[net.veg] Vegetable Morality and Request for Recipes

4391aas@hou2f.UUCP (A.SCHWARZ) (01/05/84)

              The only justifiable reasons for not eating meat are
     religious and personal preference. This bit about being not
     nice to kill animals is pure poop (like that word??). This
     mentality, I believe, stems from people who let their social
     conditioning spill over into areas where it does not apply.
     Or maybe they mentally put themselves in the same position
     as the animal and get emotionally hung-up. I often wonder
     how these people feel when a bobcat catches and kills a
     rabbit on some TV wildlife show. Maybe they don't watch
     these shows. Maybe they feel nature should get an *R*
     rating. I guess veggies are OK to pick and cut up because
     although they are alive, they don't move around and make noise
     like we do. So they are looked upon as inanimate objects.
               Getting back to religious reasons for not eating
     meat, I can't see that being much of a reason in this part of
     the world. While not being an expert in the area of theology,
     I never heard of any restriction against all animal killing in the
     Christian or Jewish faiths, which are the predominant religions
     here.
               Now there is some argument as far as dietary amounts
     or the quality of the meat. Meat today isn't the same as meat
     of days gone by. The percentage of fat (marbling) is much
     higher today, in beef especially. Prepared meats (corned beef,
     etc.) are even higher, so discretion and moderation must be
     used. The leaner meats (fish and poultry) are of course the wise
     choices. The bottom line is that we need meat,veggies and fruit,
     grain and dairy products (the four basic food groups) to
     maintain health. This is the only sensible diet, the rest in
     my opinion are fads.
               Now let me use this newsgroup as I think it was intended 
     to be used:

               Two of my all-time favorite veggies are asparagus
     and broccoli. I'm sure there are others who share my love for
     these two. I'm looking for interesting ways to prepare them.
     Please post any recipes to the group. Also, all flames to
     the above statements heartily accepted.

hdj@burdvax.UUCP (Herb Jellinek) (01/05/84)

You asked for flames; here's mine.

              The only justifiable reasons for not eating meat are
     religious and personal preference. This bit about being not
     nice to kill animals is pure poop (like that word??). This
     mentality, I believe, stems from people who let their social
     conditioning spill over into areas where it does not apply.

Your first sentence is crap, of course.  I take it you're saying it \is/
nice for humans to kill animals?

     Or maybe they mentally put themselves in the same position
     as the animal and get emotionally hung-up. I often wonder
     how these people feel when a bobcat catches and kills a
     rabbit on some TV wildlife show. Maybe they don't watch
     these shows. Maybe they feel nature should get an *R*
     rating. 

Or not.  Bobcats can eat what they will; so will I.  I don't kill, and
I don't eat meat.  If a lack of blood-lust offends you, I'm sorry.

     I guess veggies are OK to pick and cut up because
     although they are alive, they don't move around and make noise
     like we do. So they are looked upon as inanimate objects.

Veggies aren't conscious, are they?  Would you like to be killed for food,
or clothing, or sport?  Do you think animals owe us their lives for our
pleasure?

               Getting back to religious reasons for not eating
     meat, I can't see that being much of a reason in this part of
     the world. While not being an expert in the area of theology,
     I never heard of any restriction against all animal killing in the
     Christian or Jewish faiths, which are the predominant religions
     here.

I've seen some king-ass logical fallacies before, but this one takes the
cake.  If something is not banned by large segments of society, that hardly
makes it mandatory.  Better read your Logic 101 textbook again.

               Now there is some argument as far as dietary amounts
     or the quality of the meat. 

How gracious of you to allow us this one shred of social correctness.

     ... The bottom line is that we need meat,veggies and fruit,
     grain and dairy products (the four basic food groups) to
     maintain health. This is the only sensible diet, the rest in
     my opinion are fads.

I thought the four basic food groups were beans, nuts, dairy, and grains.
Silly me! All this time I've been a faddist!

               Two of my all-time favorite veggies are asparagus
     and broccoli. I'm sure there are others who share my love for
     these two. I'm looking for interesting ways to prepare them.

I'd tell you an interesting way you should prepare them, but it would not be
polite, so I'll demur.

In conclusion: I thought the "bear-baiters" were only to be found in
net.motss.  I'm sorry to find the same sort of narrow-minded foolishness in
net.veg.  I find vegetarianism to be a satisfying way of life, and I really
don't care who agrees.  You're welcome to your opinions, for that is all
they are.  If you like to eat meat, fine.  Most of my friends do; it doesn't
bother me.  It's their prerogative.  Likewise, it is my prerogative \not/ to
eat meat, or to kill animals.  The greatest lesson I have learned from my 5+
years of vegetarianism is to live and let live.  It seems like this is one
lesson you have missed.  That's a shame; I feel sorry for you.

		Herb Jellinek

jgb@linus.UUCP (Jonathan G. Bressel) (01/05/84)

I apologize for being so vocal in defending vegetarianism.  I am not trying
to convince anyone about vegetarianism.  I just want the record straight.
When things quiet down a bit, I hope to get started discussing the PRACTICAL
matters of vegetarianism.

A. Schwarz's original is indented.  My comments are justified at the
left-most margin.

     The only justifiable reasons for not eating meat are religious and
     personal preference. This bit about being not nice to kill animals is
     pure poop (like that word??). This mentality, I believe, stems from
     people who let their social conditioning spill over into areas where it
     does not apply.  Or maybe they mentally put themselves in the same
     position as the animal and get emotionally hung-up. I often wonder how
     these people feel when a bobcat catches and kills a rabbit on some TV
     wildlife show. Maybe they don't watch these shows. Maybe they feel
     nature should get an *R* rating. I guess veggies are OK to pick and cut
     up because although they are alive, they don't move around and make
     noise like we do. So they are looked upon as inanimate objects.

I wonder what A. Schwarz's definition of justifiable is.  Also, I've never
been quite sure what social conditioning is.  Perhaps A. Schwarz could
explain it better, but it seems it's being used here to describe the cause
of anyone's thinking patterns which differ from Schwarz's.  For me, although
I'm sure there are others for whom this is not true, being nice to animals
is related to religion.  Furthermore, putting religion aside, what's wrong
with being nice to an animal?  Are humans the only life form capable of
appreciating kindness?  Haven't you ever seen a dog, cat, or other pet
actively ENJOY being treated with kindness?  Furthermore, what's wrong with
imagining oneself in the position of the victim?  Perhaps if we were to all
do this more often in our daily affairs, we might treat each other better,
let alone the animals.

I don't particularly enjoy seeing a bobcat kill a rabbit, but I understand
that it is the way of nature.  Peter Singer, in the much acclaimed book
Animal Liberation, makes an excellent argument as to why it might be okay to
kill vegetables, but not okay to kill animals.  Briefly, aside from using a
sophisticated language, animals exhibit all of the characteristics of
anguish and suffering that humans do: they cry, the wince, they try to avoid
the pain, etc.  Plants, show none of these characteristics.  Animals have a
well developed, central nervous system for transmitting pain signals.  As
far as we know, plants do not.  In short, animals clearly suffer.  Only
someone who had a vested interest in proving a point (like Descartes), could
believe otherwise.

I don't look upon plants as inanimate objects.

     Getting back to religious reasons for not eating meat, I can't see that
     being much of a reason in this part of the world. While not being an
     expert in the area of theology, I never heard of any restriction
     against all animal killing in the Christian or Jewish faiths, which are
     the predominant religions here.

A. Schwarz shows a gross ignorance of Judaism.  One of the dominant set of
laws in Judaism are those of Kashrut.  Only a small subset of animals may be
killed for food, and then, only under strict supervision by a slaughterer
trained to inflict the minimum possible pain and anguish while killing.
There are strict laws in Judaism against cruelty to animals (references
available).  On the Sabbath, when man is enjoined to rest, he must give a
day of rest to his animals as well.  If a Jew sees an animal suffering in
the road, he must aid it, even if it is owned by his enemy.  An ox,
threshing grain, may not be muzzled; rather it must be allowed to sample
from the food ( which it loves so much).  Animals of different species may
not be used together to pull a load, since one animal will be stronger and
cause the other stress.  One may not steal a bird's eggs in view of the
mother, for it will cause her anguish.  One may not steal a calf from its
mother, until it has reached a certain age, so as not to cause the mother
anguish.  I can go on forever.  I can't speak for Christianity.


     Now there is some argument as far as dietary amounts or the quality of
     the meat. Meat today isn't the same as meat of days gone by. The
     percentage of fat (marbling) is much higher today, in beef especially.
     Prepared meats (corned beef, etc.) are even higher, so discretion and
     moderation must be used. The leaner meats (fish and poultry) are of
     course the wise choices. The bottom line is that we need meat,veggies
     and fruit, grain and dairy products (the four basic food groups) to
     maintain health. This is the only sensible diet, the rest in my opinion
     are fads.

A. Schwarz's arguments about needing meat are completely unsupported, and
seem to come from simple ignorance.  Read one of the many good texts on
vegetarian nutrition, and then see what you think.


     Now let me use this newsgroup as I think it was intended to be used:

     Two of my all-time favorite veggies are asparagus and broccoli. I'm
     sure there are others who share my love for these two. I'm looking for
     interesting ways to prepare them.  Please post any recipes to the
     group. Also, all flames to the above statements heartily accepted.

I will gladly mail descriptions of my adventures with asparagus and broccoli
as they occur.

					Jonathan G. Bressel
--
ARPA:	linus!jgb@mitre-bedford
UUCP:	...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!jgb

robert@arizona.UUCP (01/05/84)

for being vegetarian?  That seems likes a rather narrow vision you
have there.  And how does the avoidence of killing animals come out
to be "poop"?

    Addressing the religous point, Christians and Jews are not the
only people in "this part of the world" (and this part of the world
doesn't seem too significant anyway), and these groups are certainly
not the leading lights of morality today.  My experience with them
leads me to see them as bloody and perfectly happy to kill not only
other animals, but their own kind as well.  All they need is a slight
irritation such as a different skin color or belief, and they're out
after you until you believe their way or you're dead.

    Non-denominational religions (i.e., your own personal feelings about
yourself and other beings) may tie together the lives of various
groups in some way such that avoiding terminating others is a primary
goal.  The argument that vegetation doesn't have the means to communicate
and therefore we don't really know that they aren't sentient is a bit
weak, but I won't bother arguing it since if I lost the argument I
would then have to give up my own life (I can't live on minerals, and
even then how do you know the rocks aren't sentient?).

    So the point is, you and I know that a dog, cow, or trout are feeling
creatures which require some protection from our baser instincts.  Some
"animals" which humans currently use as food are probably more feeling than
many of our most terrible fellow humans - do you propose that we cut
these people up and use them at our table?  And why don't you propose that we
eat our kin after they die?  Certainly if you are looking for cheap
protein, it's there; and no outrageous funeral costs!

    Perhaps if you had the choice of eating plants or killing your meat
yourself (living with that animal as it grew into maturity and looking
it in the eye as the knife slides into the neck), you would make a
decision towards a vegetarian diet.  Going to the grocery and picking
out a slab of another creature's flesh divorces you so nicely from
the reality.

    ........................................................

    I don't know why I am trying to argue these points with you.  It is
like what happens on net.women and net.motss.  People who are offended
by these ideas waste the patience of others with their diatribes.  The
purpose of this group is not to exchange recipes, we could have created a 
net.cooks.veg, but to support and gently discuss in a positive light
our feelings concerning the subject, the nutritional consequences of our
diets, and probably even exchange some good recipes.

   Perhaps we should have called it net.veg.only to keep the flesh eaters
on their side of the table.  So, please, let's move the arguments against
vegetarianism  to a place where they will be appreciated, and let us
folk discuss what we want here.

    I suggest that you form your own group net.meat(flesh, blood&guts, or
what-have-you) in which you can argue for your own cause; and I promise
that the vegetarians will keep our noses out of your business.


Robert J. Drabek
University of Arizona

mager@uw-beaver (Gary Mager) (01/05/84)

              The only justifiable reasons for not eating meat are
     religious and personal preference. This bit about being not
     nice to kill animals is pure poop (like that word??). This
     mentality, I believe, stems from people who let their social
     conditioning spill over into areas where it does not apply.
     Or maybe they mentally put themselves in the same position
     as the animal and get emotionally hung-up. I often wonder
     how these people feel when a bobcat catches and kills a
     rabbit on some TV wildlife show. Maybe they don't watch
     these shows. Maybe they feel nature should get an *R*
     rating. 

What incredible logic!  Does that mean that whatever behavior occurs in 
nature is acceptable for humans also?  This creates a whole new morality
which would condone such natural behavior as killing babies, canibalism,
even biting the head off of one's mate (praying mantis).  There is a lot
of behavior that occurs in nature for reasons of survival and/or because
animals do not have the level of consciousness and morality that MOST
humans do.  Eating meat for humans is not a matter of survival, it is
simply a matter of preference.  We should not look to nature for judgements
of acceptable behavior.

            Gary Mager
            uw-beaver!mager

pellegri@ittral.UUCP (Dan Pellegrino) (01/06/84)

Excerpts (indented and quoted) and comments:

	"The only justifiable reasons for not eating meat are religious and
        personal preference. This bit about being not nice to kill animals
        is pure poop (like that word??)."

This statement is a truer representation of "pure poop" (no, I don't like that
word).  Add this to your list of justifiable (by who's standards, anyway) rea-
sons:  There are medical conditions (e.g.- allergies) and ecological conditions
(e.g.- available game vs. available vegetation) that exclude some or all meat
as an option in the diet of some people.  In these cases, people are vegetarian
by necessity.  If we assume that religious reasons are considered by the be-
lievers to be either necessary or preferred, that means that we can reduce the
list of reasons to two - preference and necessity - which should cover just
about every specific reaon there is.

	"This mentality, I believe, stems from people who let their social
	conditioning spill over into areas where it does not apply."

Unless one's "social conditioning" is only superficial, it "spills over" into
all areas of life.

	"I often wonder how these people feel when a bobcat catches and kills
        a rabbit on some TV wildlife show. Maybe they don't watch these shows.
        Maybe they feel nature should get an *R* rating."

A bobcat, as well as most other carnivores, must eat meat to survive.  Their
nutritional requirements, coupled with the conditions of their habitats, gives
them alot of restriction.  They usually can't import all types of food from all
over the world or hop into the car and drive over to the next habitat down the
road to do their grocery shopping.  Besides, the animal that the bobcat kills
might have had a chance to get away or protect itself somehow.  I haven't
heard of bobcats raising other animals from birth in enclosed pens with the
sole intention of killing them and eating them in the future.  Give this 
activity the *R* rating.

	"The bottom line is that we need meat, veggies and fruit, grain and
	dairy products (the four basic food groups) to maintain health. This
	is the only sensible diet, the rest in my opinion are fads."

We don't need the four basic food groups.  We need specific nutrients that come
from various sources, not necessarily including meat.  Meeting all of our 
nutritional needs is the only sensible diet.  Your opinion on this matter is
"pure poop" and not based on factual information.

	"Now let me use this newsgroup as I think it was intended to be used:"

This newsgroup was purposely created apart from net.cooks so that "Vegetable
Morality" (as you call it) and other aspects of vegetarianism can be discussed.
It definately is not just for vegetable recipes.  Although this is a logical
newsgroup within which to inquire about vegetable recipes, to assert that that
is the sole intention of this newsgroup is just more "poop".  I suggest that you
post your request for broccoli and asparagus recipes in net.cooks also.

                                             Dan Pellegrino
                                             ittvax!ittral!pellegri

tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (01/06/84)

Herb Jellinek's (burdvax!hdj) response to hou2f!??? includes:

	The greatest lesson I have learned from my 5+ years of vegetarianism
	is to live and let live.  It seems like this is one lesson you have
	missed.  That's a shame; I feel sorry for you.

An outside observer would be hard pressed to detect that, particularly
given your earlier response:
	
		       Two of my all-time favorite veggies are asparagus
	     and broccoli. I'm sure there are others who share my love for
	     these two. I'm looking for interesting ways to prepare them.
	
	I'd tell you an interesting way you should prepare them, but it would not be
	polite, so I'll demur.

Yes, there's alot of "bear-baiting" going on now in this group.  Why
encourage it?
-- 
	Tom Teixeira,  Massachusetts Computer Corporation.  Westford MA
	...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt   (617) 692-6200