kolling@decwrl.DEC.COM (Karen Kolling) (01/29/86)
I was hoping that the people who've started flaming on this newsgroup would go away after awhile, but apparently not. This used to be a nice, quiet newsgroup where one was safe from sickening descriptions of atrocities on animals and people yelling at one another. Let's go back to trading recipes and info on non-animal products, and the people who want to flame move to net.misc, or net.flame, or net.religion, or any place but here. Go far, far away. Karen
benton@hbo.DEC (Janet Benton DTN 269-2172 Loc ICO/C04) (01/29/86)
I forgot to sign my name to this one. It was an oversight. Jan Benton
benton@hbo.DEC (Janet Benton DTN 269-2172 Loc ICO/C04) (01/29/86)
Why should they go away? Because you don't want to face the truth or the reality of life? Maybe you should move to 'net.recipes' or something if you can't take it. It's high time that people started really looking at life the way it is, and not the way they *want it to be*. If we never look at the truth, we never change or grow. After all, isn't that what we're all trying to do by being on this network in the first place? To expand our awareness and knowledge beyond the confines of our everyday environment? Why not push it a little further and really grow for a change? Those people who are vegetarians are that way for a reason. Health is one reason, but in my opinion is not good enough. Why? Because those who become vegetarian only for health reasons tend to drop off when the going gets tough (by that I mean inconvenient, or getting hassled). Only those who are vegetarian with a principle behind it stay that way. So why shouldn't we share our beliefs and principles about why we are vegetarian with other vegetarians (and non-vegetarians)? The only way to spread the knowledge is to let other people hear it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Then it's your loss. But don't deprive others of the privilege.
steve@loral.UUCP (Stephen Newbegin) (01/30/86)
Finally an interesting discussion on the nature of veggies vs
meat-eaters. I found the trading recipes useful, but boring.
I have often heard the argument about man's digestive track and teeth
not being like the carnivores. I've also read that its not like the
pure vegetarians like cows who can eat grass all day and make eyes, bones,
fat, etc. Man is usually compared to primates who supposedly hang from
trees and eat fruits and berries all day. Problem is they balance their
diet out with an occasionally bird egg or very small game. People call
this an omnivore, but man gets carried away with this and eats everything
including big game, plants both raw and cooked, and man made creations that
no animal of any type would want to eat. All the scientific research seems
to point the theory that the big animal diet(red meat) is bad, vegetables and
fruits are better uncooked and unprocessed, and eggs in small numbers, small
game like poultry and fish, and grains are OK. The best way to get a perspectiveon diet and hunger is to grow or raise ALL your own food yourself and
not buy it at your supermarket or health food store. I do it and it changed
my diet more than any religion or diet book. It takes ALOT of land to grow
beef whether you let it eat range grass or grain you grow. Fruits and vegetablesare easy to grow to get nutrition but to get enough calories takes more land.
Chickens are great because they eat bugs, grass, garbage, worms and other
things I don't like and give me lots of very good eggs, excellent manure,
and occassionally meat. You see, chickens produce as many roosters as hens
and you would go broke or hungry feeding them for years like hens. Thus you
have to do something with them. Yep, you guessed it. Lets keep this discussion
going. I like it.
--
-------------------------------
Steve Newbegin Loral Instrumentation San Diego
sdcc6 ---\ gould9 --\
ihnp4 ---->-->!sdcc3 ---->--->!loral!steve (uucp)
sdcrdcf -/ sdcsvax -/
At my farm I care not whether your a Communist Swine, a
Facist Pig, or a Middle-of-the-Road Hog; your arguments must
carry their own weight on my scales.
eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller) (02/01/86)
In article <796@decwrl.DEC.COM> benton@hbo.DEC (Janet Benton) writes: > ... > >Those people who are vegetarians are that way for a reason. Health is one >reason, but in my opinion is not good enough. Why? Because those who become >vegetarian only for health reasons tend to drop off when the going gets tough >(by that I mean inconvenient, or getting hassled). Only those who are >vegetarian with a principle behind it stay that way. > ... I'm not sure I agree with the implicit assumption that health reasons don't qualify as a principle... however, in what follows the wording reflects that assumption. I am not a vegetarian, so I don't really know what I'm talking about :-), but some friends of mine are vegetarians, and they claim they don't eat meat because if they did eat meat, they would get sick (apparently this has happened). Their decision not to eat meat is self-enforcing, to the extent that this barrier serves as a deterrent. I think their original decision was based on health reasons. I'm not sure a "principle" is more effective than health reasons as a motivation to remain a vegetarian. My (limited) understanding of this "barrier" is as follows: human beings are not carnivores in a biological sense. What humans are, above all, is adaptable. Their behavioral adaptation far outpaces their biological adaptation; i.e. the decision to eat meat was made recently enough that biological evolution hasn't caught up. In short, perhaps meat eating is learned, not inherited. This, of course, assumes a limited short term biological apaptability. This line of thought brings to mind the Eskimo. Again, I speak from the depths of my ignorance, but by my understanding an Eskimo diet takes a lot of getting used to for a nonEskimo. Not to single out Eskimos, there are wide variations in eating habits among different cultures. While they are not necessarily equally good from a nutritional point of view, each of these variations no doubt had some reason to start, perhaps as simple as availability. Maybe meat is a poison (more commonly called a drug) for which humans have developed a tolerance. Maybe the ability to do so was once essential to the survival of the human race. Our diet abounds with drugs of assorted flavors; caffeine, ethanol, nicotine, and sucrose immediately come to mind. I suspect there are many nonessential ingredients in our diet, many of them harmful. I don't expect most of them to go away soon. Eating meat reminds me of drinking alcohol; it is a nonessential nicety which facilitates social interaction through conformity. The main difference I see is that meat isn't entirely lacking in nutritional value. Enough babbling for now. I won't apologize for any commotion I stir up; use your 'n' key if you are looking for recipes.
ph@wucec2.UUCP (Paul Hahn) (02/01/86)
In article <796@decwrl.DEC.COM> benton@hbo.DEC (Janet Benton DTN 269-2172 Loc ICO/C04) writes: >Why should they go away? Because you don't want to face the truth or the >reality of life? [etc., etc.] Give me an expletive break! Let's not get carried away here. Speaking for myself, I have no particular objections to "the truth or the reality of life", as you put it, but I would rather not see articles about it in the midst of an otherwise pleasant, noninflammatory newsgroup about nonanimal products. I think the two subjects are sufficiently divergent (and sufficiently voluminous, at least at the moment) to warrant being discussed in different newsgroups. Why are net.jokes and net.jokes.d different newsgroups? ("What do you think of my theory about why people are offended by jokes?" "You didn't say anything funny! YOU DIE!!" "But it was ABOUT jokes, so I thought--" "@&^%$^%!!!" "&@#$*#&$%!!!!" . . .) --pH /* * "A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good. I'll * just nip off and shoot myself. Don't worry, sir--I'll be very * humane." */