devi@maisha.DEC (Gita L. Devi PKO1/D1 223-7046) (02/04/86)
>I promise that my next posting will be a recipe! Charles S. Geiger wage slave U. of Texas Thanks for the recipe. It's a good example of how cooking vegetarian does not have to take lots of time. (Karl Malik take note) >>That "no-vegetarians" is meant to be "non-vegetarians." If net.veg is >>going to contain a discussion on the morality of meat eating, there >>should at least be some cross-posting to net.misc, because many people >>who might enjoy the discussion would not think of looking in net.veg, >>because they would assume that net.veg is for those who are already >>convinced that meat eating is not good. >>I in no way meant to say that vegetarians don't have a right to express >>whatever they want to express. Sorry if I gave that impression. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim How do you cross-post? Is there a special moderator out there for the net.misc? >>>First my own views: I consider it ethical for man to consume meat. I object to the conditions under which livestock and poultry are kept in this country. (Were my objections somewhat stronger, I might well be a vegetarian for that reason.) You either have principles or you don't. You can't be only half-pregnant, you know... >>>But what I *really* object to, quite strongly, is that small >>>minority of vegetarians who think that they are *better* than >>>people who eat meat, who view non-vegetarians as having lower >>>morals than themselves. I don't think that you have lower morals than me. I just think that you haven't really exercised your option as a human being. >>>I think this situation is unique to the U.S. >>>From what I can see, in Great Britain vegetarians and >>>non-vegetarians have much more mutual respect for each >>>other. George Bernard Shaw had strong ethical objections >>>to eating meat. But he didn't think the lesser of any >>>of his meat-eating friends because of it. I think you'd better cite someone other than G.B.Shaw, as he was most outspoken in his vegetarian beliefs, and never hesitated to say what he felt was right. In fact, I'm quite certain than he managed to offend quite a few non-vegetarians in his day. There's the story of Mr. Shaw's remarks made at a dinner, during which he loudly announced that at least he knew what his food had "died" from, and that what he was eating did not run away from the person trying to kill it. >>>Claims that meat consumption is a waste of world food resources are equally weak. Try telling that to the starving people in Ethiopia where they have stripped the land of vegetation because they switched from an agrarian diet to cattle grazing. Have you ever read DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET by Francis Moore Lappe? You should. It may open your eyes. Prove your arguments to me. I've got books that prove my arguments. >>>Since somebody brought it up: I too have strong objections >>>to the killing of fur-bearing animals for their pelts. >>>I think this is especially gross since fur coats are a >>>symbol of wealth and decadence. And eating meat isn't the highest symbol of wealth and decadence? Please, look at what you're saying! Man has logic, but he uses it to justify his desires. What you've presented as a valid argument is, to me, merely illogical logic. ------- I want to thank everyone who has written to me personally, or via the net. veg supporting this type of discussion. Expressing one's views helps us to clarify and strengthen, and perhaps change, the way we look at things. Let's keep it up. And there's no reason to stop exchanging recipes, either. Being a vegetarian doesn't mean that you stop eating. Quite the contrary. Just like Mr. Geiger, my next posting will be a recipe. Gita Devi
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (02/08/86)
Thanks for your comments on my posting, Gita. I'll try to explain my point of view a little better. > > > >>>First my own views: I consider it ethical for man to > consume meat. I object to the conditions under which livestock > and poultry are kept in this country. (Were my objections > somewhat stronger, I might well be a vegetarian for that > reason.) > > You either have principles or you don't. You can't be only half-pregnant, > you know... > Here we have a basic philosoplical difference. I don't view everything as being either "right" or "wrong" with no in-between. All I'm saying is I acknowledge that animals raised for food are not being properly treated in a lot of cases. This would tend to influence me towards not eating meat. But I'm still a meat eater because I have other reasons. This may be a little wishy-washy I realize. > I think you'd better cite someone other than G.B.Shaw, as he was most > outspoken in his vegetarian beliefs, and never hesitated to say what he felt > was right. In fact, I'm quite certain than he managed to offend quite a few > non-vegetarians in his day. There's the story of Mr. Shaw's remarks made at > a dinner, during which he loudly announced that at least he knew what his > food had "died" from, and that what he was eating did not run away from the > person trying to kill it. > No doubt Shaw was outspoken. But he served meat to his non-vegetarian dinner guests. I don't expect every ethical vegetarian to be this open minded. Even if English vegetarians feel just as superior as some American ones do that's no excuse. > >>>Claims that meat consumption is a waste of world food > resources are equally weak. > > Try telling that to the starving people in Ethiopia where they have stripped > the land of vegetation because they switched from an agrarian diet to cattle > grazing. Don't blame starvation in Africa on anything but the screwed political situation in the area. You're trying to create associations between meat-eating and world hunger that doesn't exist. Existing food production resources, I understand, could support a world population of 8 billion. > >>>Since somebody brought it up: I too have strong objections > >>>to the killing of fur-bearing animals for their pelts. > >>>I think this is especially gross since fur coats are a > >>>symbol of wealth and decadence. > > And eating meat isn't the highest symbol of wealth and decadence? Please, > look at what you're saying! Man has logic, but he uses it to justify his > desires. What you've presented as a valid argument is, to me, merely > illogical logic. > ------- > Gita Devi If you think eating meat is the highest symbol of wealth and decadence you're out to lunch. Eating meat is something that most Americans do every day without pretense. Eating anything of nutritive value (e.g. meat) is closely related to one's survival instinct. I can't see putting it in the same category as killing poor defenseless furbearers just so you can show off at cocktail parties. Wearing furs is clearly an ostentatious expression of wealth. The difference is pretty obvious to me. I don't see what's illogical about this. steve
pag00@amdahl.UUCP (Pria Graves) (02/13/86)
> > >>>Claims that meat consumption is a waste of world food > > resources are equally weak. > > > > Try telling that to the starving people in Ethiopia where they have stripped > > the land of vegetation because they switched from an agrarian diet to cattle > > grazing. > > Don't blame starvation in Africa on anything but the screwed > political situation in the area. You're trying to create > associations between meat-eating and world hunger that doesn't > exist. Existing food production resources, I understand, > could support a world population of 8 billion. > Where on earth do you get your figures? Is it perhaps that the current food production resources might feed 8 billion IF we all ate things lower on the food chain? A number of years ago when Americans cut back on our meat consumption when beef prices jumped sharply, a small but measurable increase in available food occured in the less privlaged portions of the world. Since the same amount of land required to produce beef for one person will produce grain/beans for 10 - 12, I do not think that you can ignore the implications of your meat eating ways! (I am not talking about animals strictly range fed on land too poor to support other agriculture, but no one would eat anything that tough anyway.) > > >>>Since somebody brought it up: I too have strong objections > > >>>to the killing of fur-bearing animals for their pelts. > > >>>I think this is especially gross since fur coats are a > > >>>symbol of wealth and decadence. > > > > And eating meat isn't the highest symbol of wealth and decadence? Please, > > look at what you're saying! Man has logic, but he uses it to justify his > > desires. What you've presented as a valid argument is, to me, merely > > illogical logic. > > ------- > > Gita Devi > > If you think eating meat is the highest symbol of wealth and > decadence you're out to lunch. Eating meat is something that > most Americans do every day without pretense. Eating anything > of nutritive value (e.g. meat) is closely related to one's survival > instinct. I can't see putting it in the same category as killing poor > defenseless furbearers just so you can show off at cocktail parties. > Wearing furs is clearly an ostentatious expression of wealth. > The difference is pretty obvious to me. I don't see what's > illogical about this. > > steve Unless you are inclined to chase down your prey and tear into it raw, the survival instinct is a myth. Instinct has nothing to do with tidy little plastic packages in the supermarket. Training does. It is too bad that you are unable to get past your upbringing enough to read some of the sources recommended in the previous postings. You might learn something. Yes, most Americans (and Australians, and British) do eat meat every day. We also drink alcohol and go out and kill people with cars but that doesn't make it right. Killing animals to feed your face is totally unecessary and it is only in wealthy countries like ours where it occurs on such a scale. In most other parts of the world meat is used in small quantities or for special occasions, if at all. The connection to wealth/conspicuous consumption is clear. -- Pria ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!pag00 (408) 746 7539
reintom@rocky2.UUCP (Tom Reingold) (02/14/86)
> If you think eating meat is the highest symbol of wealth and > decadence you're out to lunch. Eating meat is something that > most Americans do every day without pretense. > > ... > > steve If you think you eat meat without pretense, think of the following. If it is suggested that you have a meal without meat, would you think of it as completeand satisfying? When someone eats a meatless meal, does it look as satisfying as one with meat? Have you gone a day without meat? Two days? A week? Would it be worthwhile? If you answer no to these questions, you certainly have pretensions. We are affluent enough in this country to afford to make our stomachs into cemeteries but is it our right nevertheless? I remember the taste of meat. I still think it *tastes* good but I don't see it as necessary or right. (Those who disagree with my taste buds may, but I think it's an unimportant issue.) Tom Reingold
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (02/21/86)
In article <154@rocky2.UUCP>, reintom@rocky2.UUCP (Tom Reingold) writes: > > Eating meat is something that > > most Americans do every day without pretense. > > If you think you eat meat without pretense, think of the following. If > it is suggested that you have a meal without meat, would you think of > it as completeand satisfying? When someone eats a meatless meal, does > it look as satisfying as one with meat? Have you gone a day without > meat? Two days? A week? Would it be worthwhile? If you answer no to > these questions, you certainly have pretensions. > > Tom Reingold Actually, I don't eat meat every day. I like vegetarian food, in fact, Mollie Katzen's cookbooks are among my favorites. (Just take her recipes and cut the cholesterol-containing ingredients in half -- she's really into the eggs, cheese and so forth.) Why would I have pretentions if I did eat meat every day? I don't follow. steve
reintom@rocky2.UUCP (Tom Reingold) (02/22/86)
>>> Eating meat is something that >>> most Americans do every day without pretense. >> >> If you think you eat meat without pretense, think of the following. If >> it is suggested that you have a meal without meat, would you think of >> it as completeand satisfying? When someone eats a meatless meal, does >> it look as satisfying as one with meat? Have you gone a day without >> meat? Two days? A week? Would it be worthwhile? If you answer no to >> these questions, you certainly have pretensions. >> >> Tom Reingold > >Actually, I don't eat meat every day. I like vegetarian food, >in fact, Mollie Katzen's cookbooks are among my favorites. >(Just take her recipes and cut the cholesterol-containing >ingredients in half -- she's really into the eggs, cheese and >so forth.) > > >Why would I have pretentions if I did eat meat every day? >I don't follow. > > >steve As a preface, let me say that I do not see vegetarianism as an all-or-nothing thing. It is probably better to cut down on meat consumption etc. than to keep it high, just as it is better to cut it out than to keep it low. In other words, the less the better; no judgements are necessary from other people regarding how much meat one eats. I don't know what you meant when you brought in the word "pretension". But if you say that Americans eat meat without pretension, a couple of things come to mind. For one thing, if one compares the average American diet (heavily laden with too much meat) with the average third-world diet and you say "Boy, are we lucky we can afford tons more meat than they can", and if that's the major difference you see, then he has a pretension. The pretension, to me, seems to say "Meat is so good that one should eat all one can." For another thing, if one eats meat and says that it is totally unnecessary to examine the ethical issues implied, then he has a pretension. The pretension might say "A life other than mine is less important than mine, so it is better for him to die and me to eat him than for him to live and me to be without my beloved meal." Or it might say "Aw he doesn't care if he dies. After all, since he doesn't have the intellectual deductive powers I have, he doesn't have the strong will to live that I have." For another thing, if one thinks that meat is beneficial to one's health, especially in the large quantities that Americans eat, then he has a pretension. The pretension says "TV and news media propaganda of the 50's told me that meat makes me strong and that's all I need to hear." Modern medical evidence is to the contrary. Excessive meat eating seems to cause cancer and atherosclerosis. Nor does the protein in those quantities prove itself to be necessary. Oxen don't eat meat. Neither do elephants. Are they so weak you would recommend that they eat meat? Most birds are vegetarians and they are incredibly strong for their weight. Is this a sufficient explanation? I hope I have not said anything offensive to anyone. Tom Reingold New York City