# The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

I had noticed that the theads on Nutrition/Diet can be just as heated as Religion and Politics.
Why are we so sure in our beliefs and why do we think that our way is right?

I noticed that my Vegan friends look down on me who is a big meat eater, and yet they feel as they are constantly judged.

There is so much research outthere: on soy, dairy, meat, good fats, bad fats, you name it...

Can't we all just get along???


----------



## BetsyNY (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't know. I personally could care less how other people eat. I just want a place to talk to like-minded folks without being harrassed for subscribing to unconventional beliefs.







:


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh man, way more. Way more.


----------



## tinuviel_k (Apr 29, 2004)

Yeah, it is totally bizarre how some folks can be so militant about what other people eat.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I used to be militant but, increasingly, I don't care what other people eat. And I don't mean that in a mean way (like "I don't care about you"). I just mean that most of us have the gray matter to make our own decisions. Those of us who don't usually have care providers to help us and don't post on the internet.

If someone asks my opinion, I will tell them. I sometimes post in the Veg Forum even though I've been run out a number of times. Many posts go by in which I would have something substantive to contribute because I know a lot of food research, but I guess if people really want _my_ opinion, they will ask me.

I do need to post a thread in the vegetarian forum, so this is just a warning that it's not hostile.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

I have seen the running out of folks - sometimes I think it looks a little bit like the running of the bulls in Pamplona (sp?). Part of it I think is reactionary to extremist groups on either side. And then the other part of it I think goes to the same roots as those of religion. We're talking here about something that is so very personal and so utterly important to one's survival and livelyhood.

It also, quite frankly, has to do with the fact that sometimes it's easier to focus on the things that we disagree on than the things we agree on.


----------



## mamabohl (May 21, 2005)

LOL it is very heated over here, huh? I think that's just part of MDC...the gals here could have a discussion on which are the best socks to wear and it would get pulled by a mod for UA violations. "*&%#$^ green socks are better! *$&$&% you!"


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

It's all relative.


----------



## phroggies (Sep 13, 2004)

I'm pretty conflict-shy myself and wince a great deal when people get into heated discussions, let alone drive out other people. That said, I think I understand why people are so passionate about this. A) Like it or not, there is an ethical component to a lot of these discussions; it's not purely about nutrition but also about environmentalism, consumerism, how you feel about using animal products or animal flesh (and I say this as a confirmed meat-eater), etc. And B) Many, if not most of us, are in positions IRL in which we are the ones researching and determining what our families eat and defending it to people who are skeptical or worse. There's a lot at stake in such cases, and I could easily see how the tension and defensiveness from those instances bleeds into our discussions here.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

It is very heated even outside of the boards from what I've seen. Vegetarians I know tend to be very neutral. Most have been vegetarian for years and just ignore the arguments. The vegans I know IRL are either old school and very laid back about others' choices or very militant. All of the meat eaters I know that know I'm a veg tend to belittle me and make fun of it. Especially dh's family.

And then there's the nutrition stuff. There's always new research out. Just about everything can be good/bad for you. There's really no need to argue. That's one of the reasons I have stopped coming to this board. It is all a debate about meat eaters are evil or vegetarians are stupid.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

What I liked about Catholicism growing up is the ritual. Holidays in my home growing up were also all about ritual, especially when it came to food. I'm an agnostic at best when it comes to religion. So now all I have is food and it's rituals. Don't say can't we all just get along, what will I have left?

I'm just kidding. I do agree that nutrition and food choices are about so much more than just that. It includes ethics, environmentalism, economic, etc., etc. Not suprising, in Arabic in some areas the word for bread comes from the word for life, in other areas it's rice. It's our fuel it's what keeps us going and keeps us healthy or not healthy. It's how we come together as a community. When something runs that deep of course people are going to be passionate about it.


----------



## Boobs (Apr 17, 2004)

I think it's great that people are so passionate about their beliefs. I wish that we could all be less judgmental and preachy and defensive, but hey, we're (mostly) all hormonal, sleep-deprived mamas!







We get a little bitchy.

At 27, I've come to a place in my own life where I've realized how little I know about everything. The only thing I'm sure enough to take somebody down over is circumcision. In all other aspects of life, I know there is a possibility that I could be wrong. You won't catch me arguing over food or religion any more.


----------



## bravofrenchie (Oct 15, 2004)

Nutrition & religion are very similar issues, at least to me. I really don't have an opinion on what other people eat or worship, and I REALLY don't like it when people preach to me. If they tell me that their diet or their God is better than mine, I get extremly annoyed. If I want a change or some advice, and I want to know about someone's diet or religion, I will ASK, TYVM.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I am actually a lot more tolerant about religion. I figure most religious beliefs don't harm anyone. But advocating some nutrition ideas might harm someone.

On the other hand, I can't really evaluate nutritional claims. It seems like they are all based on different kinds of science. This one analyzes the chemicals in food. This one does a massive population study, and says "the people who ate this way were healthiest." This one evaluates longevity, and this one other health indicators. Blah blah blah! They even look at the same studies and walk away with different conclusions! ARgh!

So I throw my hat into the ring on these discussions, sometimes. I've read a lot of books and websites on the recommendation of people here, but I never come away feeling like "well, now I KNOW THE TRUTH and it will be much easier to make lunch."


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

I think one of the things that can make veg*ns militant/passionate is not that they "care what other people eat" but that they care about what happens to animals.

Not that that is a license to be rude, but understanding that for some, it is a social justice issue, a matter of ethics, may help explain the strong feelings and the outspoken attitudes. Activists fighting abuses are often characterized as militant--sometimes deservedly, sometimes not.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
I had noticed that the theads on Nutrition/Diet can be just as heated as Religion and Politics.

It is religion. I have my own food Bible and set of beliefs. They don't always match up with what others believe.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Whenever there's a subject that's associated closely with guilt, things seem to get the most heated.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
Whenever there's a subject that's associated closely with guilt, things seem to get the most heated.

Ooh, I really like that observation, mamajama.


----------



## Hibou (Apr 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 

Can't we all just get along???

It would be nice. If we didn't get our backs up so much, we could really learn a lot from each other.


----------



## cloudswinger (Jan 24, 2005)

We once went out to dinner with a vegetarian, and ordered a meat dish. She felt the need to leave a menu up in between us so she couldn't see what we were eating. Makes conversation kind of hard.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
I think one of the things that can make veg*ns militant/passionate is not that they "care what other people eat" but that they care about what happens to animals.

Not that that is a license to be rude, but understanding that for some, it is a social justice issue, a matter of ethics, may help explain the strong feelings and the outspoken attitudes. Activists fighting abuses are often characterized as militant--sometimes deservedly, sometimes not.

But then it might help if they (using a generic "they" here) didn't assume that there isn't common ground between those that do eat meat. Just because one chooses to eat meat doesn't mean that they are ignorant to what happens in a slaughterhouse or in industrial farming practices. You might actually find a bit of an ally if more time was spent listening and less time was spent accusing. Just my .02 from experience.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloudswinger* 
We once went out to dinner with a vegetarian, and ordered a meat dish. She felt the need to leave a menu up in between us so she couldn't see what we were eating. Makes conversation kind of hard.

And what exactly did she expect to accomplish by being rude? If somebody is THAT uncomfortable watching meat being consumed, she should have expressed her discomfort before the food was ordered- or gone to an entirely vegetarian establishment.

I think we can ALL agree that we need to eat less sugar and more vegetables?


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

One post I saw a while back, that I thought was a great recommendation, and one we might all agree on, is "Don't eat square food."









Aven


----------



## desertpenguin (Apr 15, 2005)

: to everything that has been said. i think we all have a lot to learn from each other. i try not to be judgemental about my beliefs because i don't want to be faced with the same judgement. i do try to share some of my knowledge with people that i know, etc, because they really do not know about these issues and are eating a lot of stuff that is bad for them like all the processed foods that comes in boxes, and as a result, have a lot of health problems. i care about them, so i want them to be informed so they can make better choices, but all i do is share the info i know and *hope* that they make better choices. i'm not gunna be a PITA to them about it, though. well, except with my dad. lol. because he knows better.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudswinger
We once went out to dinner with a vegetarian, and ordered a meat dish. She felt the need to leave a menu up in between us so she couldn't see what we were eating. Makes conversation kind of hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla
And what exactly did she expect to accomplish by being rude? If somebody is THAT uncomfortable watching meat being consumed, she should have expressed her discomfort before the food was ordered- or gone to an entirely vegetarian establishment.
I'm a vegetarian and I just have to throw it out there that it's quite possible the sight of meat was making her _physically ill_. Sometimes I can handle looking at meat, sometimes it makes me sick to my stomach, immediately. Perhaps you could understand the feeling by imagining it was a meat-kitten or some such. Not trying to bring heat here, just saying.


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

I can't. Not if it involves taking another's life. sorry.







:


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

My family (husband and 2 year old son) is vegan and have been for 2 years and veggie before that. For us, this issue impacts us so deeply because it is our *lifestyle* not just a diet. We try each day to live a life that is peaceful and compassionate. We have done years of nutritional research as well as animal welfare research. We are mindful to act as humanely as possible when it comes to buying food, clothing, cleaning products as well as how we treat each other and our community. It trickles down into how we parent, act with our friends, and treat our marriage.

I am new to the boards here and I have to say that I am appalled at the lack of respect and civility towards each other. When I see posts that refer to vegans or veggies as "militant" I cringe. What exactly does that mean to the people that say that or feel that way? it all reminds me of how our society disenfranchises so many different groups of people by calling them names, creating laws against them, hurting them physically just to keep them silent.

Diet lifestyles are important to people. food is how we stay alive it is how we interact with each other it is how we nourish our soul. So when it is being attacked by name calling or false information it hurts. But what I find interesting about the whole thing is that it is usually the people in the majority that are the ones that feel as though they have been wronged or attacked and it is the people in the minority that feel like they just want to be able to talk about thier lives like everyone else and not be called names or attacked for thier beliefs.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Ooh, vgnmama, so true!

But I think it's something you cannot understand if you are not a veg*n. Know what I mean? That's where the militant comment comes in.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

There are such strong feelings on both sides of the meat/non-meat issue. I think comparing it to religion is somewhat accurate. And I also think that we can learn so much from each other, that to stand and beat each other up verbally is a waste of both sides' knowlege. There are places where veg*ns will never compromise, just as there are for those who eat meat. The discussion would be helped, on every level, if everyone brought less drama/over-sensitiveness and more respect. We each have our own reasons for why we choose what we choose; if we are not willing to respect each other's choices (however we feel about those decisions), why bother posting on a combined board? Just find a group of people who never challenge your view!

This board is a wealth of knowledge; it's unfortunate that we forget how to share that knowledge peaceably sometimes.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

I'm guilty of adding fuel to the fire at times. And I don't even know what I'm talking about half the time.







There's a lot of knowledgable people on this board, and I try to learn from them and reuse what they say. They often have insights that is not talked about elsewhere.

I'm an omni, and I understand how veg*ns may feel about meat-eaters because to them, it is an ethical issue. If I felt that 'meat is murder', I'd be disgusted by meat too. But I want to point out that nonetheless, the omnis on mothering are _mindful_ about their eating. I think that's the important thing. We all have come to our place based on thoughtful consideration. We are choosy where we get our meat and meat products. We are grateful to the animal for giving of their lives. At bottom, we still eat what you abhor, but we are definitely not the enemy. Not by far.

I agree with the OP about the comparison between diet and religion. People can get recalcitrant in their positions. But if I've learned anything, it's that the right thing does not go hand in hand with fanaticism. If something is so inherently right, it will eventually come to light. Or maybe there is just no absolutes when it comes to what is the right religion or diet.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Quote:

but we are definitely not the enemy. Not by far.
Respectfully, although the debate between vegheads and omnis can be or seem personal, it isn't, or, it shouldn't be. There is passion, which can cross the line into anger at times, yes. But the focus most of us have is on the welfare, treatment, and feelings of the animals. The issue is not making anyone an "enemy", which the militant term seems to suggest, but rather we come to the place of not eating meat from within that context of empathy for animals. If the term "enemy" must be applied, then ask yourself if you are an enemy to the animals you eat. If that is not a relevant question to you, then so be it. But please understand that although I appreciate your choosiness in your meat eating practices, to me it is still akin to eating a pet or a friend; however kindly you do it, you're still doing it. KWIM?


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Gigglebirds, 'enemy' was a bad choice of words. I don't think this thread was meant to get into the specifics of the debate between omni v. veg*n, but I want to maintain that kindness does matter. Factory animals live a tortured life. Pastured animals are free to roam and eat the grass that it was intended to eat. If you clump all meat-eaters into one group, I think this is a mistake.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Of course kindness matters... I don't want to start a debate either. I was just trying to illustrate that, well, if you asked your pet (and since you can't, your friend), if she'd like to be treated kindly before she's killed for consumption, she is still going to die right? So, yeah, the kindness matters... but so does the right to live. And me advocating for her life doesn't mean I have a problem with YOU, it just means I care about HER.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

I think you know that equating my eating meat to eating a friend is provoking. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## emma_goldman (May 18, 2005)

How 'bout this one:

Went to visit my sister for a few days and took a small suitcase of food! She has a notoriously SA diet. And I can't do it! But I took it in good humor when she made fun of me... and I left her some of my weird and ecclectic food.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Eating a stranger then? I think that's why there is so much debate over the veggie-meat issue... because to most veg*ns, animal life is just as sacred as human. That's why I said earlier that I don't think meat eaters can understand where we are coming from.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
But then it might help if they (using a generic "they" here) didn't assume that there isn't common ground between those that do eat meat. Just because one chooses to eat meat doesn't mean that they are ignorant to what happens in a slaughterhouse or in industrial farming practices. You might actually find a bit of an ally if more time was spent listening and less time was spent accusing. Just my .02 from experience.

Well, it depends on the type of veg*n. An abolitionist (who believes animals are not ours to eat) would not see much common ground with a meat-eater, even one who eats "humanely" killed animals. A person who is more welfarist (who supports reform measures in the animal use industries) might appreciate the more open-hearted/minded omnivore.

And is a person who stands up for the abused always an "accuser"?









Just my .02 from experience, there have been times when simply by not eating meat (and not saying a word about it other than answering the question "Do you eat meat"?) I have been told I am "making people feel guilty/uncomfortable" or "being pushy."







:


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gardenmommy* 
The discussion would be helped, on every level, if everyone brought less drama/over-sensitiveness and more respect.

Again, not say rudeness is acceptable (or effective) discourse, but I wonder if this would be said so often to people working against other forms of abuse--say, those fighting abuse of humans or the environment. I think animal activists are accused of being overly dramatic/emotional/sensitive/militant more than many other groups, with the possible exception of feminists.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
Respectfully, although the debate between vegheads and omnis can be or seem personal, it isn't, or, it shouldn't be. There is passion, which can cross the line into anger at times, yes. But the focus most of us have is on the welfare, treatment, and feelings of the animals. The issue is not making anyone an "enemy", which the militant term seems to suggest, but rather we come to the place of not eating meat from within that context of empathy for animals. If the term "enemy" must be applied, then ask yourself if you are an enemy to the animals you eat. If that is not a relevant question to you, then so be it. But please understand that although I appreciate your choosiness in your meat eating practices, to me it is still akin to eating a pet or a friend; however kindly you do it, you're still doing it. KWIM?









:














"







:


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
I used to be militant but, increasingly, I don't care what other people eat. And I don't mean that in a mean way (like "I don't care about you"). I just mean that most of us have the gray matter to make our own decisions. Those of us who don't usually have care providers to help us and don't post on the internet.

I was really a hard-core vegan at one point, very militant and very vocal about my beliefs. I know for myself I looked down on everyone who wasn't vegan and I certainly thought everyone should at least be trying to become vegan. Then after a series of health problems and just general "issues" I had to re-evaluate the way I eat and I came to the hard realization that not every diet works for everyone. I really started to think more critically about it--even more critically and with more reason than when I was becoming/was vegan. I believe you should do what makes you feel good, healthy, energetic and vibrant--whatever that is. Life is too short to not feel good, healthy, energetic and vibrant--in all aspects of your being, i.e. physically and spiritually.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Again, not say rudeness is acceptable (or effective) discourse, but I wonder if this would be said so often to people working against other forms of abuse--say, those fighting abuse of humans or the environment. I think animal activists are accused of being overly dramatic/emotional/sensitive/militant more than many other groups, with the possible exception of feminists.

Yes, I do think it can apply to many other forms of activism. I, for one, am turned off by the overdramatization/emotionalism/militance, etc. of activists for all causes. It makes me wonder why, if the situation is as they say it is, can't it speak for itself. I think that sometimes, people allow emotions to rule them, which in turn, fuels a fire toward anyone who doesn't take the same view.

For a long time, I was a vocal veg*n, looked down on others who ate meat, and who didn't have the same health standards. At this point, I don't really care so much about your diet, I just want you to have thought about what you eat.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
I'm a vegetarian and I just have to throw it out there that it's quite possible the sight of meat was making her _physically ill_. Sometimes I can handle looking at meat, sometimes it makes me sick to my stomach, immediately. Perhaps you could understand the feeling by imagining it was a meat-kitten or some such. Not trying to bring heat here, just saying.

I agree. I know that I do get literally physically ill if I see someone eat some kinds of meat. Somethings don't bother me seeing, but if I see lamb on a plate, I have to leave.

My dh is a HUGE carnivore, and he respects my decisions. He knows about conditions and ethics with it and doesn't care. Neither do my meat eating friends IRL. I think to many of us vegetarians, it is an animal being cared whether someone considers it "humane" or not. There is no in between for most of us.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I just want to reiterate again that it isn't personal. Just to help omnis understand the vegetarian/vegan perspective a little better, just imagine that you moved to a country where people ate dogs. Or, a canibalistic culture. To you, that example might seem extreme. But to vegs it isn't. Anyway, you wouldn't hate the people eating the flesh, I'm sure, as you'd recognize it as a cultural tradition. You would likely feel uneasy, or even disgusted, though... and might even try, esp in the case of the cannibals, to persuade them into different eating habits.

Also wanted to add... for a lot of vegetarians, there are religious implications. The philosophy/"religion" I most identify with is Buddhism. I agree with the principle of not harming any living creature willingly. Also, somehow, I can't imagine Jesus going hunting. But, maybe he did. Still, it doesn't fit into my concept of "right". So that's part of why it is as heated as religion. Because to some of us it is.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I don't know if Jesus hunted, but I expect he fished.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)




----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
And is a person who stands up for the abused always an "accuser"?









First off - I would agree with Michael Pollan when I state that I don't think animals are on the same level as humans. So...I don't equate all meat eating with abuse if you catch what I mean.

Secondly, when I talk about being "accused" I don't think you understood what I was refering to. What I'm referiung to is comments that assume that all meat eaters don't know where their meat comes from, don't know how it is killed, or don't know how it is raised - that is assuming that every meat eater eats the standard factory feedlot meat.

Quite frankly I'd rather eat vegetables and non-organic ones to boot than eat feedlot meat. It's a matter of principle for me. Not just because I don't want to support multinational corporations who are only in it for the money, but because I find the way that they treat the animals to be atrocious! I also find their methods of slaughter/processing to not only be harmful to those working for them, but also a public health hazard. Hence why I purchase mine directly from a farmer who treats them in a respectful way and feeds/houses them as their species should be fed/housed and who has her (yes, my farmer is a woman) meat sent to a small slaughterhouse/processing facility. Not only am I supporting the appropriate treatment of the animals, but I'm also supporting local businesses (farmer and processor). And yes...when my son is older and has a better grasp and understanding of language we will be visiting the farmer so that we can see the animals and he'll know where his food comes from.

All that to say when I talk of being "accused" by the other side I'm referring to an assumption of ignorance which quite frankly, when it comes to the majority of MDC mamas here isn't justified. Do I feel guilty? Not in the least. Am I any less passionate or less of an "advocate" for proper treatment of animals/sustainable methods? Nope. To assume anything otherwise is your issue, not mine.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21

Meats for the belly, and belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. Corinthians 6: 13

In the Essene Gospel of John ( direct translation from the Aramaic of the pure original words of Jesus) , we have : But they answered Him: "Whither should we go, Master , ...for with you are the words of eternal life. Tell us, what are the sins we must shun, that we may nevermore see disease?"

Jesus answered: ."Be it so according to your faith," and He sat down among them, saying: .'It was said to them of olden time, 'Honor thy Heavenly Father and thy Earthly Mother, and their commandments, that thy days may be long upon the earth.' And next was given this commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill,' for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man take away.

For I tell you truly, from one Mother proceeds all that lives upon the earth. Therefore he who kills, kills his brother. And from him will the Earthly Mother turn away, and will pluck from him her quickening breasts. And he .will be shunned by her angels, and Satan will have his dwelling in his body. And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and whosoever eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death. And their death will become his death. For the wages of sin is death. Kill not, neither eat the flesh of your innocent prey, lest you become the slaves of Satan. For that is the path of sufferings, and it leads unto death. But do the Will of God, that his angels may serve you on the way of life. Obey, therefore, the words of God:

"Behold, I have given you every herb, bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is breath of life, I give every green herb for meat.' Also the milk of everything that moveth and that liveth upon each shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given unto them, so I give their milk unto you. But flesh, and the blood which quickens it, shall ye not eat."

And Jesus continued:

"God commanded your fore fathers, 'Thou shalt not kill.' But their heart was hardened and they killed. Then Moses desired that at least they should not kill men, and he suffered them to kill beasts. And then the heart of your forefathers was hardened yet more, and they killed men and beasts likewise. But I say to you:

Kill neither men, nor beasts, nor yet the food which goes into your mouth. For if you eat , living food the same will quicken you, but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For life comes only from life, and from death comes always death. For every- thing which kills your food, kills your bodies also. And everything which kills your bodies, kills your souls also. And your bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirit, likewise, become what your thoughts are."


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

And back to the OP

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
I don't know if Jesus hunted, but I expect he fished.

*John 21* "Jesus and The Miraculous Catch of Fish"

He did not catch them himself, but did perform the miracle of filling the disciples net abundantly with them. They then gathered round and had a breakfast bread and fish with Jesus. (Jesus could still have fished himself, but there is no reference to that in scripiture that I know of.)

I was a vegan and now I am not. I feel spritiually right about my choice. I belive that God wants us to be good stewards and treat animals right. In *Matthew 6:26*, Jesus talked about how the Heavenly Father cared for the sparrows and says "Are you not much more valuable then they?" This shows me that human life is much more important than animal life to God.

In the Old Testament there were continual animal sacrifices to please God, also leading me to the above conclusion.

Quote:

Meats for the belly, and belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. Corinthians 6: 13
Paul is just talking to Corinthians about how sexual immorality will effect your spiritual life because some people where saying that it did not. Some Corinthians were saying that sexual immorality was like food and did not affect you spiritually.

Quote:

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21
An example to clarify this passage is that if your brother is an alcoholic, don't drink in front of him and cause him to stumble. Also, if a person felt convicted not to eat meat, I would not serve it in my home as a Christian because it would offend them. Also, I know some Christains who do not eat pork or shellfish so those ould be off the menu of they came over.

I do respect others rights to choose their foods/lifestyle. I do care more about my religion though, and feel I must repond when Jesus words are interpretted in a way that He did not mean for them to be, IMO. (I did not respond to the Essene gospels because I don't believe in them).

Happy eating what you please!
Jen


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

I've been reading, but not posting because from what I can tell, some of the veg*ns on this thread don't care to engage non-veg*ns. It seems that you want to remain relevant only with those who shares your views. I don't make it a practice of engaging in dialogue with those that knowingly disrespect me, and when I point that out, show no remorse.

So posting is probably a mistake, but I just wanted to address your identification with Buddhism Gigglebirds. I am a Buddhist in the Vajrayana lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. I actually just took refuge, but have been practicing for a while. Some Buddhists do avoid meat(not in the Vajrayana lineage), and some actually only eat fruit that's already fallen off trees, and take care where they step so they won't harm any living creature, not the tiniest bug. There have been debates on this board about whether veggies and fruits are living things, which I do think they are. They have sentience, and scientists will confirm that. But then there are other Buddhists who believe in the circle of life. Just by being born, we become consumers. We take oxygen out of the air, we kill bugs as we walk, we take food from the earth. So long as we are embodied, we take from the earth, leaving it worse than when it began. The only way to escape this situation is to end the cycle. We take life, and we give life. Tibetans have a long history of feeding the human dead to vultures rather than burying them. It is not the essence of who we are. It is just the flesh, and the flesh gets recycled just as our souls do until we finally Escape.

Those Buddhists who eat only fruit that's fallen to the ground do not go on the offensive and attack anyone who does not do what they do. If you are compassionate, please lead the way by example. I just don't see how I am supposed to approach a dialogue with you when you are on the attack. I have never seen an omni as obsessed by gory descriptions of animals. Maybe your focus should be on something more positive. I believe we are what we put our energy into.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

The topic of nutrition is just as heated as any discussion on religion or politics because there is little science in most people's beliefs about food.

The same goes for any information you would get from a medical doctor regarding nutrition; there is often little science in the info they dish out. Nutrition is not a big subject in medical school.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Mommay,

Thanks for the reply. I am not sure I want to go over my feelings on this again, but I wonder if you'd say the same things on the circ forum? No... not a perfect parallel. But the comments about me being not "positive" when I say I don't want to hurt animals is really confusing. Same as discussing the pain and suffering of a circumcision. To me. Well, I'm going to shutup now.


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

I find it ironic that the entire point of this thread was about being civil and getting along.

Personally, I think some people just *like* the drama.








:


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

The topic was why the subject of food is heated. I think understanding is possible if everyone is open to discussion. I don't think it's dramatic... but it's very tricky when peoples' ideologies are so vastly different, much like religion. I love my meat eating friends (the majority of them are), but there are so few people IRL who I can talk to about this stuff, and so few people who ask "why...?". Maybe it was a rhetorical question on the part of the OP, but if someone really wants to understand my pov, which is all I can lend to the discussion; one angle on it, then I will give it. Animals can't speak for themselves.


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
The topic was why the subject of food is heated. I think understanding is possible if everyone is open to discussion. I don't think it's dramatic... but it's very tricky when peoples' ideologies are so vastly different, much like religion. I love my meat eating friends (the majority of them are), but there are so few people IRL who I can talk to about this stuff, and so few people who ask "why...?". Maybe it was a rhetorical question on the part of the OP, but if someone really wants to understand my pov, which is all I can lend to the discussion; one angle on it, then I will give it. Animals can't speak for themselves.

Fair enough. I never doubted why it's a passionate topic. But like religion, I go into it assuming that if I know the other person doesn't share my views, I need to be careful what I say lest I offend them. And with all due respect for the best intention behind the example, I am somewhat offended that I need to look at my food as 'meat kitten'. Or that animals can't speak for themselves. Saying that is assuming that animals would beg me not to eat them. And I disagree. And that is my opinion. And I wholly support veg*nism, no matter what the reason. But out-of-context biblical verses? Yeah I think that's kinda dramatic.

But, I'm just dragging it on. So I will bow out.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Hey Granolamom.

The purpose of my analogies (which tend not to be exceptional by any means







) was to desensitize those who view meat as _food_, rather than as the animal from which it originated. What is the difference between a cat and a cow? And if they would care less as to whether they were eaten, why wouldn't a cat, and thus, why would that suggestion offend you?

No offense intended anyway. I don't think speculating as to Jesus' teachings is out of context, either. I didn't know the guy, and there are quotes supporting either side of the meat debate... so who knows!

Peace.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
The purpose of my analogies (which tend not to be exceptional by any means







) was to desensitize those who view meat as _food_, rather than as the animal from which it originated.

But I don't really think that those of us on MDC who eat meat think of it just as food in some anisceptic sense hence the need for you to "desensitize us". That's an absurd assumption to make. I know exactly where my meal came from - from a cow or a chicken or a pig or a lamb that was at one point living (as most every source of nutrition usually was at one point). I have no qualms about going to the farm and seeing the animals whilst knowing that they might one day be part of my dinner.

The difference between my cats and the animal at the farm is ultimately no different. I've just chosen to have cats (or rather agreed to them b/c my dh really wanted a pet and I don't care for dogs) as a pet. Quite frankly cows, chickens, pigs, etc wouldn't make good pets for me because I just don't have the room at my house - although that would certainly shorten the trip for raw milk!

I believe in some cultures dogs, cats or horses are eaten for food and I don't have any problems with that if that's what's acceptable to them. It's certainly their perogative - just not my choice.

Regardless of the particular animal's status in my family as pet or part of our meal it doesn't change the fact that it's an animal. I don't confer on them the same status as I do another human being. They do not have the same capacities - they feel pain, but in my view do not have the ability to dwell on that or what will happen to them in the future.

That doesn't mean that they should be abused, but I don't think that by having cow, chicken, pig or whatever for dinner makes them abused. If the animal has been treated appropriately for its species and killed in the right manner then I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. I would argue that the animal has had a fulfilling life just by the very fact that it has been able to express it's very cowness, etc. If the cow spent its life grazing and free to move around as it wishes - outside and not in some tiny concrete stall then I don't see a problem with that.

To reference another MDC mama here - within this life we are all part of the cycle of life and of death. Why should I remove myself from that cycle?


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

At the risk of many flying tomatoes, would you condone eating mentally capacitated persons who have no concept of their futures? If that is your basis, I mean...








:







:







:







:







:







:







:







:







:







:
(yikes)


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

This thread is reminding me of how I deal with my son at times. He's going through a stage of trying to gross me out. I always one-up him. He cannot win. If I played the game here, it would be considered baiting and that's against the UA.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
At the risk of many flying tomatoes, would you condone eating mentally capacitated persons who have no concept of their futures? If that is your basis, I mean...

I don't know pamered mom IRL, but I am pretty sure she would not eat a "mentally capacitated" persons.







:

Quote:

No offense intended anyway. I don't think speculating as to Jesus' teachings is out of context, either. I didn't know the guy, and there are quotes supporting either side of the meat debate... so who knows!
I have not found evidence in what Jesus said that would make me feel confused about the meat topic. He filled His followers' nets with fish and He knew that they were going to eat them. I don't think He would do that if it was a sin to eat them. If I really thought that God wanted me to be a vegetarian I would become one this minute.


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 

Quote:

No offense intended anyway.

Quote:

At the risk of many flying tomatoes, would you condone eating mentally capacitated persons who have no concept of their futures? If that is your basis, I mean...


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I thought the fishing thing was just a metaphor, personally.

About the mentally capacitated persons comment.. I know it was over the top. But to me, so is eating animals.







I just mean, if they're not good for anything other than living their lives in their not-regular/human ways and that is enough to eat them... I dunno. I should really shut my big fingers now. I really like discussion, but I know it is frustrating and emotion laden for many (and me too sometimes).


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

nak, nutrition and ethics are closely linked to *world view*, which is different for each of us. I'm an animist . . . I believe the earth and everything it holds is alive/has a soul. Animals just happen to have eyes which are easy windows to the soul.
ftr, I find a lot of inconsistencies within the vegan paradigm. It really doesn't make sense to me and to be honest seems far from a sustainable long-term solution. I'd never presume to ask the questions that come into my mind, though, because I don't think it would actually accomplish anything and could quite conceivably come across as snarky.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Nevermind.

Good night all.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Oh, and no I would not eat a cat because they are carnivores and humans should not eat carnivores. And there is no nutritive value to eating a human, especially one who is not in good condition.


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
And there is no nutritive value to eating a human, especially one who is not in good condition.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Gale, honestly, I am persisting because I want to know where your line is, and why?

To answer your question, yes, my emotional attachment to my child would make it harder to deal with, but if I was just as well aquainted with the animal down the road it would be just as hard. Honest truth.

The core belief system differences between the majority of vegs and the majority of meat eaters seem to make any discussion difficult without use of metaphors, imo. I am not intending to gross out or offend anyone. Granted, I am not a conventional person, but I am just trying to follow down the lines of logic provided for me to their end, and to understand the basis for the reasons stated for eating meat. Personally I find it fascinating because I cannot understand the mindset behind it and am trying to understand it. If my questions make you uncomfortable, I'm sorry. But really I'm just trying to understand how a person can think an animal shouldn't have the same rights as a human. And where/why that line is.

eta: Just because I don't know an animal personally and within the same capacity as I can know a human, doesn't mean it should be without its right to life. The fact is, we don't KNOW how much animals understand, percieve, etc.. after all, isn't science discovering new things about animals everyday? Capacities humans don't have?

omg, Herth, the casualness of your comment was very funny! But there _is_ nutritive value to eating lentils and tempeh and beans. I've lived 15 years without eating animals and I'm doing great!


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Actually, I think you're trying to get us to see your viewpoint, not the other way around. We get it. Well, I do anyway. I don't identify with it, but I can understand it. If you truly want to know where I, as an unapologetic meat eater, am coming from, I will attempt to explain it to you. But I actually don't think you really want to.

eta: I do think it's great that you are able to eat what you want to/what feels right to you and feel great doing it.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Yes I do want to hear! Okay, since we already know I won't agree with it, I promise I won't post a reply, unless there is something I really don't understand...







Please post it!







:


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Okay, fair warning, this is going to take a while and it's almost one am here, so I may not finish tonight, but here goes. Also, I have a really hard time concisely getting my thoughts across, but I'll try not to be too rambly.
First of all, I've already stated that I believe everything on the earth that is natural has energy or a soul. That includes plants, animals, fungi, rocks, etc, whether they are "alive" or "dead". I feel the energy of the hardwood floors in my house and the lack of energy in the synthetic carpet in the basement. The same holds true of my food. There is a different energy which comes from natural ("organic") and unnatural (processed, pesticide-ridden, factory-farmed) food. And I meant what I said above, that the eyes of an animal are an easy window to the soul. We are animals, so we identify with them. But I feel the energy from other things, so to me, their souls are just as valid.
I don't believe that humans and human settlements should be _separate_ from everything else on the earth. I believe humans are animals, just like any other mammal on earth, and that we should make an attempt to integrate ourselves back into the natural world. To me, this means that the paradigm which discusses land for growing human food as something which must be distinguished from "the environment" is useless. As an example, wheat crops, which are abundant where I live, should not exist. They do not allow for much biodiversity. (And there are many small mammals killed in the process of harvesting them - in fact, I'd go as far as to say that unless one grows one's own grain and hand harvests it - which iirc would expend more energy than it would give back - that going grain-free would kill less animals than going veg). Rather, we should be using a permaculture model which would allow for the integration of all types of wildlife into the area in which food is grown. In my particular area, the best way of doing this would be to bring back native pastureland. The variety of insects and fungi in native pasture is much higher than in a monocrop, and that leads to a wider diversity of mammals, reptiles, birds. Pastureland needs grazing animals in order to remain healthy.
I also believe that we should be eating locally both for our health and the health of the earth. Again, in my particular climate, this means that no leafy green vegetables grow in the middle of winter (in fact, nothing will grow midwinter). This means our bodies produce no Vitamin D between November and April of any given year, so it must be obtained through diet. I also believe there is a strong connection between eating locally in-season and the body's ability to cope with variations in climate (I know it's anecdotal, but anyone I've ever known locally who was veg*n or almost was much less able to cope with -40 weather).
I believe synthetic fabrics are hazardous to the earth and the people who produce them in both their manufacture and their (lack of) decomposition. There are dangers of offgassing, which in some cases in a couple hundred years will create a very toxic atmosphere. They lack energy. They make us sick, they make the earth sick. So in my climate, the alternative which allows sufficient warmth is animal skin and fur.
There's more, but I'm very tired, so I'll have to write more later (although, keep in mind I have a 34 month old and a 10 month old who don't afford me much time to type, much less to structure my thoughts into intelligible sentences, so it might be in spurts or late tomorrow night - by then, the conversation might totally lead away from it too).


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

HerthElde, I think you made your point very well and wanted to thank you for your post. I became a vegetarian because I felt it was the only ethical choice available to me after learning of industrial farming practices. Now I'm learning that it's so much more complicated than meat or no meat. I'm currently reading and learning a lot from Micahel Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and I think the world would be a much better place if the Polyface Farm model was the rule, not the exception.

To me MDC is a gathering of people who put a lot of thought into their lives and the choices they make. We want to do the right thing. We are thoughtful, ethical people. Discussions are going to get a little heated now and again. And lets remember this is the internet and we have license to express ourselves a little more, shall we say forcefully, than IRL.

GiggleBirds - Have you ever thought of how privilaged we are to be able to survive without animal products? We are a fortunate few with many food choices at all times of the year. Personally, I'm grateful that I can choose to be a vegetarian. At other times and other places it would not be possible. I try to keep that in mind before I judge anyone elses dietary/lifestyle choices.
If you lived in the arctic, you'd be eating seal. You'd be wearing fur. You would give thanks for the animals that kept you alive. That's the first example that came to my mind. Have you ever read Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George? It's a great book for young readers. It is possible to live ethically and live off animals. It's just really difficult to do in our sick culture, IMO.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JSerene* 

GiggleBirds - Have you ever thought of how privilaged we are to be able to survive without animal products? We are a fortunate few with many food choices at all times of the year. Personally, I'm grateful that I can choose to be a vegetarian. At other times and other places it would not be possible. I try to keep that in mind before I judge anyone elses dietary/lifestyle choices.
If you lived in the arctic, you'd be eating seal. You'd be wearing fur. You would give thanks for the animals that kept you alive. That's the first example that came to my mind. .

Very well said! ITA.

I am glad that you are doing well on a vegan diet GiggleBirds. I wanted it to, but it did not work for me even though I _used_ to think it was the healthiest way for me to eat. My line is where my health declines and I am spending too much time in the hopsital and causing my family to suffer. I haver to answer to God ad He says that it is okay to eat animals, but I would never eat a human (just in case you needed clarification). I would eat any animal if I had to _survive_, like much of the worlds population is trying to do. Many people would die if they could not hunt also. For me, it pretty much came down to keep me alive or keeping the cow alive. I chose me and it was a good decision.

Once I found traditional foods it all made sense that animal products could be healthy and animals can be raised well.
I am doing much better eating this way and my sensitive conscious is clear.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I imagine there would be plenty of nutritive value in eating a human living on a traditional human diet. It looks like I erased my comment that you can all eat my dead body if you need to. I still mean it and I'm on a traditional diet, so you could make Gale Force jerky. You could call it GF jerky because it would also be gluten free.

If the logical extension of veganism is that their own children are on the same level as the steer down the road from me, then I guess I will never understand that viewpoint. Even a cow would put her own calf above my son. Vegan children are all safe with me of course because I don't eat humans (unless trapped in the Andes mountains in the snow), as inconsistent as that might appear to some. I have no need to be logically consistent just because someone thinks that I'm not. I just have need for vitamin B-12. I doubt the forest will ever be empty of non-human B-12 opportunities. Just the house fly population lately would suffice. So the line that I draw is that I don't eat humans but will eat just about anything else.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

nak, also want to discuss death as I see it and nutrient bioavailability wrt future generational health. Dietary/nutrient needs wrt location and genetic heritage.

Oh, and GF, you're right of course in thatt there is nutrient value in a human. It's just not outweighed by dangers of illness present in cannibalism. And I'd still never knowingly eat a very sick animal, human or otherwise. And I do believe the root cause of mental illness is malnutrition.
Thanks for the offer, btw. You all could eat me too







I'm not gluten free, however.

Oh, and my cats are my babies too. But of the non-reproducing variety.

eta: is eating the placenta a form of cannibalism? and did you all ever read the anne rice book where the twins didnt get to eat their mothers' organs when she died? I thought the premise was quite beautiful.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Somewhat off-topic on the surface, but if anyone cares to explore this in-depth, it is right on topic of what is being discussed here.

Has anyone read Jared Diamond's "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"? He talks about the impact that organized agriculture has had on society and the advantages of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. It is very interesting in light of the discussion on this thread. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing élite set itself above the disease-ridden masses.
Jared Diamond, Discover Magazine, May 1987.

This is the supreme example of eating locally, and of taking from the earth only what one truly needs, rather than hoarding surplus food and using it to wield power over others. As someone who is mostly, but not strictly, vegetarian, I find this reason for pause and perhaps a recognition that there are things to be said for an omni diet, as well.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Wow, this thread just became interesting. It goes to show that omni's are truly mindful on mothering.

I just wanted to address a small point. Gigglebirds, you asked what I meant by "more positive". I meant that if the primary reasons for why I was a Buddhist was because I was anti-Christian, that would be negative. And if every time I gave my reasons, I kept going on about them dang-nammit Christians with their *$#!! views, then to me, my reasons for being a Budhhist would not be positive. I would be defining myself in terms of what I don't like and want as opposed to what I genuinely believe in.

Your "gross out" tactics remind me of "The Passion of Christ". If you don't like gore and mutilation, become a veg*n. But again, where is the focus on the positive reasons for bein veg*n?


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
At the risk of many flying tomatoes, would you condone eating mentally capacitated persons who have no concept of their futures? If that is your basis, I mean...

No...I don't believe that's the basis of my argument. Did you read everything I wrote?

At the risk of encouraging you to continue with ridiculous arguments like the one above - No...I would not eat a mentally _in_capacitated (or capacitated person as you wrote). It's starting to look like that you read what I wrote and just picked up on whatever salacious bit you wanted to use to further your argument.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record because I swear I've probably said this three times in this discussion so far....the mentally incapacitated (and capacitated) persons are....PEOPLE and not animals. Regardless of that person's mental capacity they are still people and you can't equate the two.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds*
Granted, I am not a conventional person, but I am just trying to follow down the lines of logic provided for me to their end, and to understand the basis for the reasons stated for eating meat. Personally I find it fascinating because I cannot understand the mindset behind it and am trying to understand it. If my questions make you uncomfortable, I'm sorry. But really I'm just trying to understand how a person can think an animal shouldn't have the same rights as a human. And where/why that line is.

See...I don't think you are trying to follow the lines of logic to their end and understand anything. So far all I've seen you do is attempt to get people to understand that you think humans and animals are the same and should be treated the same. I get that's what you think. I don't agree with you anymore than you agree with me. Seriously...if you'd like to understand a true omnivore's thoughts on the issue I would suggest investigating a few other well written sources outside of PETA and anyother AR organization. Because honestly, to read someone's argument for the purpose of learning how to argue against it isn't the same thing as actually reading to understand it. Have you ever read Michael Pollan's book "The Ominvore's Dilema"?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay*
I would be defining myself in terms of what I don't like and want as opposed to what I genuinely believe in.

I would completely agree with this statement. I don't want to be known for what I am against - be that in religious or non-religious situations because in my mind that detracts from whatever I'm for. I feel that if I'm always defining the constructs of the argument into what I'm against then ultimately I will discourage folks from investigating what I'm _for_.

And yes, GiggleBirds I am glad, like several others here mentioned, that you are able to continue eating a vegan lifestyle with no adverse effects on your health. My family and I tried a mindful l/o lifestyle for about a year - year and a half tops. In that short period of time we were already seeing warning signs and experiencing diminished health. I for one was not willing to risk the health of my family in order to continue the experiment. And, ultimately, like Gale Force it becomes an issue of finding the best sources to fill in the gaps where you are lacking. I don't know as I would eat just about anything (like houseflies) to fill those gaps, but if we continued to experience deficiencies you can bet I probably would.


----------



## knome (Nov 17, 2005)

For me, it's come down to a simple equation: How close can I get to the diet that created our species?

We are what we are.. we have needs, our bodies were created in the way they are and so we are stuck with it. Why rail against those things we cannot control?

I was a Vegetarian for 6 years and was very careful.. my health still declined and its taken 5+ years to get back on track. Obviously everyone doesn't have this experience, but I've a friend who weaned off veggie after a similar amount of time, and she knows two more. It is most definitely not for everyone's body.

If we need to kill animals to live healthily, then why can't we just take a philosophical approach and give those animals a respectful, contented life and a painless death? THAT is my objection to current practice, and is why I stick as much as possible to meat that I know is produced in this way.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

But she's being so logical that she agrees that if she had an mentally incapacitated child, that child (and I imagine any other child) is on the same level with a steer down the road. That's where logic leads in this case and she's standing behind it. The same logic says that my child is at the level of the house flies my husband was just swatting. The same logic would suggest that if the house was on fire I should make as much effort to save those house flies as my son. That's where logic gets us on the AR vegan side. It's about as attractive as cannabolism.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
But she's being so logical that she agrees that if she had an mentally incapacitated child, that child (and I imagine any other child) is on the same level with a steer down the road. That's where logic leads in this case and she's standing behind it. The same logic says that my child is at the level of the house flies my husband was just swatting. The same logic would suggest that if the house was on fire I should make as much effort to save those house flies as my son. That's where logic gets us on the AR vegan side. It's about as attractive as cannabolism

I couldn't agree more.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Thanks for the offer, btw. You all could eat me too







I'm not gluten free, however.

Sorry this just cracked me up.

I became a vegetarian for awhile after reading Bataille's Theory of Religion. I was very moved by the idea that we've gone from religions that took the whole earth into account to religions that made us masters of creation. Eventually free range and organic came along and that fit in with my beliefs so I'm back to being an omnivore. I feel like that by not being an omnivore I'm disrespecting the earth and the diet biologically I'm supposed to be eating. I want to be part of the circle of life. And I want to be mindful of it. I've never thought it wrong to eat an animal just wrong to disrespect it. I think factory farming disrespects animals and veggies and fruits too.

I'm very lucky I live in a state where organic produce is easy to get as well as organic meats. I'll be eating a turkey this Thanksgiving that grew up 2 miles from my house. I will be using every bit of that turkey from initial meal with giblet gravy to stock from it's bones.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
I want to be part of the circle of life. And I want to be mindful of it. I've never thought it wrong to eat an animal just wrong to disrespect it. I think factory farming disrespects animals and veggies and fruits too.

I'm very lucky I live in a state where organic produce is easy to get as well as organic meats. I'll be eating a turkey this Thanksgiving that grew up 2 miles from my house. I will be using every bit of that turkey from initial meal with giblet gravy to stock from it's bones.

Very well put. I also think it's being a good steward of the resources available to use every bit available from nose to tail and everything in between so to speak. So that not one bit goes to waste.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Following the logic of the steer down the road being on the same level as your child (or any other human); why is it okay for animals in general, or to get more specific, mammals, to kill and eat meat? If they are no different from us in terms of the ability to feel, and maybe think ... if their lives are just as valuable as ours, then shouldn't *all* animals be vegan (for mammals, they'd be vegan once weaned)? Why is it okay for them to kill a prey and partake on the food chain in a natural way, and yet it's not okay for us to take our part (as I see it) on the food chain?


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

No, I wouldn't put the steer down the road _above_ my child. I would be as sad if I knew it as intimately as I knew my daughter. I have spent hours in a field with cows, and their gentle, kind eyes held as much wonder and beauty as any human eye.

That's all.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyLittleWonders* 
Following the logic of the steer down the road being on the same level as your child (or any other human); why is it okay for animals in general, or to get more specific, mammals, to kill and eat meat? If they are no different from us in terms of the ability to feel, and maybe think ... if their lives are just as valuable as ours, then shouldn't *all* animals be vegan (for mammals, they'd be vegan once weaned)? Why is it okay for them to kill a prey and partake on the food chain in a natural way, and yet it's not okay for us to take our part (as I see it) on the food chain?

Isn't the logical conclusion then that there is in fact some difference in the way that humans think, reason, feel than the way that animals do?


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Aren't most acts of violence supported under the paradigm of _difference_?

What about the one of sameness? That's the one I'm operating under.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

So in order to operate in a world of sameness we have to ignore that difference and pretend it doesn't exist? I'm just wondering how you explain the difference...


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

So under the sameness paradigm, would we expect to observe you spending the same amount of time helping the house fly out of the house during the fire as you would the human occupants?


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Yes I spend as much time as necessary helping all insects out of my home. If my daughter needs my attention during this time, I give it to her and resume when I can.

pampered_mom,

The thing about DIFFERENCE is, it is _different_, which means, ultimately, unknowable. So you can't _know_ an animal, because you are not one (you know what I mean... yes you are, but not a non-human one). So given that, you do not know their feelings, purpose, etc. In my opinion, that in itself warrants respect.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

You still didn't answer my question of the issue of veganism and the rest of the animal kingdom, or even within the realm of mammals. Why is okay for *other* animals to be omnis or even carnivores, but not okay for humans?


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Um..









Okay I'm naking and I had to stop my post.. I'll come back later.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
So given that, you do not know their feelings, purpose, etc. In my opinion, that in itself warrants respect.

So eating meat that was raised in an appropriate way for their species and slaughtered/processed in an appropriate way is _less_ respectful than that found in the wild?

What determines the level of respect?


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
Also, somehow, I can't imagine Jesus going hunting. But, maybe he did. Still, it doesn't fit into my concept of "right". So that's part of why it is as heated as religion. Because to some of us it is.

Well, Jesus lived his life as a Jew. Whether his followers think they're obligated to observe the laws of Torah is a completely separate discussion. Knowing what I know about keeping kosher, it logically follows that Jesus didn't go hunting but did eat kosher meat- from mammals that chew their cud and had split hooves, as well as poultry, and were slaughtered by a shochet (kosher slaughterer). Fish needs to have fins and scales and needs no special preparation. If he was living somewhere without a shochet and he lacked the skills himself, then he would have eaten fish, dairy products, eggs, and vegetation.

My understanding is that mainstream Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- all the religions that hold the Book of Genesis to be a Holy Book, beleive that G-d first told humans to be vegetarian (instructions given to Adam and Eve/Chava) and later told humans to be omnivores (instructions given to Noah.) How can eating meat be "immoral" if G-d gave us instructions on how to eat it? (Of course, this argument only works for Jews, Christians, and Muslims who beleive in the Bible.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
I you could make Gale Force jerky. You could call it GF jerky because it would also be gluten free.











Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
So under the sameness paradigm, would we expect to observe you spending the same amount of time helping the house fly out of the house during the fire as you would the human occupants?

In all fairness, houseflies could fly out of a burning house and wouldn't need assistance in getting out. A better example might be rodents living in the walls. Even then, they might be able to climb out via pathways unavailable to us big bulky humans and probably won't need our help.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
In all fairness, houseflies could fly out of a burning house and wouldn't need assistance in getting out. A better example might be rodents living in the walls. Even then, they might be able to climb out via pathways unavailable to us big bulky humans and probably won't need our help.

Good point. Here's a better scenario to help us understand the sameness approach:

You're on you daily walk past a school. It is on fire and there are ten children trapped inside. You see no other adults and there is no other assistance in sight. You know from the news story last that there are also ten pregnant rats in the school as part of an science experiment the children are conducting. Each rat is in a cage and is carrying quintuplets. You know from your fire rescue training that you have time to save ten units -- children and rats are each a unit. You can save any combination of ten units. None of the twenty units can help the other units. Anyone or anything to be saved will be saved by you. You can hope for assistance for the remaining ten units, but it is not guaranteed. Which units do you save first? Rats? Children? Some combination of the two?


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

GF, that is a good scenario. It pinpoints one of the main problems I have with the AR movement. If people and animals are equally valuable, then there is no right choice; someone will suffer. You would be commiting a crime (ethical, to be true, certainly not legal) by leaving the rats to suffer, and one by leaving the children to suffer. If all life is equally valuable, how can you ever choose in such a situation?

If you say, "well, I'd save the children, of course!", then you are, by default, admitting that human life is more valuable than animals. And I think that very few people would go that far. I think the obvious choice that most everyone would make in such a scenario illustrates the fact that deep down, most people do indeed value human life more highly than animal life.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that animals, no matter how intelligent, have the same ability to reason, the same capacity for insight, and the same value as humans (even/especially mentally incapacitated humans). I love animals. They are important, they have value, if for no other reason than God created them. But they do not have the same value as humans. (and, yes, I am coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective.)


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

There are a lot of interesting arguments. I wanted to throw in another one from a "philosophical" perspective. There is a view of animal rights from the "phenomenological" perspective that believes that the approach has to be human-centered. When you fight on the animal's behalf, you're really fighting for yourself, for your own ethical needs. What people are saying about "difference" is a part of it. It would be arrogant to presume to "know" what the animal needs. Whether you are cruel or compassionate to that animal stems from your own constitution. You project the feelings upon the animal.

Ultimately, we have to take personal responsibility for our beliefs. The animal is not going to verify the omni or veg*n side.

Another aspect to this is that we, as humans, cannot shed our skins as the "highest" on the food chain. We are intelligent and capable of vast manipulation of our environment. Even if you wanted, you just cannot change the course of human history. By refraining from meat-eating, a person still participates in human institutions that involve taking land away from animals, and all the other "evils" of humanity. But part of the game is to survive. We're really good at it. I think we definitely need to curb it, but we need to be realistic about the parameters.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry guys! I didn't mean to start a stir, but at the same time I'm not a bit surprised!!!

My DH graduated from Institute of Integrative Nutrition in NY and he learned ofmany different ways of eating.
One thing that he learned is that everyone's body/organism is very different and unique. There is no "one size fits all". Some people do great on vegetarian diet/some don't. It has a lot to do with how your body can utilize nutrients from vegetables and even blood type can play a role.

Some people I know for sure just cannot be vegans. They will not thrive and their health will suffer. Some however do great.
I know a friend who was under a lot of pressure to be vegan from her fiancee. She tried, her health suffered. Her immune system weakened, she always felt fatique. And she ate really well - tons of deep green leafy veggies, beans, legumes, grains, supplemented with algaes and sea veggies. Still she was very unhappy. She craved animal products and therefore her health suffer.
You have to be happy with what you eat. You have to enjoy your food. Bless it. Chew well. If you don't enjoy eating what you are eating - rest assured, you will not thrive.

Some people are disgusted with meat - those are the people who are meant to be vegans.
Honestly I think that ethics though play an important part, they are not the main reason to become vegan. YOUR HEALTH is the main reason and if you feel being vegetarian is best for your health, GO FOR IT.


----------



## Boobs (Apr 17, 2004)

Am I the only one totally amused that this thread turned into a heated discussion?!








And I agree with Janelovesmax 100%.


----------



## saratc (May 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Boobs* 
Am I the only one totally amused that this thread turned into a heated discussion?!








And I agree with Janelovesmax 100%.

I agree, this is my first post on this thread. Yet, I've followed it since it appeared. I applaud everyone for their passion and well argued logic. I do agree with Janelovesmax though -- to each his own!


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I don't see why the children couldn't each grab a rat. But if they were on the other side of the school or something, and there was NO one else around to help, then yes, I would save the kids. Just like I would protect my daughter from an animal (though do my best to not hurt it)... just like I would protect her from a crazy man, who, yes, also has the right to life.

Having (circumstancial) preferrence doesn't mean that I don't think a rat/animal's life should be valued. If the issue of meat eating was an either/or event in which every animal killed was done so only in the event that it was attacking a child or some such, well, first I'd lobby to build bigger fences







, and then, in that situation, I might think it was understandable that the animal be eaten. But it isn't either/or.


----------



## OceanMomma (Nov 28, 2001)

Having spent 20 odd years as a vocal obnoxious veg*n, I tend to keep quiet about the nutritional side of things these days. Unless I get asked that is.

I can see the difference in my child who was brought up vege & my trad foods babies. It makes me very leery of getting too vocal as I was so sure I was right all those years.

I am still quite a rabid animal rights advocate so I do still get in ppl's faces about things like battery chickens & sow crate pigs. We don't have feed lot cows & sheep here. But living out in the boonies, I can attest to the fact that even if an animal is "free range" & "grass fed", even "organic", it can still be neglected.


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OceanMomma* 
I can see the difference in my child who was brought up vege & my trad foods babies. It makes me very leery of getting too vocal as I was so sure I was right all those years.

Would you mind sharing the differences? I'm searching for answers for my own toddler right now and I'd love to hear what you know.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I don't really know how we can find common ground, but I so want to do it. I don't think I can participate in this thread anymore because I am feeling like I am being seen as an attacker, while that is not how I feel about myself. I also don't feel I can understand how a person can justify taking a life when it is not necessary. As to whether or not it is necessary to some people's health, I grant that is a possibility and I have sympathy and empathy for those who are put in that position while also loving animals. You are now exempt from my militant judgement









Okay, and I also realize that while I say I am not trying to be judgemental, my having decided that meat is murder is in itself a judgement, so I am a hypocrite. Anyway, I don't really have bad feelings about any of the people here I've discussed things with. Really my feelings are mostly centred around the animals on this one.

Thank you all for the discussion and the food for thought. Agree to disagree, I guess. I'm going to post this on the other thread too.


----------



## Malva (Nov 2, 2005)

I thought from the start that this was a pretty funny thread actually. This is one of the forums I read quite a lot but I see very little controversy.

Well, I don't read the NT and Veg forums, and stick to the main Nutrition and Good eating and Meal Planning forums, could that be why?









I also don't read most "how bad is milk" threads that regularly come up...

I guess selective reading has drama-proofed me!


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.

Fair enough, but if the offer were to kill the bunny quickly and eat it with the green beans that would be my choice. So I guess it would depend what time it was.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Fair enough, but if the offer were to kill the bunny quickly and eat it with the green beans that would be my choice. So I guess it would depend what time it was.









Ok, so I never considered THAT option.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.

That seems to be a false choice. Is it the rabbit that's for the omni dinner? If not, of course everyone would pick beans and rice no need to make an animal suffer needlessly. Seems more like a PETA tactic meant to evoke emotion rather than actually thinking about things from an ethical or philosophical viewpoint.

If yes, I'd prefer a quicker method of killing but frankly I make the choice to smash the rabbit to smithereens every night. I'd prefer it was a rabbit rather than a bunny as there's more meat on a fully grown rabbit. Although my freezer is full of free range organic meats grown just up the road that were killed a little more humanely. As my husband says cute animals are tasty.

I do think there are lots of people who eat meat who don't think about where it comes from. I have a pet peeve about people who only eat boneless skinless chicken breasts. Where is your connection to the animal you're eating, where are you even acknowledging you're eating an animal by only eating that? But that's another rant. It does seem on this board that there are a lot of mommas and papas who do know exactly where their meat has come from, maybe even met it and who would chose the rabbit every time.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

First of all, why is this guy threatening to kill this bunny with a sledge hammer? Is it so that he (or she) can eat it for dinner tonight? Is it to make a point? If so, what's the point? An animal rights activist that goes around killing cute bunnies? This sounds like a mentally unstable individual!

Honestly, if somebody presented that choice to me in my backyard I'd call 911!!! What's this person going to do to make sure I eat my rice and beans after promising to? What will happen to ME if I promise to eat rice and beans but then opt for a balogna sandwich? Screw the rabbit, I'm calling the cops!!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
Having (circumstancial) preferrence doesn't mean that I don't think a rat/animal's life should be valued.

Very good. I have a circumstantial preference not to eat a human. Therefore, I do not support canabolism.

pixiexto -- your analogy does not test GiggleBird's view of "sameness," that's what my analogy is designed to do. But I'll answer anyway. If this is a groundhog day sort of analogy where I wake up every morning and have to decide whether to eat Peter Cottontail, I would. But I'd ask my dad to do it. He's a good shot. If it's just an issue of dinner tonight, I'd probably just eat the rice and beans. If your husband added an element to the analogy like "your child is B-12 deficient and is ready for dinner," that would be a more realistic angle for a lot of us here.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
First of all, why is this guy threatening to kill this bunny with a sledge hammer? Is it so that he (or she) can eat it for dinner tonight? Is it to make a point? If so, what's the point? An animal rights activist that goes around killing cute bunnies? This sounds like a mentally unstable individual!

Honestly, if somebody presented that choice to me in my backyard I'd call 911!!! What's this person going to do to make sure I eat my rice and beans after promising to? What will happen to ME if I promise to eat rice and beans but then opt for a balogna sandwich? Screw the rabbit, I'm calling the cops!!


Ok, it is a made up, ridiculous story. The basic idea is when you can choose to preserve life, I choose to preserve life. There is no loss to me, no loss to my children.

Ok, I'm going to make muffins. 'nuff time spent on these discussions.


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
If your husband added an element to the analogy like "your child is B-12 deficient and is ready for dinner," that would be a more realistic angle for a lot of us here.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto*
There is no loss to me, no loss to my children.

I think the point, though, to some of us is that there is a loss for us and our families if we do not eat that bunny in the yard (ie: eat meat). I feel I would be missing key nutrition as a veg*n; I would not be healthy physically nor mentally/emotionally. I can all but guarantee the same for my dh and my children. We (at least I know I do and am pretty sure dh does too; the boys are still too young for the conceptual stuff) see it as that animal layign its life down for us. I'm not thrilled about the thought of killing another living thing so that I may live; but it's a choice I make - to put my health and the health of my family above the animal's life, because to me, there is a distinct difference. So, to me (and I'm thinking the omni's here, though that's an assumption), there is a loss if we choose not to partake of the bunny/meat.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

See, the health side of it always perplexes me. A year or so ago, I saw an interview with a Nutritionist representing Health Canada. She said that, apart from ensuring adequate Omega 3 intake, perhaps the most significant thing someone could do to maximize their health would be to become a Vegetarian (or as close of an approximation as possible).

This is a pretty bold statement to make from someone who is speaking on behalf of Health Canada, isn't it?


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyLittleWonders* 
I think the point, though, to some of us is that there is a loss for us and our families if we do not eat that bunny in the yard (ie: eat meat). I feel I would be missing key nutrition as a veg*n; I would not be healthy physically nor mentally/emotionally.

Aha! Finally we come back around to the topic of the thread, which is nutrition!

I am not sure that either vegans or pro-meatists (pro-omnivores???) have succeeded in proving (_at least, to me_) that they have a superior nutritional program. I don't buy a lot of the evidence I get from the WAPF people. Their research is old, I'm very suspicious of Price's main premises, and it weirds me out that nearly every other nutritional advocate is opposed to their conclusions. I just find it suspicious.

I don't see why one group's set of research premises is supposed to be so much stronger than another's. I look at accounts of longitudinal studies, like the Framingham Heart Study, the Harvard Nurses Study, or the China Study. Researchers all seem to take away different conclusions about dietary recommendations from these. Is it really that nuts have a protective effect (for example) or that the people who ate nuts also ate a diet that was overall high in fiber and low in fat? Or high in fat but low in fried food? Or high in everything but a lot of exercise?

Don't you all remember the studies that showed that people who ate ice cream, or breakfast cereal, were healthier than people who didn't? But the science or health section of the newspaper never mentions "oh yeah, and these were also people who exercised" or "these were also young people" or whatever other factors might come into play.

All things being equal, I'm going to keep eating so I don't die.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I think different diets are healthy for different people. A lot of the difficulty here I believe comes from people taking our individual experiences with a particular diet (as healthy/not healthy) and assuming everyone else will have the same experience.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

I wanted to add, I totally respect your rationale - if you believe an omni diet is more healthful than a veg*n diet, I completely understand and respect your choices.

Likewise, I believe (beyond ethics) that a veg*n diet is more healthful and thus my choices are affected.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
She said that, apart from ensuring adequate Omega 3 intake, perhaps the most significant thing someone could do to maximize their health would be to become a Vegetarian (or as close of an approximation as possible).

I think it's a really good question whether we need meat. I eat organ meat because it does give me a boost, but whether that's a need that could be met with a lot of eggs is a good question.

But in terms of the nutritionist's comment, most omnis on this board would not (or try not) to eat grain fed animals. That's a whole different food than wild game or the steer grazing down the road. Most nutritionists are talking about the regular supermarket meat when they talk about meat.

Perhaps the solution to the bunny analogy is to milk the bunny and make a cream sauce for the rice and beans.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
Perhaps the solution to the bunny analogy is to milk the bunny and make a cream sauce for the rice and beans.











What would milking one lactating rabbit get you? 1 oz of rabbit milk?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
I wanted to add, I totally respect your rationale - if you believe an omni diet is more healthful than a veg*n diet, I completely understand and respect your choices.

Likewise, I believe (beyond ethics) that a veg*n diet is more healthful and thus my choices are affected.

ITA with you pixie. I would expect any veg*n to see his or her diet as more healthful. If we give it any thought at all, we are making choices we think are more healthful.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 








What would milking one lactating rabbit get you? 1 oz of rabbit milk?

We've talked about how we would survive in apocalyptic circumstances. The running joke is that we have so many mice who always appear to be pregnant, we just need to domesticate them and milk them, one tiny drop at a time.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

That's funny b/c I know a vegan who told dh if any vegan tells you they're vegan b/c it's healthier, they're lying. You become vegan for the politics and ethics. Mainly b/c you have to take supplements in order to remain healthy so veganism won't cover all of your needs.

Not looking to enflame. I just wanted to point out that maybe it's not necessarily about being healthy and that's adds a religious like aspect to it as well. There are also ethics and personal beliefs involved as well as personal taste. Beets could be the healthiest thing in the world for me, but you'd be hard pressed to get me to eat them. Just like beef could be the healthiets way in the world for a veg to get iron doesn't mean they'll eat it.


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
That seems to be a false choice. Is it the rabbit that's for the omni dinner? If not, of course everyone would pick beans and rice no need to make an animal suffer needlessly. Seems more like a PETA tactic meant to evoke emotion rather than actually thinking about things from an ethical or philosophical viewpoint.

If yes, I'd prefer a quicker method of killing but frankly I make the choice to smash the rabbit to smithereens every night. I'd prefer it was a rabbit rather than a bunny as there's more meat on a fully grown rabbit. Although my freezer is full of free range organic meats grown just up the road that were killed a little more humanely. As my husband says cute animals are tasty.

I do think there are lots of people who eat meat who don't think about where it comes from. I have a pet peeve about people who only eat boneless skinless chicken breasts. Where is your connection to the animal you're eating, where are you even acknowledging you're eating an animal by only eating that? But that's another rant. It does seem on this board that there are a lot of mommas and papas who do know exactly where their meat has come from, maybe even met it and who would chose the rabbit every time.









: someone also mentioned that she thought maybe some people enjoyed the "drama" in general. The above post is why I find it hard to NOT be dramatic when this topic comes up. It makes no sense to me. It honestly makes my insides HURT my heart ACHE and my brain PAIN to read it and know that many people think that way. I don't. It's not part of my charactor or physical / psychological make-up. having to listen/deal w/ this sort of mindset really is confusing to me in my very core and sometimes (usually!!) I come off sounding mean or irrational or "dramatic"... I can't help it. And, I think I'm not alone in this ...?


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
That's funny b/c I know a vegan who told dh if any vegan tells you they're vegan b/c it's healthier, they're lying. You become vegan for the politics and ethics. Mainly b/c you have to take supplements in order to remain healthy so veganism won't cover all of your needs.

The only supplement a vegan needs is B12.

I'm pretty sure what the vegan you knew was trying to say was, being a vegan is about ethics first and foremost, yes. Those who avoid animal products for health reasons, not ethics, are not vegan but strict-vegetarians. See the difference?

That said, I'm a vegan because of ethics, but I also think it's much healthier.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whateverdidiwants* 
The only supplement a vegan needs is B12.

I'm pretty sure what the vegan you knew was trying to say was, being a vegan is about ethics first and foremost, yes. Those who avoid animal products for health reasons, not ethics, are not vegan but strict-vegetarians. See the difference?

That said, I'm a vegan because of ethics, but I also think it's much healthier.

I didn't know that. So if you don't eat butter for health reasons (along with other animal products) you're a strict veg but if you don't eat butter (along with other animal products) for ethics you're a vegan?

Learn something everyday. Thanks!


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

Yep, exactly.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *"Gale Force"*
You're on you daily walk past a school. It is on fire and there are ten children trapped inside. You see no other adults and there is no other assistance in sight. You know from the news story last that there are also ten pregnant rats in the school as part of an science experiment the children are conducting. Each rat is in a cage and is carrying quintuplets. You know from your fire rescue training that you have time to save ten units -- children and rats are each a unit. You can save any combination of ten units. None of the twenty units can help the other units. Anyone or anything to be saved will be saved by you. You can hope for assistance for the remaining ten units, but it is not guaranteed. Which units do you save first? Rats? Children? Some combination of the two?

I have always been frustrated (and, frankly, baffled) by how often scenarios like this come up when discussing the ethical treatment of animals.

I just don't find arguing about these hypotheticals useful-perhaps because to be "animal rights" (or, as I prefer it, "animal protection") isn't about abstractions, theories, and "what-ifs." It's about the decisions I can make in my everyday life that help reduce suffering. (In fact, this is what most "animal rights" people I know are concerned with.)

I am not often faced with burning buildings full of children and rats that only I can save. However, I am faced with making decisions every day about what I eat, what I wear, and what industries and practices I support with my purchases.

I can choose not to eat animal products, or to eat fewer animal products, or only certain kinds of animal products that I believe cause less suffering (ie, eating mussels rather than veal). I can choose not to buy products made with leather or fur or wool, or to only buy those products second-hand. I can choose not to take my child to zoos or to circuses that use animals. I can take responsibility for mitigating or preventing conflicts with wild animals in my community.

For me, the wonderful thing about animal activism is that each and every day I can make a real difference. Anybody can! And it's usually not that difficult.

So to me, "animal rights" is a living, breathing practical ethic-not an abstract debate.

But, for those who enjoy dissecting [sic] the "child or rat" hypothetical, I'll share some other responses to a similar question (from the staggeringly comprehensive Animal Rights FAQ at animal-rights.com):

Quote:

#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you
save first?
-----------------------

The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical
decisions we face. I might decide to save my child before I saved yours,
but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to experiment on
your child, or exploit your child in some other way. We are not in an
emergency situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to
act in ways that protect the rights of both dogs and babies.
LK

Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to
which I am emotionally more attached. Most likely it would be the child.
Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before saving the baby
of a stranger. However, as LK states above, this tells us nothing about
any ethical principles.
DVH


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

kaydee,

My analogy only exists on this thread because GiggleBird wanted to point out to us that the logical extension of our eating practices is canabolism. She was trying to understand our viewpoint. She expressed her viewpoint about "sameness" which led to my analogy. The logical conclusion of what I understood to be her view was that she would choose ten pregnant rats over ten children. And based on her response, it turns out that none of us are willing to go to the logical extreme of someone else's characterization of our value system. Say that ten times fast.

Amanda


----------



## OceanMomma (Nov 28, 2001)

I think the rabbit anology is not a good one as rabbit is not very nice tasting & is generally seen ( in the cities ) as a pet. Kind of akin to being offered the choice of cat or rice & beans. btw I have met someone who knocks off his culls with a sledgehammer.

As to an OP asking me about the diffs I see in my vege vs my tf kids. My vege dd is 21 now so I have had time to see long term. My tf kids are only nearly 6 & 3. My 6yr old dd was vegan for the first almost 3 years. There is a diff even between her bone structure & my 3 yr olds who has always done stuff like drunk CLO neat & asked for more! The main diffs are facial bone structure, health ( vege dd was nowhere near as healthy as tf dds), & mental energy - would that be the best word? My big dd suffers from depression & has for years which is something alot of the ex-veg*ns in the TF forums talk about.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
I am not sure that either vegans or pro-meatists (pro-omnivores???) have succeeded in proving (_at least, to me_) that they have a superior nutritional program. I don't buy a lot of the evidence I get from the WAPF people. Their research is old, I'm very suspicious of Price's main premises, and it weirds me out that nearly every other nutritional advocate is opposed to their conclusions. I just find it suspicious.

I don't see why one group's set of research premises is supposed to be so much stronger than another's. I look at accounts of longitudinal studies, like the Framingham Heart Study, the Harvard Nurses Study, or the China Study. Researchers all seem to take away different conclusions about dietary recommendations from these. Is it really that nuts have a protective effect (for example) or that the people who ate nuts also ate a diet that was overall high in fiber and low in fat? Or high in fat but low in fried food? Or high in everything but a lot of exercise?

The AAP/ACOG (and most people in USA) thinks homebirth and co-spleeping are unsafe does that mean they are?Traditonal peoples sleep with, extended BF, homebirth. I do think their is merit in looking at what people all over the world have always done for clues on the most natrual way to live and then combine that with with advantages of modern living

I was a strict veg for health reasons, until my health started going downhill quickly. This led me to research A LOT about omni-diets and animal products. I had avoided red meat since the age of 12 so my old ideas about meat had to die hard.

The issue with studies is that all studies inherintly biased because the researchers have their own set of preconcieved ideas about what they are going to find. Also, just that they are choosing to study something and not something else, is an unavoidable bias. So they go to gather the data and it the results do not match their hypothesis. There are ways to maninpulate research (mostly by removing something like certain subjects or variables) and suddenly the curve is heading in the direction you want! Research is also funded by $$$. So if you want to keep getting cash you must come to concluions that the people who fund you want.

This is why I think it is important for people to keep looking deeper into the studies themselves with an open mind. I remember researching variables for marital satisfaction and was disappointed that marital happiness decreased with the birth of each child. I did not want those results for a few reasons, but noone cares about my research papers and I think it is wrong to manipulate variables anyway. I can almost guarnatee that when a study done by low-fat advocates finds that butter eaters can still live to a 100 there is a lot of disapointment and frustration. Especially if it was funded by Snackwells low-fat cookies!

Also, the majority of people in USA are not eating the type of animal products that WAPF reccomends. We were never meant to eat hormone laden gigantic chicken breasts. I am not suprised that researchers can find a correlation between that and breast cancer.
I also came to a realization on a spiritual level that if God provided meat/milk/eggs as food how can it be bad for you? I also don't understand that if you had to supplement a veg diet, then how could it be ideal for human beings?

I have seen PETA videos and pamplets and they are horrifying. I try to avoid factory meat for several reasons--health, environment, maltreatment (of the farm workers and animals)..

Sorry so long winded,
Jen


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OceanMomma* 
My big dd suffers from depression & has for years which is something alot of the ex-veg*ns in the TF forums talk about.









:


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
This is a pretty bold statement to make from someone who is speaking on behalf of Health Canada, isn't it?











Umm, no? That's pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a run of the mill nutritionist. I just happen to disagree.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

So what else should we discuss while xenabyte is out with her baby?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
kaydee,

My analogy only exists on this thread because GiggleBird wanted to point out to us that the logical extension of our eating practices is canabolism. She was trying to understand our viewpoint. She expressed her viewpoint about "sameness" which led to my analogy. The logical conclusion of what I understood to be her view was that she would choose ten pregnant rats over ten children. And based on her response, it turns out that none of us are willing to go to the logical extreme of someone else's characterization of our value system. Say that ten times fast.

Amanda


But this analogy (or some variation of it) almost ALWAYS comes up when the topic of animal rights/veg*nism are discussed. It arose here, as well, so I responded to it in what I thought was a measured and thoughtful way (at least that was my intent). I didn't attack you personally or make an aggressive post or make some sort of distorted claim about omni philosophy, so I don't know why you felt the need to write "Say that ten times fast." That seemed unnecessarily ugly to me. 


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
So what else should we discuss while xenabyte is out with her baby?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
so I don't know why you felt the need to write "Say that ten times fast." That seemed unnecessarily ugly to me. 

I'm sorry. "Say that ten times fast" was me laughing at myself for what I hope to be the most convoluted sentence I've ever written. Look at that sentence. And then try to say it at all, much less ten times fast.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
I'm sorry. "Say that ten times fast" was me laughing at myself for what I hope to be the most convoluted sentence I've ever written. Look at that sentence. And then try to say it at all, much less ten times fast.


D'oh! I took offense where none was intended or given! Sorry!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

And to add insult to injury, my mom would like to report that I've written much worse sentences than that.







: She read the first draft of the book and said "cut every sentence in two or three."


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Am I the only one whose response is to the whole rabit "ethics" question - "Go ahead and do whatever you want to do with the rabbit you crazy person. I'm going in the house to call the cops and have dinner?"







:


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

i think it's entirely understandable for people to become defensive and upset when being told the food they eat is hurting them, their children, animals, or the earth in general. people also have an emotional connection to their food - we associate the foods we eat with so many other "charged" things in our lives. it's no wonder we get upset to think that perhaps this thing that is ultimately within our control to change is hurting us.

what bothers me more about these conversations is that i, personally, have been in these debates so frequently over the last ten years, i rarely feel that i have an emotional stake in them any longer. i've done my research, i've seen the relatively long-term results of my choices, and also believe i'm in a good position to answer questions about it; yet no matter how matter-of-factly i try to talk about the issues involved in veganism with someone who is choosing to consume meat, i'm told i'm "judging" them or being rude. it's frustrating to try and stick to facts and phrase things like, "i believe..." "i feel..." and still be told i'm one of those snarky, angry vegans who won't be happy until everyone around her is converted and repentant for their meat-eating ways. that's not how i feel at all, and i certainly never want to come across that way.


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

i would also like to point out that the only reason vegans need to supplement with b12 nowadays is because most food is grown in such 'sterile' conditions the microbes that we need to consume in order to manufacture b12 in our guts no longer exist in signifigant enough quantities on our foods to keep us healthy.

it is not just vegans who can suffer from a b-12 deficiency.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *christacular* 
i think it's entirely understandable for people to become defensive and upset when being told the food they eat is hurting them, their children, animals, or the earth in general. people also have an emotional connection to their food - we associate the foods we eat with so many other "charged" things in our lives. it's no wonder we get upset to think that perhaps this thing that is ultimately within our control to change is hurting us.

what bothers me more about these conversations is that i, personally, have been in these debates so frequently over the last ten years, i rarely feel that i have an emotional stake in them any longer. i've done my research, i've seen the relatively long-term results of my choices, and also believe i'm in a good position to answer questions about it; yet no matter how matter-of-factly i try to talk about the issues involved in veganism with someone who is choosing to consume meat, i'm told i'm "judging" them or being rude. it's frustrating to try and stick to facts and phrase things like, "i believe..." "i feel..." and still be told i'm one of those snarky, angry vegans who won't be happy until everyone around her is converted and repentant for their meat-eating ways. that's not how i feel at all, and i certainly never want to come across that way.

Thank you for a well thought out post.

Oh, and wrt the B12 issue, I believe that we would still need animal products, each in different quantities, if not supplementing, even if the soil was in optimum shape.

I think on some issues we really do have to agree to disagree.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Quote:

My analogy only exists on this thread because GiggleBird wanted to point out to us that the logical extension of our eating practices is canabolism.
Not really. I was trying to give omnis insight into the way many vegans percieve the death of animals for consumption. I was likening it to the horror a person would feel being moved into a cannibalistic culture. I can only speak for myself, but that is the same horror I feel when I think about animals being killed. Yeah, the horror is somewhat muffled by the notion that a tiny fraction of them are treated well enough before their demise, but not by a lot.

I think the bunny analogy was pretty good. Because it illustrates that when confronted by the reality of choosing life over death, in vivid proximity, most people would choose life. I don't quite see how "cuteness" warrants more right to life, as was implied. That is pretty creepy to me (and where my kitten analogy came from before). Anyway, it's easy to focus on any flaw in an example and spiral away from the point of it, and I am trying not to do that myself. So (even though the cuteness exemption is still a confusing and perplexing point for me), maybe the example would be better served with a cow. And benefit of the doubt given that this is the only option in the moment, for whatever reason.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

I had another thought wrt the OP.

People on both sides think we're "right". We don't want to be the first to back down because then we look like we've given in or like we don't have a counterpoint. Truth is we could probably point and counterpoint for eternity. Eventually, if a mod hasn't pulled the discussion first, each of us says "S%*t! Why _do_ I continue to bang my head against a brick wall. Don't I have better things to do and a family to raise? ", and so the thread dies down, and then, when it inevitably comes up again, if we're smart we ignore it, and otherwise we go right back to that same wall.
And at that cue, I will depart, for I have much swap sewing and knitting to do, holiday helper boxes to sort and mail, and I still have to finish my dad's 50th birthday sweater before his 52nd birthday at the beginning of December.

Namaste.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Gigglebirds, I personally think that you were open-minded. You still believe in your beliefs, but your tone became a lot more respectful. IMO that's all we can expect.

Personally, since I am omni based on the fact that it seems to be the optimum diet for our species, I don't really feel the need to defend myself on an ethical basis. Ought we to kill animals? If the question is "ought", that's a toughy. Ought we to kill people? Well, yeah if it's self-defense or some other unusual circumstance. There are exceptions to every rule. I don't "like" to kill animals. Sometimes I even gag on my meat if I think too hard about where it comes from. But IMO I have as much choice as any other animal about what I eat. We do best on what is evolutionarily tested. That's what does it for me.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
I had another thought wrt the OP.

People on both sides think we're "right". We don't want to be the first to back down because then we look like we've given in or like we don't have a counterpoint. Truth is we could probably point and counterpoint for eternity. Eventually, if a mod hasn't pulled the discussion first, each of us says "S%*t! Why _do_ I continue to bang my head against a brick wall. Don't I have better things to do and a family to raise? ", and so the thread dies down, and then, when it inevitably comes up again, if we're smart we ignore it, and otherwise we go right back to that same wall.
And at that cue, I will depart, for I have much swap sewing and knitting to do, holiday helper boxes to sort and mail, and I still have to finish my dad's 50th birthday sweater before his 52nd birthday at the beginning of December.

Namaste.

What a good point. The reason why I compared it to Religion is because I tend myself to get overheated about food same as about my faith and I constantly end up joining the "revived" thread. Never able to ignore it and always regret it afterall.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
Regardless of that person's mental capacity they are still people and you can't equate the two.

But why not?









In your opinion, what makes humans so different from other animals? It's obviously not mental capacity so it is...what, exactly? Sentience? A soul? Ability? What is the rationale for your speciesism? And what kinds of behaviors does it allow, for you? Meat eating? Vivisection? Wearing fur? Putting animals in zoos?

I am really curious to hear your--or anyone's--answer to this question.

I'll offer my own perspective. There are differences between human DNA and that of other specie. Some species seem to be more sentient than others--but then again, some humans are more sentient than others (ie, people in a coma) The same could be said of other traits (sociability, ability, etc.) As I said before, I'm not much for philosophical debates, but it's difficult for me to accept that small differences in DNA are a sound ethical basis for doing to animals many of the things we do...


----------



## Momtwice (Nov 21, 2001)

I remember making the mistake of thinking that because a certain person cared so much about nutrition, eating organic, eating whole food, the connection between nutrition and health etc...and because she was a nursing mom...that she would be a person who would enjoy talking about the nutritional and health aspects of breastfeeding. I was very wrong. Despite my framing things very politely, despite her nursing longer than I did (with the baby I had at that time)....She seemed offended that I would suggest bf kids might sometimes be healthier and I walked away very confused.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
But why not?









In your opinion, what makes humans so different from other animals? It's obviously not mental capacity so it is...what, exactly? Sentience? A soul? Ability? What is the rationale for your speciesism? And what kinds of behaviors does it allow, for you? Meat eating? Vivisection? Wearing fur? Putting animals in zoos?

For me it's instinct. My instinct is to protect my young, then myself, then anyone else who is human. Then other animals. I don't believe in harming animals unnecessarily, and I believe in harming animals in the most humane way possible when it is necessary. But I choose people every time. I believe that is natural.

If I am driving my car and I have a choice between hitting a child or a squirrel, I would choose the squirrel without a doubt. I've had that discussion with people who insist they couldn't choose, and I find that really disturbing.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

I was talking with dh this morning about this thread. He said you know the easy thing is to be on the extreme end of things, your decisions are made for you don't have to think too much. The harder thing is finding the middle ground to work together. And then he pointed out that omnivores at least ones who are conscious of the omniness do have a lot of common ground with vegans. We both are very conscious of where our food comes from and want sustainable practices for raising veggies and fruits and for omnis animals. He thinks there should be an interfaith group that helps to promote awareness of food and where it comes from to make everyone else aware.

And then he went on a long rant about Title IX and how the point of it isn't to just have varsity sports but it should be to promote a healthy lifestyle and critics of it just view sports as entertainment. But that's another thread.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
Am I the only one whose response is to the whole rabit "ethics" question - "Go ahead and do whatever you want to do with the rabbit you crazy person. I'm going in the house to call the cops and have dinner?"







:

Nope- you're not!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
First of all, why is this guy threatening to kill this bunny with a sledge hammer? Is it so that he (or she) can eat it for dinner tonight? Is it to make a point? If so, what's the point? An animal rights activist that goes around killing cute bunnies? This sounds like a mentally unstable individual!

Honestly, if somebody presented that choice to me in my backyard I'd call 911!!! What's this person going to do to make sure I eat my rice and beans after promising to? What will happen to ME if I promise to eat rice and beans but then opt for a balogna sandwich? Screw the rabbit, I'm calling the cops!!


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 







:

I absolutely saw a lot of depression among the extreme. I lived in a macrobiotic (basically vegan, with tiny amounts of some fish at times) community for a long time and was macro for several years. i was also vegan and veg at various times (just part of my long hippie life). There used to be a running joke at how cantakerous macros were. Even fellow macros would joke about it. "Have some dairy' we'd laugh when people got too uptight. Which was frequently as I recall.

I think about all it takes to produce a lb of tofu, and then I consider how little it takes to nosh a hardboiled egg from one of my neighbor's happy hens.

Don't get me wrong, I still love tofu, and I use miso and tempeh all the time. It's not a rejection of those foods, but an embracing of the variety.

I think it's important to understand, too, that not all soil is depleted. And soil can be rejuvenated. A b12 lack isn't a given, esp if you're looking at the sort of soil that can exist in the PolyFarm mode. And the sort of soil I have in my garden. Factory farming depletes, but TF people totally reject factory farming on all levels. TF people will probably do more for soil protection and health than any group out there. Without well cared for animal droppings, there is no great soil to grow the veggies and grain.

And prior to agriculture, nomadic peoples were not vegetarian. It's nice to think people just lived on berries, but they also ate things that had eyes.


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
. But IMO I have as much choice as any other animal about what I eat. We do best on what is evolutionarily tested. That's what does it for me.


then you do understand that it's your CHOICE to eat that murdered animal on your plate. right? As there are perfectly suitable options that are not killed animals.


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
And prior to agriculture, nomadic peoples were not vegetarian. It's nice to think people just lived on berries, but they also ate things that had eyes.


not that I totally agree with the above BUT I have to say that humans have also been murdering each other since nomadic times.... and I don't think that should continue either.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 
then you do understand that it's your CHOICE to eat that murdered animal on your plate. right? As there are perfectly suitable options that are not killed animals.

Better to kill an animal than to committ suicide. I don't feel like I have the luxury of avoiding meat as some may. Like we have said before, there are many formerly depressed vegan moms ion the TF forum. I don't know if you have ever been a patient in a mental institution, but it is an experience that I would not like to repeat.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 
then you do understand that it's your CHOICE to eat that murdered animal on your plate. right? As there are perfectly suitable options that are not killed animals.

Now, see, I interpreted that post differently. As in, she does NOT feel that she has a choice but to follow what she perceives as a species-appropriate diet, any more than do other animals, without her or her lineage suffering from the consequences.
I think that illustrates nicely how two people can read different things (such as nutrition info) and come to different conclusions based on personal interpretation.


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Oh, and wrt the B12 issue, I believe that we would still need animal products, each in different quantities, if not supplementing, even if the soil was in optimum shape.

I think on some issues we really do have to agree to disagree.

i wasn't just speaking about soil condition, though that certainly plays a role. prior to the ubiquitous use of pasteurization, fermented foods offered up a plentitude of b-12.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *christacular* 
prior to the ubiquitous use of pasteurization, fermented foods offered up a plentitude of b-12.

Which may be analogs and not usable as B-12. The jury's still out.

But fermentation does increase B-vitamins, enzymes, and beneficial bacteria and it is a good tool for adding nutrition to your diet.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
For me it's instinct. My instinct is to protect my young, then myself, then anyone else who is human. Then other animals. I don't believe in harming animals unnecessarily, and I believe in harming animals in the most humane way possible when it is necessary. But I choose people every time. I believe that is natural.

If I am driving my car and I have a choice between hitting a child or a squirrel, I would choose the squirrel without a doubt. I've had that discussion with people who insist they couldn't choose, and I find that really disturbing.

Of course, all sorts of behaviors could fairly be called instinctual. That doesn't make them ethical.

I was interested more in hearing about the logic behind the statement that humans cannot be compared to other animals. I don't believe that it is merely instinct that informs our practices towards animals (after all, compassion for animals seems instinctual as well). Social constructs play a large role, as well. And whatever we have constructed, we can analyze.

But while we are speaking of instinct, I think my instinct is to protect those I know and care about first. I love my son more than to my cats, but love my cats more than a stranger's son. Something other than species definitions are at work in our actions.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
TF people will probably do more for soil protection and health than any group out there. Without well cared for animal droppings, there is no great soil to grow the veggies and grain.

Veganic farming practices yield some gorgeous foods as well.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Of course, all sorts of behaviors could fairly be called instinctual. That doesn't make them ethical.

It does for me.

Quote:

But while we are speaking of instinct, I think my instinct is to protect those I know and care about first. I love my son more than to my cats, but love my cats more than a stranger's son. Something other than species definitions are at work in our actions.
I would protect anybody's human child over my most cherished animal.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
I was interested more in hearing about the logic behind the statement that humans cannot be compared to other animals. I don't believe that it is merely instinct that informs our practices towards animals (after all, compassion for animals seems instinctual as well). Social constructs play a large role, as well. And whatever we have constructed, we can analyze.

I don't believe that humans cannot be compared to other animals. I believe factory farming, fur for fashion, animal testing for cosmetics, etc. is wrong and unethical.

But if my child were cold and I did not have other decent options, I would use fur. I believe that raising and humanely killing animals for meat is ethical, because I believe it is necessary for health, at least for many of us. Etc.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

I think humans are animals. I think we're omnivores who are predatory. I think there is a reason why we are like that has to do with our well being. I do think we seem to be more sentient or aware of past, present and future and death than other animals which gives us the ability to feel guilt. With that comes great responsibility. To treat the earth as part of us rather than something to lord over and to be conscious of what we eat and where it comes from. It just doesn't erase our basic biological need to predators and omnivores, to me.

And to me, to be vegan or veg raises other animals up to being more important than me b/c I'm denying a basic food source with things in it that I need to survive. So to me being omnivorous doesn't make animals less than me, it makes them equal to me in that we are in our place in the food chain playing our roles. Being at the top gives me greater responsibility but that's it.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
I think humans are animals. I think we're omnivores who are predatory. I think there is a reason why we are like that has to do with our well being. I do think we seem to be more sentient or aware of past, present and future and death than other animals which gives us the ability to feel guilt. With that comes great responsibility. To treat the earth as part of us rather than something to lord over and to be conscious of what we eat and where it comes from. It just doesn't erase our basic biological need to predators and omnivores, to me.

And to me, to be vegan or veg raises other animals up to being more important than me b/c I'm denying a basic food source with things in it that I need to survive. So to me being omnivorous doesn't make animals less than me, it makes them equal to me in that we are in our place in the food chain playing our roles. Being at the top gives me greater responsibility but that's it.

Nicely said!


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It does for me.

Really? Any instinctual drive a person has would be ethical to act on? That's a scary prospect, to me. Many species of animal, including humans, seem instinctually inclined towards terrible violence, both towards others and their own kind.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Really? Any instinctual drive a person has would be ethical to act on? That's a scary prospect, to me. Many species of animal, including humans, seem instinctually inclined towards terrible violence, both towards others and their own kind.

I'm saying *my* instinctual drives match my ethics, or rather I shift my ethics to match my instinctual drives. Does that make sense?

Years ago I subscribed to the belief that animals and people were equal, and that we should not value human life over animal life. Then... my daughter was born. And everything changed, for me. I would kill a *human* to protect her if necessary, and I have no qualms about killing insects that might bite her, or eating animals that have been killed to benefit her health or my own. It *feels* right to me, so for me it is right.

As a long term vegetarian I have difficulty eating meat, and I feel better when I eat meat that has at least been organically raised. But I feed it to my child without hesitation, because I believe it is needed by her growing body.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Veganic farming practices yield some gorgeous foods as well.

Good compost doesn't need animal products-- in fact, if you are composting at home, you shouldn't put any animal products (besides egg shells, which I know a vegan compost wouldn't have) in your bins.

I think decent compost can be had through vegan practices. Time will tell, and it's an exciting time for so many to be rejecting factory farming, no matter the reasons.

I hate wasting good horse poop, however.







(Although a true vegan wouldn't ride a horse, I know).


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Of course, all sorts of behaviors could fairly be called instinctual. That doesn't make them ethical.

I was interested more in hearing about the logic behind the statement that humans cannot be compared to other animals. I don't believe that it is merely instinct that informs our practices towards animals (after all, compassion for animals seems instinctual as well). Social constructs play a large role, as well. And whatever we have constructed, we can analyze.

But while we are speaking of instinct, I think my instinct is to protect those I know and care about first. I love my son more than to my cats, but love my cats more than a stranger's son. Something other than species definitions are at work in our actions.


*Dons flame-retardant suit*. I believe that right here is where nutrition and religion meet, for me. I believe in the the Biblical perspective of Creation. I believe that human are created in the image of God, and that is what separates us from animals. Humans are more valuable, because we bear the image of God (ok, it's easier to see that image in some people, granted!), and thus, a human has more value than an animal, regardless of the mental or physical capacity of that human.

I also believe, that without that sort of Biblical framework, it is nearly impossible to separate humans from animals. Without a higher reason for being, there is no distinction between humans and animals. Humans think, so do animals; humans feel, so do animals; humans love and nurture their young, so do animals. There are some animals who are probably smarter, more intelligent, have greater mental capacity than some humans. So, without a Bibilcal context for human value, why is the lower capacitated human worth more than the higher capacitated animal?

To me, this is the heart of the discussion. I believe it is ok to take the life of the animal to nourish my own, and those of my family's, because there is an inherent value differential. God plainly gave animals to humans for nourishment, who am I to dispute that?

I also believe, within a Biblical context, that it is imperative to properly care for those animals, and the environment we all share. The current system of agriculture does not do this, and I think it's wrong. I think this is where we are failing, not in eating the animals in the first place.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
I think decent compost can be had through vegan practices. Time will tell, and it's an exciting time for so many to be rejecting factory farming, no matter the reasons.

I'll believe that when I see it in nature. I think it's arrogant to believe that we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy soil composition.
There's a nature conservation area nearby that's been around for years and years and it's not doing so well, due to the lack of animal involvement. Last I heard they were going to introduce some intensively managed bison to try and revive it. Wish I knew more about it, but I haven't had the time to look into it. It's called Wanuskewin, if anyone wants to look it up . . . I don't know if they have a website or not.

One more hypothetical and then I really will go (these threads are hard to stay away from







):
If you had a crystal ball that allowed you to see your great great great grandchildren, and it showed that if you did NOT eat meat, but instead chose a "nutritionally complete" veg*n diet, they had become progressively weaker to the point of degenerative diseases at young ages, rampant digestive problems and inability to reproduce, whereas if you DID eat animal products, they were healthy, strong and virile . . . would you still avoid meat?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
I'll believe that when I see it in nature. I think it's arrogant to believe that we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy soil composition.
There's a nature conservation area nearby that's been around for years and years and it's not doing so well, due to the lack of animal involvement. Last I heard they were going to introduce some intensively managed bison to try and revive it. Wish I knew more about it, but I haven't had the time to look into it. It's called Wanuskewin, if anyone wants to look it up . . . I don't know if they have a website or not.

One more hypothetical and then I really will go (these threads are hard to stay away from







):
If you had a crystal ball that allowed you to see your great great great grandchildren, and it showed that if you did NOT eat meat, but instead chose a "nutritionally complete" veg*n diet, they had become progressively weaker to the point of degenerative diseases at young ages, rampant digestive problems and inability to reproduce, whereas if you DID eat animal products, they were healthy, strong and virile . . . would you still avoid meat?


Well, we do know from the soil of Polyfarm that good soil is had by animal and other cow manure. We know the eggs are better when the chcikens can eat grubs from the 3 day old cow pies. Polyfarm does it without run off. I don't think there is anything wrong with using the manure of healthy animals.

I have done some reading about Veganic farming, and while it did disturb me how many items they needed to add nutrients into the soil because they choose not to use manure, I do believe that right now, all those additives (however 'natural') are producing decent soil.

Now, I do think running around trying to find all those additives is time- consuming, and fossil fuel consumming. Kind of like why go through the trouble to ship in tofu or silk milk when there's wild turkey in the woods, and a happy goat in your backyard, but I also respect that some people can't go there. If you have a horse or have a friend with a horse, why not compost that manure rather than try to get enough rock phosphate or other critical items that can't be had from your own back yard.

I believe small scale, compassionate farming (and I know it's not possible for a vegan to see any coompassion in any piece of dead animal) uses fewer resources, can be maintained without items that need to be shipped, and can be processed without down side to the earth. A small TF farm can carry on without need of anything from the outside world. To me, that is most sustainable on any level.

I choose to hope that however we get away from factory farming is in all of our best interests.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gardenmommy* 
*Dons flame-retardant suit*. I believe that right here is where nutrition and religion meet, for me. I believe in the the Biblical perspective of Creation. I believe that human are created in the image of God, and that is what separates us from animals. Humans are more valuable, because we bear the image of God (ok, it's easier to see that image in some people, granted!), and thus, a human has more value than an animal, regardless of the mental or physical capacity of that human.

I also believe, that without that sort of Biblical framework, it is nearly impossible to separate humans from animals. Without a higher reason for being, there is no distinction between humans and animals. Humans think, so do animals; humans feel, so do animals; humans love and nurture their young, so do animals. There are some animals who are probably smarter, more intelligent, have greater mental capacity than some humans. So, without a Bibilcal context for human value, why is the lower capacitated human worth more than the higher capacitated animal?










:


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
Nope- you're not!









Rutha! I got so intrigued by the rabbit milk comment I must have missed that one! I always knew I respected you...


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gardenmommy* 
*Dons flame-retardant suit*. I believe that right here is where nutrition and religion meet, for me. I believe in the the Biblical perspective of Creation. I believe that human are created in the image of God, and that is what separates us from animals. Humans are more valuable, because we bear the image of God (ok, it's easier to see that image in some people, granted!), and thus, a human has more value than an animal, regardless of the mental or physical capacity of that human.

I also believe, that without that sort of Biblical framework, it is nearly impossible to separate humans from animals. Without a higher reason for being, there is no distinction between humans and animals. Humans think, so do animals; humans feel, so do animals; humans love and nurture their young, so do animals. There are some animals who are probably smarter, more intelligent, have greater mental capacity than some humans. So, without a Bibilcal context for human value, why is the lower capacitated human worth more than the higher capacitated animal?

To me, this is the heart of the discussion. I believe it is ok to take the life of the animal to nourish my own, and those of my family's, because there is an inherent value differential. God plainly gave animals to humans for nourishment, who am I to dispute that?

I also believe, within a Biblical context, that it is imperative to properly care for those animals, and the environment we all share. The current system of agriculture does not do this, and I think it's wrong. I think this is where we are failing, not in eating the animals in the first place.









: I'm kind of sickish feeling yet feel like adding some hysterical laughter in there on this one! I guess, this is why I do not believe in a "god". But how nice that "he" gives one the ability to push of that guilt on "him"! WOW. I'm glad you wore the suit.


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
Better to kill an animal than to committ suicide. I don't feel like I have the luxury of avoiding meat as some may. Like we have said before, there are many formerly depressed vegan moms ion the TF forum. I don't know if you have ever been a patient in a mental institution, but it is an experience that I would not like to repeat.


committing suicide because you couldn't/didn't eat meat? That was the diagnosis?

not buying it.


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.


I would cause bodily harm to the idiot with the rabbit, rescue the rabbit and have beans and rice as usual.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 







: I'm kind of sickish feeling yet feel like adding some hysterical laughter in there on this one! I guess, this is why I do not believe in a "god". But how nice that "he" gives one the ability to push of that guilt on "him"! WOW. I'm glad you wore the suit.

That was uncalled for.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 
committing suicide because you couldn't/didn't eat meat? That was the diagnosis?

not buying it.

I don't care if you do. There are certain nutrients that are more abundant in animal foods and when they are lacking can cause depression. I have tested and verifiable nutrient defiencies. Iron, zinc, B6--all found in meat. Now that those nutrients have increased I don't have to worry about wanting to drive my car off a cliff. After seeing my blood test results, the nutritionist told me to never be a vegetarian again. I had the worst case of anemia she had ever seen. So my perscription was to eat meat.

There are others who have shared this same experience here on Mothering.

Again, good for you that you can be veg. I wanted to but I can't and that is life. Maybe someday you will meet someone in real life like me and rethink your comments.


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I would protect anybody's human child over my most cherished animal.









Thank-you!

I am shocked and dismayed that everyone doesn't feel this way!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I have tested and verifiable nutrient defiencies. Iron, zinc, B6--all found in meat. Now that those nutrients have increased I don't have to worry about wanting to drive my car off a cliff.

And just FYI, these three things are all available in plant foods, but they are better absorbed in animal products. Iron and zinc are both bound by phytic acid in grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds and you'll only absorb about 15% if you don't take measures to reduce the phytates. Furthermore, Jennifer has a condition that requires her to have far more zinc and B-6 than most of us and it would be very difficult for her to eat enough plant foods to meet her requirement. My guess is that it would be impossible.

Whether these needs could be met with eggs and milk, I don't know, but in any case, when you're depressed and need help, the ethics of eating is not usually your biggest concern. Heck I was so desperate I would have eaten raw and still warm any animal that crossed my path if I thought it would help.

Amanda


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *twins10705* 







Thank-you!

I am shocked and dismayed that everyone doesn't feel this way!









Me too. I find it really disturbing, and upsetting, that everyone doesn't feel that way. Maybe it's a question I should ask prospective childcare providers.














:


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Me too. I find it really disturbing, and upsetting, that everyone doesn't feel that way. Maybe it's a question I should ask prospective childcare providers.














:

That is what I was thinking---Note to self: Make sure and ask the babysitter if Jack will be put above Fido in case of fire.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
That is what I was thinking---Note to self: Make sure and ask the babysitter if Jack will be put above Fido in case of fire.









Why is the idea of this cracking me up?


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
That is what I was thinking---Note to self: Make sure and ask the babysitter if Jack will be put above Fido in case of fire.









This cracked me up too.

I've got a scenerio I'd like to share. Let's pretend your kid had a heart defect and could only be saved by getting a transplant from a baboon. Would you sacrifice the animal? When I was young, I said no, I wouldn't. I thought it would be unethical. Now that I'm a mother, you bet I would. A lot of people here seem to feel the same way about eating meat: they need it to live. Period. How can you aruge with that? Especially those folks who were vegetarians and found it didn't work for them. I get that.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JSerene* 
Would you sacrifice the animal? When I was young, I said no, I wouldn't. I thought it would be unethical. Now that I'm a mother, you bet I would.

Me too, exactly this process.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I'm not exactly sure if this link fits in with this thread, but it's brochure for the major Eco conference for organic farming. I like to think our common goals-- healthy food and safe environment can co exist.

http://www.acresusa.com/events/06con...06Brochure.pdf


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I read this whole thread and I don't remember anyone saying they would save an animal over a child.

There was mention by someone that she loves her cat's better than a stranger's child, but she did not go so far as to say she would save it over the child.

Honestly, I thought we were over these silly scenarios. Okay, omnis, if you had to choose between your bosses dog (who will fire you if you don't save it), and your sister in laws, whose will it be? Come on. There are many factors that go into making _any_ decision and having the dichotomous either/or really does not reflect on the inherent worth of either.

As for vitamins B6 and B12, they are in abundance in nutritional yeast, which is very cheap. Here http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=6646 is a link to a nutritional analysis of it (scroll down). There are plenty of ways to get iron too. I have never had trouble with anemia and I don't go overboard worrying about it. I just eat spinach a few times per week (seaweed, etc, as well







).


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:

I read this whole thread and I don't remember anyone saying they would save an animal over a child.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
*But while we are speaking of instinct, I think my instinct is to protect those I know and care about first. I love my son more than to my cats,* *but love my cats more than a stranger's son.* Something other than species definitions are at work in our actions.

(bold mine)


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I can't speak for kaydee, but my interpretation of what she said was that she loves her cats more than a stranger's son, and thus, her instinct might be more compelling toward her cats. She didn't go so far as to say she would save them in a burning building over a child. Many, many factors would play into that decision. It's as silly as asking who's child you would save; your nephew, or the child you are babysitting? It's meaningless. We could infer all sorts of horrible things about you if you chose either one. But the choice scenario isn't fair or appropriate.

So, instinctively, yes, _out of love and emotional attachment_ if she were driving down the road and saw her cat and another child, she _may_ swerve away from her cat. _Instinctively_. I think she may have been speaking to this instinct, and nothing more.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
As for vitamins B6 and B12, they are in abundance in nutritional yeast, which is very cheap. Here http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=6646 is a link to a nutritional analysis of it (scroll down). There are plenty of ways to get iron too. I have never had trouble with anemia and I don't go overboard worrying about it. I just eat spinach a few times per week (seaweed, etc, as well







).

From what I understand nutritional (brewer's yeast) is rich in the B complex - except B12. The B12 is synthetic and added back in. Again, an analogue as in it's similar but not exactly the same and not as bioavailable as that found in animal sources. Not a big deal if you have enough stores of your own or if you're not deficient. In the case of someone starting from a place of deficiencies and it's better to get it from the best source possible.

I'm glad that you've never had trouble with anemia and that you have found things that work *for you*. We're not just talking about you, though.

I am not naieve enough to think that there is a one-size fits all way of eating that will work for _everyone_.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 







: I'm kind of sickish feeling yet feel like adding some hysterical laughter in there on this one! I guess, this is why I do not believe in a "god". But how nice that "he" gives one the ability to push of that guilt on "him"! WOW. I'm glad you wore the suit.

That was a bit harsh, don't you think? I stated my beliefs, and you just really blasted away. Good thing I did put it on! I can't image reacting so disrespectfully as that to another's stated beliefs. (even if I truly felt that way, I for sure wouldn't put it out there to offend the other person!)


----------



## twins10705 (Feb 10, 2006)

.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I am not a Christian, I am a Pagan, and my spirituality is consistent with my beliefs.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I was talking about instinct. As in "OH my God, there's my precious Fluffy!" -_swerve_- "oh shit, there's a kid!".

Instinct. Not intention.

I am 100% sure, though, that if that happened, anyone would be DEVASTATED. Do you think for a second if that happened she would be celebrating her cat's life and not going crazy about hitting a child? PLEASE. I really don't like how people are starting to assume that vegans don't care about anyone but animals. I really don't know how anyone has taken that from this conversation.







:

From what I understood of her post, she was just saying there are many layers to love and to instinct. Eating vegan isn't about choosing animals over people. How the heck did this thread come to this?? Yikes.

Eating meat, however, _is_ about choosing people over animals. Whether you feel justified or not in it, whether you believe animals have feelings, a soul, etc, that is still a fact. Eating meat isn't either/or, eat-or-die (for the VAST majority... those who have to or think they have to do not need to chime in again...) Vegan eating has no negative effect on humans whatsoever. So if you're going to apply the either/or dynamic, apply it to yourself (if you are a meat eater), where it belongs.

[/frustration]


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Here is another quote from Kaydee in case you missed it.

Quote:

#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you
save first?
-----------------------

The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical
decisions we face. I might decide to save my child before I saved yours,
but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to experiment on
your child, or exploit your child in some other way. We are not in an
emergency situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to
act in ways that protect the rights of both dogs and babies.
LK

Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to
which I am emotionally more attached. Most likely it would be the child.
Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before saving the baby
of a stranger. However, as LK states above, this tells us nothing about
any ethical principles.
DVH

Do you love your dog or cat more than you love a complete stranger you've never met? Of course you do. Does that speak in any way to whether you value that person's life? Probably not.

If I'm trying to get a fly out of my house and my daughter starts crying I don't ignore her. Nor do I say "eff it" and kill the fly. Get it?

AND that doesn't mean that I hurt my daughter (or the kid I'm babysitting, etc...) to save the fly.


----------



## mykdsmomy (Oct 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
Do you love your dog or cat more than you love a complete stranger you've never met? Of course you do. Does that speak in any way to whether you value that person's life? Probably not.

chiming in late here and maybe I'm not understanding this but in a situation that endangers a strangers child or my own dog/cat, I would definitely not think twice about my dog/cat.....I would instinctively protect the child or adult or whoever the *person* may be. I wouldnt be a fraction of a bit upset hitting an animal as I would a person/child even if it was my dog of ten years......it still doesnt compare to harming a human.....


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
I'll believe that when I see it in nature. I think it's arrogant to believe that we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy soil composition.
There's a nature conservation area nearby that's been around for years and years and it's not doing so well, due to the lack of animal involvement. Last I heard they were going to introduce some intensively managed bison to try and revive it. Wish I knew more about it, but I haven't had the time to look into it. It's called Wanuskewin, if anyone wants to look it up . . . I don't know if they have a website or not.

My first thought is, what sad kind of nature area has no animal involvment? Unless it is a newly reclaimed Superfund site, that seems--well, impossible.









My second thought is that I wonder if you are familiar with the extensive studies on veganic (vegan + organic) agriculture done in the UK over the last 10+ years? I can't recall the study center name--Elm Farm, maybe? Something like that....Of course, that's not purely "in nature"--but then again, farmed cows and pigs etc., aren't exactly purely "natural" either.

Quote:

One more hypothetical and then I really will go (these threads are hard to stay away from







):
If you had a crystal ball that allowed you to see your great great great grandchildren, and it showed that if you did NOT eat meat, but instead chose a "nutritionally complete" veg*n diet, they had become progressively weaker to the point of degenerative diseases at young ages, rampant digestive problems and inability to reproduce, whereas if you DID eat animal products, they were healthy, strong and virile . . . would you still avoid meat?
Well, to quote you







, "I think it's arrogant to think we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy" nutrition. I know I do fine without animal products, and you know you need them.









But I'll bite: I am not utterly self-defeating. If the crystal ball presented me with that vision, I would eat animals or animal products. But I would do it as low down on the food chain as I could, and involve the least sentient animals possible (mussels, scallops, or clams would be my preference). Because even then, causing the least suffering would be my aim.

To turn the tables







What if the crystal ball told you that you DIDN'T need animal products to be "healthy, strong, and virile"? Would you still eat meat?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
(bold mine)


Since you seem to have missed several salient points of my posts, newcastlemama, here is the Reader's Digest version of what I said.

I love my kid more than my cats. I love my cats more than a human stranger.

These hypotheticals--the kids and the rat in the burning building, the baboon heart and the dying child--are, IMO, silly.

No, worse than silly. They can actually be damaging, I believe, because although they are provocative and exciting to discuss (and allow us to be







: and







: and







about other people's answers and feel all morally superior) they don't actually help us understand each other or help us devise a practical ethical code. They are, IMO, irrelevant distractions from the real issue(s) at hand.

As I CLEARLY said before, the choices offered in these hypotheticals are false dichotomies. Most of us will never be faced with a burning building housing a child and a dog. No single baboon heart can help a single child. Yet every day, we can make humane compassionate choices.

I have no idea what I'd do facing that building, and honestly, I don't care. If I'm ever faced with that unlikely scenario, I'll just wing it. I'd rather put my energy into the decisions I am faced with every day.

Because that's what ethics are--what we do, not what we say we would do.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

It's the attack of the serial poster!














:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *
Originally Posted by JSerene*
Would you sacrifice the animal? When I was young, I said no, I wouldn't. I thought it would be unethical. Now that I'm a mother, you bet I would.

Me too, exactly this process.

Becoming a parent has expanded my sense of compassion in so many ways. One of the ways was to have more empathy for the animals used in agriculture--especially the mother animals used in dairy production, continually impregnated, then separated from their babies.

Reading accounts by Temple Grandin (not an animal rights activist my any stretch of the imagination) of mother cows and calves crying for each other at dairy farms became even more heart-shattering after having my son.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
From what I understand nutritional (brewer's yeast) is rich in the B complex - except B12.

Just FYI, Brewer's yeast and nutritional yeast are not the same thing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gardenmommy*
I also believe, that without that sort of Biblical framework, it is nearly impossible to separate humans from animals. Without a higher reason for being, there is no distinction between humans and animals. Humans think, so do animals; humans feel, so do animals; humans love and nurture their young, so do animals. There are some animals who are probably smarter, more intelligent, have greater mental capacity than some humans. So, without a Bibilcal context for human value, why is the lower capacitated human worth more than the higher capacitated animal?

Oh my gosh--we agree on something!







I can see where with your beliefs about the Bible and God, you would have the view of animals that you do. You explained it really well, which I appreciate. I don't agree (either about God, the Bible, or animal's place in our world







) but I get what you are saying.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

You know, I disagree strongly with a lot of what I've seen posted on here. However, I still respect the various people represented here: you have clearly thought through your choices carefully. I may think they are [insert descriptor of choice- silly, wrong, foolish, dumb, excellent, etc.], but still, I think that it is foolhardy and damaging to bash others' viewpoints. When we begin to attack each other, we lose the opportunity and ability to learn from each other; we lose respect for each other. When that happens, we lose the ability to teach a greater lesson to our children, that is, the ability to get along with others with whom we strongly disagree.

Consistent with my spiritual beliefs, I believe that we need to show love and grace to others, even when we disagree with them. Which is why, even if I do think your viewpoint it ridiculous, I will not say so. I will try to understand you, even to the point of agreeing to disagree, just so that to whatever degree I am responsible, I can maintain the peace between us.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

kaydee, lol! I'm glad we can agree on *something*!


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
My first thought is, what sad kind of nature area has no animal involvment? Unless it is a newly reclaimed Superfund site, that seems--well, impossible.









You're right, of course, there are plenty of small mammals. However, the land in this area (open prairie) does need grazing mammals in order to remain healthy. Because (due to the existence of cities, farmland, etc) these animals cannot follow a proper grazing path, they must be managed.

Quote:

My second thought is that I wonder if you are familiar with the extensive studies on veganic (vegan + organic) agriculture done in the UK over the last 10+ years? I can't recall the study center name--Elm Farm, maybe? Something like that....Of course, that's not purely "in nature"--but then again, farmed cows and pigs etc., aren't exactly purely "natural" either.
I'm not familiar with it, no, thanks for the heads up. I will look into it








Are you familiar with PolyfaceFarm, or with Permaculture concepts, intensively managed pastured animals, etc? There's a difference between the "let 'em out and do what they please" pastured cow and the intensively managed, mimicing-natural-grazing-patterns-as-closely-as possible-pastured-cow.

Quote:

"I think it's arrogant to think we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy" nutrition.
On that we agree. I believe (and I am aware that this is a debated issue) that humans evolved eating meat. Which, to me, means that there are components of meat that we need. I can buy not needing grains or not needing dairy, but not not eating meat.

Quote:

I know I do fine without animal products, and you know you need them.








And I don't begrudge you that. If anything, I'm much more interested in stopping the horrid conditions of factory farms and monocrops







You already know I don't think veganism is ecologically viable longterm, but there really aren't enough vegans in the world for it to be much of a concern to me and I'd rather rail against the majority anyway.

Quote:

But I'll bite: I am not utterly self-defeating. If the crystal ball presented me with that vision, I would eat animals or animal products. But I would do it as low down on the food chain as I could, and involve the least sentient animals possible (mussels, scallops, or clams would be my preference). Because even then, causing the least suffering would be my aim.
Who decides what defines sentience? Moreover, none of the animals you listed are local to me. I was pondering this the other day, and it struck me that every single food in my house that isn't local is vegan. And as far as low on the food chain, I believe humans are meant to eat low on the foodchain too. I don't eat carnivores.
But the point of asking the question was to illustrate that this is the reality facing many of us traditional foods people. Except that we don't need a crystal ball because it's ourselves or our children that we're observing. And I brought it up because I really think GiggleBirds is trying to understand how a seemingly compassionate person could possibly eat meat.

Quote:

To turn the tables







What if the crystal ball told you that you DIDN'T need animal products to be "healthy, strong, and virile"? Would you still eat meat?
I do want to answer this one but the answer is more complex than I initially thought. I've been thinking about it all morning, and one of my biggest stumbling blocks to the question is my belief system that humans evolved eating meat, therefore we need meat.
Anyway, don't let me forget to type out a response. And thank you for such a thought-provoking question.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gardenmommy* 
You know, I disagree strongly with a lot of what I've seen posted on here. However, I still respect the various people represented here: you have clearly thought through your choices carefully. I may think they are [insert descriptor of choice- silly, wrong, foolish, dumb, excellent, etc.], but still, I think that it is foolhardy and damaging to bash others' viewpoints. When we begin to attack each other, we lose the opportunity and ability to learn from each other; we lose respect for each other. When that happens, we lose the ability to teach a greater lesson to our children, that is, the ability to get along with others with whom we strongly disagree.

Consistent with my spiritual beliefs, I believe that we need to show love and grace to others, even when we disagree with them. Which is why, even if I do think your viewpoint it ridiculous, I will not say so. I will try to understand you, even to the point of agreeing to disagree, just so that to whatever degree I am responsible, I can maintain the peace between us.

Well said.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

for everyone.

I don't think debate and argument over a passionate, complex issue means we can't all get along in other areas of life...


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
You already know I don't think veganism is ecologically viable longterm

Let me clarify this. I do believe that veganism is ecologically viable in some locations, but not as a global solution. I also believe that in places where veganism is not a locally sustainable possibility, people are much more likely to come into health problems with veganism (in other words, I think that eating locally is a large part of health).


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
Vegan eating has no negative effect on humans whatsoever.

This statement is the main focal point of this debate, IMO. I respectfully disagree, as do many other thoughtful omnis. I know people IRL and online who lost their health to a frightening degree while eating a vegan or vegetarian diet, and were cured by reintroducing animal products. They were not getting or assimilating the nutrients they needed to live, without eating meat, eggs and/or dairy. They were careful about their veg diets, too - diverse, whole foods, not processed fake foods, not white bread and twinkie vegans.

So, I think the premise that vegan eating has no negative effect on humans is the lynchpin - if you believe that to be true, then there is no legitimate reason to eat any kind of animal product, because you believe your desire to not exploit animals for food does not need to take precedence over your personal health, and it's easy to say about people who lost their health eating veg that they didn't do things right, weren't careful, dedicated or pure enough.

If you do not believe the above quoted statement to be true, whether based on direct personal experience or on the experiences/research of others, then eating vegan or feeding your children vegan becomes a matter of valuing the lives of the animals over your own, so you include carefully chosen animal foods (and you hopefully choose the most humane and ecological animal foods possible, as do the TF people I know). Like everything else, it comes down to a matter of personal perspective. Science and ethics issues can be massaged and manipulated to support just about anything.

I'm pleased to see that this conversation keeps veering back towards civility. (All my "you"s above are figurative, not directed at any one particular person.)


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Okay, for the record, I'm not a vegan yet. I still occasionally, but very rarely, eat dairy, though nine times out of ten that's organic, local stuff from happy cows (the rest is cuz I dont' have the balls to refuse to eat unorganic when I'm dining at a friend's house







).

I admit that I am not super well researched on all aspects of vegan living. However, I have been a vegetarian for 15 years, and have not have any ill effects. I hear so often of many vegans feeling far more healthy than they ever did.

So from everything I've heard, my guestimation is that 75% of folks, at least, _could_ fare well on a vegan or vegetarian diet.

And there's still the question of whether an animal's life is worth someone's relative health. It would have to take some pretty serious health issues with absolutely no means of alternative supplementation to get me to consider killing an animal. And even then... I don't think I could.

But everything is relative, as I stated in my first post.

I guess if just a couple of McNuggeters happened upon this thread and gave the issue some deep thought, I've done my part. Doesn't feel like enough, but I guess it's something...

Oh, and I do want to point out that any intensity/confusion/frustration I have expressed was more or less with regard to people who don't NEED to eat meat... or haven't tested out a veggie lifestyle to see if they don't. That's what troubles me. That would make it unnecessary suffering, no?


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

...


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Wow, I didn't really perceive anyone here as being anti-vegan, just pro-health. Veganism doesn't work for everyone, and being an omni doesn't work for everyone. There is no "one" way. What I appreciate about this board is the varied ideas about life and the many different perspectives on health. I think it's really neat that an omni can come here and find that maybe veganism will be the answer to their health problems, just as a vegan may find that a little tweak might make all the difference. We have a large community to draw from. I know I have been helped and supported, just as I hope that I have done the same for someone else.

I would really hope that everyone could bring and take what they need and just leave the rest behind. Noone is here with bad intentions, and there have been many points of common ground found. I have seen posts on this thread where people of very different opinions have come to understand the others perspective. Of course there is some heated discussion, but that's just the nature of the topic. Not everyone is going to agree. That's fine as long as noone is being attacked or belittled. I would really hate to see anyone leave the board because people are passionate about their beliefs. To me, that's the beauty of MDC. Too often in life I see individuals or groups making bad decisions out of convenience. I love that people here have such conviction-even if those convictions change!

I'm sorry anyone feels badly as a result of this discussion. It would be our loss as a whole to lose any one of our members.


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery* 
Wow, I didn't really perceive anyone here as being anti-vegan, just pro-health. Veganism doesn't work for everyone, and being an omni doesn't work for everyone. There is no "one" way. What I appreciate about this board is the varied ideas about life and the many different perspectives on health. I think it's really neat that an omni can come here and find that maybe veganism will be the answer to their health problems, just as a vegan may find that a little tweak might make all the difference. We have a large community to draw from. I know I have been helped and supported, just as I hope that I have done the same for someone else.

I would really hope that everyone could bring and take what they need and just leave the rest behind. Noone is here with bad intentions, and there have been many points of common ground found. I have seen posts on this thread where people of very different opinions have come to understand the others perspective. Of course there is some heated discussion, but that's just the nature of the topic. Not everyone is going to agree. That's fine as long as noone is being attacked or belittled. I would really hate to see anyone leave the board because people are passionate about their beliefs. To me, that's the beauty of MDC. Too often in life I see individuals or groups making bad decisions out of convenience. I love that people here have such conviction-even if those convictions change!

I'm sorry anyone feels badly as a result of this discussion. It would be our loss as a whole to lose any one of our members.










Very well said. Thank you. I'm a vegetarian and don't feel the least bit attacked. If anything, this has been a fun discussion. Too often in my circles the health and environmental benefits of vegan and vegetarian living are taken as absolute fact. It's really interesting to see a different perspective, even if I don't agree with all of it. It's been great food for thought.

from dnw826 "and anti-Animal Rights is truly disturbing me."

I don't understand where you're coming from here. The omni's on this board have talked quite a bit about raising animals humanely and sustainably. I don't think anyone dismisses the suffering of animals. Besides, if your point of view, whatever that may be, can't withstand a little questioning and criticism, you weren't standing on very solid ground in the first place.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Okay, but you wouldn't tell an anti-circer they were being dramatic, even if they used anesthesia. For most of us, no matter what precedes the killing, it is still killing. If you can't understand why that is horrific, fine. But it is to a lot of us.

(eta: I am personally happy for the measures many take to prevent the suffering. But it is still a matter of degree. And the killing and consuming of animals is _usually_ unnecessary.)


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Now, see, I interpreted that post differently. As in, she does NOT feel that she has a choice but to follow what she perceives as a species-appropriate diet, any more than do other animals, without her or her lineage suffering from the consequences.
I think that illustrates nicely how two people can read different things (such as nutrition info) and come to different conclusions based on personal interpretation.

Yes, that's what I mean. Veg*ns often "excuse" other animals from ethical expectations because they have no choice. A veg*n may very well continue feeding her cat meat. In my opinion, we have a choice of what we put in our mouth, but in terms of what my body needs, I don't have a genuine choice. I don't determine what my species needs nutritionally. So newcastle's choice between kill another animal or commit suicide to me is a valid one. Eventually, if it is not me, it is my child or my child's child that would bear the brunt of my "choices" today.

We are animals biologically no matter how big our brain has gotten. And guess what helped make that brain grow big? Yes, meat or animally-derived foods! I am definitely listening to all these former veg*n mamas who say they were depressed on their former diets. And they're fully grown. What affect does depriving children of the optimal human diet have? To me, it's experimental because a diet free of animal products would be so new in terms of our evolutionary history. It's dicey to stray from a diet tested over millions of years.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
As for vitamins B6 and B12, they are in abundance in nutritional yeast, which is very cheap. Here http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=6646 is a link to a nutritional analysis of it (scroll down). There are plenty of ways to get iron too. I have never had trouble with anemia and I don't go overboard worrying about it. I just eat spinach a few times per week (seaweed, etc, as well







).

I agree with the other part of the post that there are a lot of factors that go into any decision.

As for the above quote, we really don't know that B6 and B12 are all we need from animal products. Nutritional information constantly changes. See how often formula ingredients change. Only in the last few years did we find out that DHA was important and they added that to formula. But we all have the sense there is something about bm that will never be duplicated by formula. That's how I feel about animal products. Not that I eat a whole lot of it, but I find that it is as irreplaceable as veggies. Why do I defend eating animal products so strongly? As I said, I don't stand by it ethically, but to avoid it altogether would deprive the body of the essential nutrients that allowed our species to thrive.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 
I would cause bodily harm to the idiot with the rabbit, rescue the rabbit and have beans and rice as usual.

So bodily harm towards a person is okay?


----------



## CurlyTop (Jun 18, 2003)

I haven't read it all - too long to wait and I want to reply









I get bugged when I want my kids not to eat junk food and other parents offer it. Should I be "rude" and say no, even when the kids are saying yes! yes! yes! And if I say No, should I explain why? I feel like it's impossible to say no without implicitly criticizing the food choices of the other parent. If I want to be friends, I don't want to criticize such a hot topic!


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
And the fact that I am on MDC and there is this thread which is blatantly anti-Vegan and Anti-Vegetarian and anti-Animal Rights is truly disturbing me. I have lost total faith in this whole board and I think this does it for me. I thought that this would be a board where people would be alittle more respectful. I was wrong.

Good bye, MDC.

To me, this sort of self-righteousness disturbs me a great deal. If this was the way people in general handled strife, including religion, we'd be in a whole lotta trouble. For some reason, some of the veg*n on this thread feel that they have the final say on what is right or wrong. How is it possible that anyone could think otherwise?







: Doesn't genuine democracy and pluralism and diversity mean that there can be valid view points that are not YOURS?


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
I agree 100%.

And the hypotheticals? What next, which one of your kids would you save if your house was on fire and you could only take one? This is ridiculous.

FWIW, When I was Omni, I had HORRIBLE depression. Since cutting out meat, I am starting to feel alive again. SO let's not make sweeping generalizations.

And the fact that I am on MDC and there is this thread which is blatantly anti-Vegan and Anti-Vegetarian and anti-Animal Rights is truly disturbing me. I have lost total faith in this whole board and I think this does it for me. I thought that this would be a board where people would be alittle more respectful. I was wrong.

Good bye, MDC.

Oh, no, mommy! Don't leave...This is the kind of thing I didn't want to happen on my thread.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

I just want to mention something about nutritional yeast. I have read that it's not a reliable or consistent source of B12... and also read if overused, can cause candida overgrowth...


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Have anyone read any books from BRAGGS? Famous health crusaders?
According to them, eating meat is like killing yourself. I do have to say that most people who followed their diet got better and their quality improved.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
Have anyone read any books from BRAGGS? Famous health crusaders?
According to them, eating meat is like killing yourself. I do have to say that most people who followed their diet got better and their quality improved.

You mean the apple cider ppl? I didn't know they wrote books.

Most people who go veg from a standard omni diet will improve in health in the short run - it's the longer term stuff I'm skeptical about.


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Nutritional yeast is not actually yeast, so I don't see how it can cause candida overgrowth.

I don't want dnx to leave either. I don't think she was being self righteous, I think she is extremely frustrated.

Okay, here is what I've learned from this thread. It's very possible that some people need meat for their health. So, in terms of what _I'm_ debating, that is now a neutral point.

However, my circumcision analogy stands. Substituting religion for necessesitation (which aren't equal, but close enough); eating meat is unnecessary for most. Many people think it is awful, horrible, cruel. Many people hate circumcision for the same reason. Please don't tell me you would bash them for being self-righteous and deciding to leave? If all the anti-circ threads were hijacked (not that this one was, but since I've been here, almost every one not discussing recipes has been) and flooded with circers, would that be okay? All I'm saying, is I feel the frustration that dnw feels, even though I personally want to stick it out).

Okay, now I'm going to get a bunch of people telling me they believe meat is necessary. Well, maybe all the anticircers are going to hell too (or wherever they go). That is not my point. My point in this post is that dnw feels what she feels for a reason, and that reason does not make her self righteous.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
Nutritional yeast is not actually yeast, so I don't see how it can cause candida overgrowth.

I'm pretty sure it is a yeast, just not of the genus _Candida_

ETA: yup, I was right, it's _Saccharomyces_

(A yeast is a single celled fungus)


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

Oh that is funny! I've heard for so many years that it is not actually a yeast. Hmm. But I found this:

Quote:

The nutritional yeast we use is Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula nutritional yeast. It is the highest quality nutritional yeast available. It contains good quality protein and B vitamins, including B12; it has a yellow or gold color from its riboflavin content. This kind of yeast is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which is food yeast grown in a molasses solution. This yeast is easily digestible and contains all the essential amino acids. It is a different species of yeast than candida yeast; they don't have anything to do with each other. Candida yeast is a wild live yeast while Red Star nutritional yeast is cultured and pasteurized. In fact, Red Star nutritional yeast is guaranteed candida albicans negative.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

The Red Star yeast fortifies the B-12. Otherwise, nutritional yeast is not a good source of B-12. It is not known whether the plant forms of B-12 provide us with any usable B-12. The jury's out. (As it is with the ALA-EPA-DHA conversion.)


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

I posted on a different thread recently that I never understood why a person is supposed to avoid yeast when they have chronic yeast infections - because they're two totally different things! Then a baker friend of mine told me that commercial yeast contains cornstarch. Don't know if that's always true, but









I've figured out my answer to kaydee's question, btw. I just need to find some time to type uninterrupted. Hopefully soon.


----------



## nicolelynn (Aug 18, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cloudswinger* 
We once went out to dinner with a vegetarian, and ordered a meat dish. She felt the need to leave a menu up in between us so she couldn't see what we were eating. Makes conversation kind of hard.

Yeah...it's kinda different on the opposites sides...a militiant TF follower could call a vegan ignorant at worst, but some militiant vegans all but call meat-eaters murders...ya know? That's just some militiant ones, though. Our former roomates were and are vegans...and we all lived in harmony in our home. Mainly because they are vegan for health and human concerns (the farmland/vs pasteuring land issue), not animal rights.

So hopefully we can continue to discuss nutrition rather than argue about it?
Each has chosen their path for a reason. It IS like religion as JaneS said...arugeing dosn't make converts to your faith. The only way help another person in anyway is to walk with them in love and exemplify your convictions.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Are you familiar with PolyfaceFarm, or with Permaculture concepts, intensively managed pastured animals, etc? There's a difference between the "let 'em out and do what they please" pastured cow and the intensively managed, mimicing-natural-grazing-patterns-as-closely-as possible-pastured-cow.

Yes to both. If one must farm animals, Polyface's model seems like a pretty good one. However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand. (I'm certainly not knocking better humane & ecological standards or a reduction in animal product consumption--just pointing out that I don't think factory farming can simply be replaced by grazing/pasturing/true free-range animal ag). We must also eat fewer animals.

Quote:

Who decides what defines sentience?
Well, there is an accepted definition of the term, and abundant scientific evidence that many species (mammals, birds) are sentient. About other species, there is some scientific debate about the degree of sentience (animals without a central nervous system). And no credible scientific evidence indicates sentience in plants. If evidence changes in the future, we will all have to re-evaluate our decisions, but it seems to me not too difficult to deem some species more sentient than others given the ample knowledge we currently posses.

Quote:

I was pondering this the other day, and it struck me that every single food in my house that isn't local is vegan.
Your fruits and vegetables are non-local? Bummer if you can't get any tasty plants in your area. I've not heard of such a thing except in the far far north.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Your fruits and vegetables are non-local? Bummer if you can't get any tasty plants in your area. I've not heard of such a thing except in the far far north.









I'm in Saskatchewan, Canada. We can't grow oranges, coconuts, seaweed, bananas, nuts (except, I believe, hazelnuts, or at least I plan to try in the next couple of years) and mac&chreeze







No greens in the winter. I'll admit, I need to get better at eating locally, but last time I tried to make the leap, I fell off the wagon completely. This thread has renewed my passion, though.
Babe in arms, will address the rest later (I'm staying at my parents' place tonight, so I hope to get some good typing time in







)


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
I'm in Saskatchewan, Canada. We can't grow oranges, coconuts, seaweed, bananas, nuts (except, I believe, hazelnuts, or at least I plan to try in the next couple of years) and mac&chreeze









HerthElde, I'm in Canada too and your post made me giggle... at first I thought you said you COULD grow coconuts & oranges locally, and I was like - WOW! I'm impressed with that SK soil!


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiexto* 
HerthElde, I'm in Canada too and your post made me giggle... at first I thought you said you COULD grow coconuts & oranges locally, and I was like - WOW! I'm impressed with that SK soil!


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand.

In my perfect world, the polyface farm model would be standard and no one would eat meat more than a few times a month. We would use every part of every animal for broths, etc. to supplement the times we actually ate a cut of meat. Happier, healthier animals, happier healthier people, sustainable environment = utopia







.

10 BILLION, I can't even comprehend the suffering...


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GiggleBirds* 
However, my circumcision analogy stands.

I respectfully disagree. For starters, this is not the vegan board. This is an open board and we are discussing a topic, one that the jury is still out on, despite your personal convictions. Most importantly, however, is the huge difference in topics. Circumcision is about the routine, unnecessary mutilation of newborns for cosmetic purposes. What we are discussing here is basic human biological needs as well as, if I'm not mistaken, our place on this planet and our responsibilty toward it and it's creatures. I understand your wanting to boil both topics down to the pain and suffering involved, but it's not that simple.

(and before you say it, I know that you think that it IS that simple







)


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Yes to both. If one must farm animals, Polyface's model seems like a pretty good one. However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand. (I'm certainly not knocking better humane & ecological standards or a reduction in animal product consumption--just pointing out that I don't think factory farming can simply be replaced by grazing/pasturing/true free-range animal ag). We must also eat fewer animals.

I agree the volume should be reduced, both in terms of actual consumption and waste (the amount of food wasted is sickening). However, if animal agriculture were to be switched to a Polyface Farm model, then the VAST acreage now used to grow corn and soybeans for animal feed would be reduced to a fraction of the current amount, which would free up that land for other ag uses within a sustainable model (pasture included). Intensive animal farming actually uses a great deal of land to grow the grains and legumes fed to those animals, which compared to mixed pasture is a very inefficient use of the land.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
To turn the tables







What if the crystal ball told you that you DIDN'T need animal products to be "healthy, strong, and virile"? Would you still eat meat?

Short answer: it depends

If the crystal ball showed me that my descendants were healthier if I didn't eat meat, it would change my whole perspective. I would not eat meat then. And I would come to the conclusion that humans were not meant to be omnivorous.

If the crystal ball showed me that it was equal, I would then weigh the ecological consequences of each decision, and err on the side of what I believe to be the least damaging. I believe that this is an impossibility, though, because if either decision was more ecologically damaging, that in itself would affect the health of my descendants.

That answer really wasn't that hard to come by once I was able to get past my current beliefs and look at the bigger picture.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Yes to both. If one must farm animals, Polyface's model seems like a pretty good one. However, if that were the only type of animal agriculture we were to have, I think people would need to *drastically* reduce the amount of animal products they consume, as they use much more space per animal than intensive farming. The US slaughters 10 billion land animals each year; I don't believe grazing and pasturing and free-ranging could meet that demand. (I'm certainly not knocking better humane & ecological standards or a reduction in animal product consumption--just pointing out that I don't think factory farming can simply be replaced by grazing/pasturing/true free-range animal ag). We must also eat fewer animals.

I truly believe that animals or plants raised in optimum natural conditions are much more nutrient dense than when conventionally farmed. I also believe that if one eats in such a way that all needs for vitamins and minerals are met, one doesn't desire as many calories, period.
If factory farms did not exist, I think that fewer animals would be eaten as a natural consequence. And as AJP pointed out, there is a LOT of waste in the current system. I'm also not advocating that everyone eat beef - it simply doesn't make sense to eat grazing animals in an area where they cannot exist in concert with the land. Different people have different physiological needs for nutrients and I believe that's closely linked to genetic heritage as well as environment.
I don't think that feeding the world (or, more accurately, feeding the humans of the world) is a global concern. Rather, it should be a local one. Furthermore, I believe that if the average city/suburb dweller grew food on their land instead of lawns, food production in human settlements would be much much higher.
I also believe the average person should eat waaaaaay more vegetables. In fact, I think that vegetables should make up the bulk of a person's diet, in volume. That alone would cut down the amount of meat eaten significantly (I'm sure we all know at least a few people who never touch anything green).

Quote:

Well, there is an accepted definition of the term, and abundant scientific evidence that many species (mammals, birds) are sentient. About other species, there is some scientific debate about the degree of sentience (animals without a central nervous system). And no credible scientific evidence indicates sentience in plants. If evidence changes in the future, we will all have to re-evaluate our decisions, but it seems to me not too difficult to deem some species more sentient than others given the ample knowledge we currently posses.
See, here's where I get to don my flameproof suit (thanks gardenmommy, for that phrase, I got a kick out of it). I feel the energy of things around me. I have communicated with both plants and animals. I _know_ every living thing to be "sentient" in it's own way (which I realize doesn't fit the literal definition of "sentience", but I'm at a loss for another word to describe it right now). I'm almost reluctant to bring this up, however, because my own experience has been belittled by others simply because they don't see things the same way. Or it's taken as "baiting", which is not what I intend at all.
Further to that, death does not scare me. It is not final. I view it as part of the flow of life, not separate from life. Death is the beginning of life. The _method_ of death can be energy depleting/negative, as can negative life experiences (such as the suffering that occurs in a feedlot). What occurs after death can affect the energy of the whole universe. I could go on at length, but I think I'd go very far off topic if I did. My train of thought finishes with the fact that the only fear I have about death is that someone will bury my body, full of toxic chemicals, in an airtight box (also likely toxic) when I go.


----------



## twinkletoes (Apr 15, 2002)

Gale Force said:


> I imagine there would be plenty of nutritive value in eating a human living on a traditional human diet. It looks like I erased my comment that you can all eat my dead body if you need to. I still mean it and I'm on a traditional diet, so you could make Gale Force jerky. You could call it GF jerky because it would also be gluten free.QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## homemademomma (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
See, here's where I get to don my flameproof suit (thanks gardenmommy, for that phrase, I got a kick out of it). I feel the energy of things around me. I have communicated with both plants and animals. I _know_ every living thing to be "sentient" in it's own way (which I realize doesn't fit the literal definition of "sentience", but I'm at a loss for another word to describe it right now). I'm almost reluctant to bring this up, however, because my own experience has been belittled by others simply because they don't see things the same way. Or it's taken as "baiting", which is not what I intend at all.
Further to that, death does not scare me. It is not final. I view it as part of the flow of life, not separate from life. Death is the beginning of life. The _method_ of death can be energy depleting/negative, as can negative life experiences (such as the suffering that occurs in a feedlot). What occurs after death can affect the energy of the whole universe. I could go on at length, but I think I'd go very far off topic if I did. My train of thought finishes with the fact that the only fear I have about death is that someone will bury my body, full of toxic chemicals, in an airtight box (also likely toxic) when I go.

this is the basis of my whole belief system.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Ditto HearthElde that's the basis of my belief system too.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
I truly believe that animals or plants raised in optimum natural conditions are much more nutrient dense than when conventionally farmed. I also believe that if one eats in such a way that all needs for vitamins and minerals are met, one doesn't desire as many calories, period.
If factory farms did not exist, I think that fewer animals would be eaten as a natural consequence. And as AJP pointed out, there is a LOT of waste in the current system. I'm also not advocating that everyone eat beef - it simply doesn't make sense to eat grazing animals in an area where they cannot exist in concert with the land. Different people have different physiological needs for nutrients and I believe that's closely linked to genetic heritage as well as environment.
I don't think that feeding the world (or, more accurately, feeding the humans of the world) is a global concern. Rather, it should be a local one. Furthermore, I believe that if the average city/suburb dweller grew food on their land instead of lawns, food production in human settlements would be much much higher.
I also believe the average person should eat waaaaaay more vegetables. In fact, I think that vegetables should make up the bulk of a person's diet, in volume. That alone would cut down the amount of meat eaten significantly (I'm sure we all know at least a few people who never touch anything green).

Mostly-plant-based and predominantly local sounds pretty good. A heck of a lot better than the current state of affairs, even if it isn't a vegan paradise!









Quote:

See, here's where I get to don my flameproof suit (thanks gardenmommy, for that phrase, I got a kick out of it). I feel the energy of things around me. I have communicated with both plants and animals. I _know_ every living thing to be "sentient" in it's own way (which I realize doesn't fit the literal definition of "sentience", but I'm at a loss for another word to describe it right now). I'm almost reluctant to bring this up, however, because my own experience has been belittled by others simply because they don't see things the same way. Or it's taken as "baiting", which is not what I intend at all.
No flames, but no agreement either. While I feel that all of nature has a life force, I don't think that all beings can experience pain and suffering. And in the absence of other proof (and the absence of personal experiences such as yours), I choose to believe the scientific evidence in assessing sentience.

Quote:

Further to that, death does not scare me. It is not final. I view it as part of the flow of life, not separate from life. Death is the beginning of life. The _method_ of death can be energy depleting/negative, as can negative life experiences (such as the suffering that occurs in a feedlot). What occurs after death can affect the energy of the whole universe.
No real argument here about the death/life continuum. I just prefer to cause the least harm to other animals. It's not the fact of killing animals that bothers me such much as the methods of killing--and the hell so many animals are put through at human hands during their lives.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
It's not the fact of killing animals that bothers me such much as the methods of killing--and the hell so many animals are put through at human hands during their lives.

I feel the same. I was at an interesting website tonight and I think I'm actually post-PPD enough to do some letter-writing, especially to the small, locally owned grocery store a block away. Wish me luck, I've never done any activist-type things before (other than talking to people I know and meet - food always seems to come up







)
I think we're all just trying to do first what's best for our family and next what's best for the planet, and even though we don't all agree about what that is, at least it plays an active part in our decision making. I know appalingly few people in real life who even think about the state of the planet - friends refer to me as a "hippie" (which I take as a compliment) and will tell me to cover my ears if they're about to tell a story about something not eco-friendly







: My parents and ILs kind of try, but don't really get it (like, my MIL was going on at length about how important it is to recycle, meanwhile they're conventional grain farmers).
Anyway, MDC is the one place I can come where the vast majority of people *care*, even if we do have different ideas.


----------



## granolamomma (Jul 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 







: I'm kind of sickish feeling yet feel like adding some hysterical laughter in there on this one! I guess, this is why I do not believe in a "god". But how nice that "he" gives one the ability to push of that guilt on "him"! WOW. I'm glad you wore the suit.

Feel better now?

That was completely unneccesary and out-of-line.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
No real argument here about the death/life continuum. I just prefer to cause the least harm to other animals. It's not the fact of killing animals that bothers me such much as the methods of killing--and the hell so many animals are put through at human hands during their lives.

The methods of killing animals and they way that they are treated in the factory/industrial farming model bother us us omni's too. I'm almost 100% positive that it has been said by at least a handfull of us at least a handfull of times on this thread.

Please don't assume that all methods of farming/slaughter/processing are the same thing. I couldn't be any less interested in purchasing animal products as a result of that system. I haven't bought meat in a traditional grocery store - much less shopped at one - in a very long time. I prefer to get mine from a local farmer b/c she raises heirloom breeds and because I know how she treats her animals.

See...common ground.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pamered_mom* 
The methods of killing animals and they way that they are treated in the factory/industrial farming model bother us us omni's too. I'm almost 100% positive that it has been said by at least a handfull of us at least a handfull of times on this thread.

Please don't assume that all methods of farming/slaughter/processing are the same thing. I couldn't be any less interested in purchasing animal products as a result of that system. I haven't bought meat in a traditional grocery store - much less shopped at one - in a very long time. I prefer to get mine from a local farmer b/c she raises heirloom breeds and because I know how she treats her animals.

See...common ground.


Yes, I know people in this thread have said that, and I genuinely am glad to hear it.

But here's the rub -I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like "free-range" and "cage-free" can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don't address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).

Whenever I hear people say they don't eat factory-farmed animal products, I wonder how familiar they are with the actual production of the products they do eat. Some people know a lot, have even visited farms and watched the transport & slaughter before making their purchasing decisions.

But most people, I think, rely too heavily on labeling and marketing claims, or even third-party certifications whose standards they haven't read. I have been guilty of this myself, both with animal products in the past and with other types of products now.

So the common ground is not as easy to claim as simply saying "we're both against factory farming."


----------



## OceanMomma (Nov 28, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
But here's the rub -I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like "free-range" and "cage-free" can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don't address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).


The information is out there about the truth about those nice "free range" or "cage free" eggs in the supermarket. You just need to want to look. But even if ppl don't, they are still way better than battery farms. The poultry industry is one big animal right's abuse however you look at it & is something I am very vocal about.

One thing I do take issue with vegetarians about I have to say is the fertilised egg thing. I am a huge advocate for roosters. I have a pet rooster who will die of old age, who I rescued from the pot when I was a veg*n. He is a lovely gentle bird. He has his own flock of girls who he takes care of who will also die of old age. I get the odd vege buy eggs of me who is totally horrified I have a rooster with them. I say if I hadn't have taken him, he would have been pot roast for sure.

I still have massive ethical problems with dairy & I do get mine from a nicey little farm but they do do some things I have problems with. For me, the only real solution will be when I can get some more land so I can have bigger stock with my chickens. Then I will know where my food has lives, what it has eaten & how it died.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
Yes, I know people in this thread have said that, and I genuinely am glad to hear it.

But here's the rub -I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like "free-range" and "cage-free" can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don't address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).

Whenever I hear people say they don't eat factory-farmed animal products, I wonder how familiar they are with the actual production of the products they do eat. Some people know a lot, have even visited farms and watched the transport & slaughter before making their purchasing decisions.

But most people, I think, rely too heavily on labeling and marketing claims, or even third-party certifications whose standards they haven't read. I have been guilty of this myself, both with animal products in the past and with other types of products now.

So the common ground is not as easy to claim as simply saying "we're both against factory farming."

Again, we're in agreement. I'm pretty sure many many of us here are acquainted with the farmers. I know I am.
But that's where education, as opposed to insult and accusation, should play a larger role. I think most people in North America still think their conventional meat comes from a farm where everything roams free, and are even more complacent when it comes to an "organic" label.
I actually think that the common ground is that simple, though - if I was uninformed about where any of my food was coming from, I'd want to know. I don't know how many discussions you read in the TF forum, but business practice discussions *do* come up from time to time.

By the way, kaydee, when I said the "insult and accusation" thing I'm not saying you were being insulting - in fact, I find your writing style to be quite diplomatic and I enjoy having these discussions with you (even though we did have a run in around a year ago - and I don't think I ever did thank you for pointing out that I was making unfair assumptions and not being clear enough in my statements).


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OceanMomma* 
I still have massive ethical problems with dairy & I do get mine from a nicey little farm but they do do some things I have problems with. For me, the only real solution will be when I can get some more land so I can have bigger stock with my chickens. Then I will know where my food has lives, what it has eaten & how it died.











You know, we should really start some kind of an "omni ethics/sustainability" thread in TF.

I really want my own land too.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OceanMomma* 
For me, the only real solution will be when I can get some more land so I can have bigger stock with my chickens. Then I will know where my food has lives, what it has eaten & how it died.

I have just about driven myself crazy trying to figure out the best foods to feed the family and realizing how almost impossible it is especially for a city dweller. I really look forward to having my own land as well. Otherwise . . .well, it's always questionable.


----------



## OceanMomma (Nov 28, 2001)

I grew up in a big smelly smokey city that had something like 4 times the population of our whole country. I cannot tell you how much I am aware of the priviledge I have living where I do & having the choices I have. Being poor here doesn't suck. My takes on alot of this are gonna be wildly different to someone who lives in a big city. Just to be able to get out of one of those places to check out the nice little local farms is nigh on impossible. Hence why I stuck to beans & rice in those days!


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee* 
But here's the rub -I and many animal advocates also find a good deal of non-factory-farming inhumane, as well. For example, labels like "free-range" and "cage-free" can be meaningless in terms of guaranteeing animal well-being, and organic standards don't address humane treatment of animals. Even third-party certification programs for humane animal treatment allow some pretty ghastly things to occur (not to mention their current failure to address transport & slaughter).

Again, another issue that we agree on. I don't trust labels on products in a store one bit! At least not until there becomes some way to ensure that there will be in fact some truth in that labeling required. And even the I'd be very likely to be very skeptical. You don't have to look very far to find proof that those labels aren't worth the paper they're printed on - especially in the case of the organic label since the USDA sees it as nothing more than a marketing tool it's not too hard for the standards to be erroded. Another good example is the labels you find on items in places like Whole Foods - just read Michael Pollan's latest book for more info on that one!

That's the reason why I researched the farms that I purchase from very carefully and have gotten to know the farmers personally. When we last went to pick up our raw milk my son even got a guided tour of the animals by the farmer's granddaughter - which was quite amusing given the candid nature of most children.

But for me it's more than an issue of treatment of animals - we buy this way because it's our protest against the harsh treatment of farmers in the industrial agricultural system as well! I much prefer to go w/out the middleman/woman.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
So the common ground is not as easy to claim as simply saying "we're both against factory farming."

When it comes to the mindful omnis here it is that simple.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
But that's where education, as opposed to insult and accusation, should play a larger role. I think most people in North America still think their conventional meat comes from a farm where everything roams free, and are even more complacent when it comes to an "organic" label.
I actually think that the common ground is that simple, though - if I was uninformed about where any of my food was coming from, I'd want to know. I don't know how many discussions you read in the TF forum, but business practice discussions *do* come up from time to time.









:


----------

