical issue here, for me. If you do cause damage

>because you are just being an idiot and not paying attention, it's

>ok. But if you mindfully do something it's wrong. So it's

>better (more moral) to be a mindless idiot.

>

Well, of course. We are much more malleable to the powers that be when

we are mindless idiots.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Yesterday a big article here on people adopting old laying hens that

were past their prime:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/16/BAGGPE8CS41.DTL & hw=c\

hickens+08%2F16%2F05 & sn=007 & sc=582

While conditions for commercial farm animals are very often

deplorable, comments like, " They're featherless. They can barely walk.

They look like they've been through a war -- or been in a

concentration camp. " , excerpted from the article I cited, don't help

we eaters of meat and eggs...

I don't want to get into a debate with vegetarian activists but I do

want to protect animal food sources from both bad husbandry and

restrictive legislation (not to mention the bad diseases out there now

due to over-feeding of antibiotics..)

In our culture of extremes it's a huge challenge; how can we best

" thread the needle " and keep our food sources viable? After the

extremely well organized foi gras ban I'm wondering if other animal

sources will soon fall by the wayside.

Maybe if some of us meat-eaters (a rather libertarian group to be

sure!) organized and joined the vegans in *some* of the objections to

the worst conditions on factory farms, aw...... naw.... just don't see

it.... don't see anybody organizing here..... (the vegans would say

we're lazy. See: http://www.veganporn.com/1052272535.html)

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

I shoulda put a smiley face on that last sentence (!!!!) :-) ~Robin

[Guest guest]

>Maybe if some of us meat-eaters (a rather libertarian group to be

>sure!) organized and joined the vegans in *some* of the objections to

>the worst conditions on factory farms, aw...... naw.... just don't see

>it.... don't see anybody organizing here..... (the vegans would say

>we're lazy. See: http://www.veganporn.com/1052272535.html)

>

>~Robin Ann

I suspect that the movement away from factory farms is

already underway. Leastways around here there are

more food choices, more people buying straight from

the farmer.

I think the real threat will come when

chicken flu hits. If in fact free-range birds can get it

from wild birds and it spreads to small flocks (as

happens in Viet Nam?) then it's going to be really difficult

to get chicks and there will probably be monitoring

of small flocks. Last time there was a scare, at least

one place just decided to close down, rather than

take the risk of losing a whole batch of chickens.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> >> >First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental,

> >> the other

> >> >(slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

> >

> >Isn't that precisely the same argument which the vast majority of

them

> >reject as an excuse for collateral damage in war?

> >

> >

>

> That's a big part of a LOT of the arguments. Including the right-to-

lifers

> and the " right-to-deathers " too. If a person or fetus dies " of

natural causes "

> (even if those causes include 60 years of bad diet, living on a

floodplain

> where no one should be living, skydiving, rock climbing without

ropes,

> or driving too fast) then the person died because of " the will of

God " .

> So it's ok. But purposefully taking an overdose of morphine to kill

> yourself is suicide, and so wrong. Ditto for vegans: accidental

deaths

> are ok, purposeful ones are not.

>

> I'm trying to word that without taking sides, just that

the " accidental "

> part is, as points out, the very crux of the case for all of

these.

>

> There is a big philosophical issue here, for me. If you do cause

damage

> because you are just being an idiot and not paying attention, it's

> ok. But if you mindfully do something it's wrong. So it's

> better (more moral) to be a mindless idiot.

>

>

> Heidi

A few more ideas...

Well I'm not in America and all in all these movements are much less

common in a developing country like mine, but from the distance I can

see there's a pattern here.

I think we could draw the profile of a vegan. In most cases, he or

she is still young, well-to-do, with some higher education... What

has made him or her switch to veganism? In most cases, there's a guru

behind the curtains, or sometimes the guru is really conspicuous. The

guru has often made a lot of money with books, consultations,

workshops, TV talks, etc, but in general he or she appears to lead a

very simple, unpretentious life. He or she is very very often a

cheater.

I think many vegans are on that diet to compensate for a poor family

life, a broken home. They may be in search of a community. A few may

have chosen veganism in order to heal, and others because of some

misplaced idealism.

Whatever is the case, I think most if not all of them will experience

an often remarkable improvement in their personal health. As the

majority is coming from a junk diet, this should be no surprise. Of

course, the elation given by the spurt of health, the sense of

community, the handsome voice of the guru, the young age, etc, all of

these make room for faddism and proselytism. This could happen to

anyone, who lacked the right guidance from parents, friends, peers,

etc.

The problem is that they have read the wrong books, listened to the

false gurus, and in most cases, within three to five years, all the

vegan paragon will be smashed. If he is courageous, if he is still

able to think for himself (despite all the brainwashing), if he gets

the good insight, the follower will quit the movement and may become

a vegetarian or gradually re-adopt a more *normal* way of eating. But

the opposite may also happen: on seeing that the system no longer

works for him, he will blame himself rather the system proper, and

accordingly he will stick even harder to the rules. Either he will

become an enraged mystic of the system, even if he appears to be a

saint, or he will die of malnutrition or be impaired for life.

If he dies, who is to blame? Himself or the guru who sold the idea

but now wants to wash his own hands? Can anyone see a crime here, a

lawsuit?

In fact, these vegan people must pitied, in most cases. There's very

little to be done to save them if they have already entered the

movement. It is simply a question of time and individual luck to be

released from it in your whole skin. But preventive measures can be

taken: spreading good information like NN.

God, I suddenly realize that all of you are quite aware of what I

have been saying here. No news. The English say in this case that

it's like carrying coals to Newcastle. But I don't know what you

Americans say.

JC

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, José- s Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> First, that one kind of death (in the fields) is accidental, the

> other (slaughterhouse) is deliberate.

That's strange. They don't except this argument when it comes to war.

In war collateral (i.e. accidental damage) is a BIG non no.

I dare say most vegan activists, if they thought out the implications

of their approaches to these two issues, the " accidental " killing of

humans versus the " accidental " killing of animals, would not be

comfortable with what it suggests.

[Guest guest]

Robin Ann,

>I don't want to get into a debate with vegetarian activists but I do

>want to protect animal food sources from both bad husbandry and

>restrictive legislation (not to mention the bad diseases out there now

>due to over-feeding of antibiotics..)

>

>

I dunno. It seems that legislation is needed to keep agribusiness from

feeding livestock feces, inappropriate food (like cow brains to cows),

pesticides and antibiotics. I also think companies like Horizon jump on

the organic bandwagon, all the while keep intensive factory operations

going. Many people just don't care about what they eat, let alone where

it comes from. Without laws, big waste lagoons pollute the air and

water of nearby communities. I think farms should have better size

restrictions. It would be better for all if small, local farms prosper.

>In our culture of extremes it's a huge challenge; how can we best

> " thread the needle " and keep our food sources viable? After the

>extremely well organized foi gras ban I'm wondering if other animal

>sources will soon fall by the wayside.

>

>

Is foie gras a good method of food production? It is certainly

controversial. Force-feeding geese a high starch diet so their livers

are distended may or may not be a good thing for the animals and/or the

people who eat them. Does anyone know how nutrient dense it is, say,

compared to regular goose liver?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Hi, Robin

It's hard to keep politics out of everything these days. Can't even talk

food anymore..LOL. And heaven forbid these days if you have an opinion, or

state how you see something differently, you shouldn't express it because it

might offend someone else if they're not in the same place as you. The

world's gone mad. Maybe lack of b-complex vitamins in the diet....

Sounds like a very similar " reserve " we have here in NH. Glad you were able

to have a good influence on your reserve! I sent my daughter a few times

until I heard the mindless drivel being repeated by her. Instead of going

back, I found a working farm with a woman who is a natural-born educator.

She started a weekend " farm camp " - every Saturday, 3-4 hours, allowing the

kids to come in and work. They mucked out the barns, fed all the animals,

planted gardens. My daughter learned more science during the year of farm

camp than she ever did from any preserve or reserve regarding conservation,

biology, you name it. The gal who ran it was awesome - that's where my

daughter first learned that names for " food " animals are usually food-based

on a " real " farm. She fell in love with Drumstick, even though she knew he

may very well be a candidate for our Thanksgiving table, and from Day One,

had the primary Saturday care of LambChop. She loves fishing, still cries

buckets of tears if one of them dies (last weekend, beautiful not-big-enough

Pumpkin Seed swallowed the hook) and grieves the loss of them not being able

to " return to grow bigger so I could catch 'em when they're bigger when we

can eat them! " . She amazes me. I'm still a recovering animal rights person

- it leaks out at times when I feel all woosie and wimpie over seeing " who "

we'll be having for dinner. For me, the road from almost-Peta to

lovin'-my-meat was a spiritual one. I had it all messed up, worshipping

creation over the Creator. When that fell into place, my thinking got

turned around and straightened out. I do know, in talking with my farmers,

putting down an animal either for sickness or for the dinnertable is never

an easy task, no matter how big a pain the animal may have been (thinking of

the cow our farmer was glaring at yesterday after finding it loose in the

vegetable garden), or whether or not it had a great personality or was just

plain old ornery. A farmer worth his land is humbled by the process.

That's what I want my kids to learn - more than anything.that humbling

process..there's always a price to be paid....life doesn't come free or

easy.

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

>They'd screw around with the concepts in the field to suit their

>purposes and pretty soon kids were coming back spouting the personal

>ideologies of the docents with whom they'd hiked..

>So I got involved and soon became president of the nature preserve for that

>one reason: to keep these people (there were many!) from messing around

with

>the science aspect of the nature preserve. They were screwing it up! I

>figure that kids get preached to enough about recycling (they have to make

>up for all their predecessors mistakes of course) and the " big footprint "

we

>horrible humans make on this planet, etc. I just wanted one little place in

>the county where kids could think objectively for a few hours and carry out

>simple science experiments. I'm glad to say that I prevailed and got enough

>people like myself involved so that we could keep the proselytizing to a

>minimum.

>It sounds like the gal you mentioned at the co-op would have fit right in

>with many of those at my preserve who were trying to create yet another

>venue for advocating their personal agenda. It's really hard these days to

>keep politics out of natural science!

>By the way, it was *shocking* to see the processed crap these 8-9 year-olds

>brought to eat for lunch!!! Beyond SAD...

>~Robin Ann "

[Guest guest]

> >[robin]I don't want to get into a debate with vegetarian

> >activists but I do

> >want to protect animal food sources from both bad husbandry and

> >restrictive legislation (not to mention the bad diseases out

> >there now

> >due to over-feeding of antibiotics..)

> >

> >

> [deanna] I dunno. It seems that legislation is needed to keep

> agribusiness from

> feeding livestock feces, inappropriate food (like cow brains to

> cows),

> pesticides and antibiotics. I also think companies like Horizon

> jump on

> the organic bandwagon, all the while keep intensive factory

> operations

> going. Many people just don't care about what they eat, let alone

> where it comes from. Without laws, big waste lagoons pollute the

> air and water of nearby communities. I think farms should have

> better size restrictions. It would be better for all if small,

> local farms prosper.

Deanna, When I said " legislation " I guess I was only thinking of

making blanket rules that stop the production of certain foods

because they are objectionable to a lot of people.

I mean they made a state law here (in a very short time!) to ban foi

gras while things like aspartame are on the market for years --

maybe forever --because aspartame has a huge lobby behind it. What

lobby represented duck livers? How organized are meat eaters going

to be :-) especially to a cost-prohibitive food like foi gras? Most

people have never even tasted it... I just think there are shades to

all these food-production issues and when you come in with a law

that makes it illegal to make a food in any way, that seems a bit

intense and absurd. Maybe someone comes up with a more humane way to

make it?

Regardless, as we all know, there are scores of other abuses having

to do with treatment of farm animals. Just because " 30 chickens have

their beaks cut off and look like they were in a concentration camp "

might lead a group of activists to condemn the eating of eggs for

example...

I don't necessarily think the making of foi gras is a good thing I

just have a hard time with legislation to stop production of a

certain food. As I said, a chemical or supplement that has caused

harm is another story as are the other important concerns you

mention.

~Robin Ann