Martha said:
>The closest thing we do to tree-abuse is watering it with the dog's
>bath water. ;-] wonder if NFL read this? I suspect this was aimed
>more at them than at me.
No, you were my aim but the realities of modern day fruit growing does
raise serious questions about the validity of fruitarianism. I would
like to hear what Renee of the Fruitarian Network has to say on this
issue.
>I feel my karma slipping for having caused you to type all this. For
>the sake of my next life, I hope you were able to copy & paste this
>instead of typing.
Unfortunately not. But be aware, if I ever get a scanner I might turn
in to a harddrive terrorist like Bhodi. :-)
Peter said:
>>>... but looking at the Hindu culture which is anything but peaceful
>>>only strengthens my belief that vegetarianism is a mistake that
>>>mankind cannot afford to repeat.
Martha said;
>Point #1: How can mankind repeat a mistake it has not made? I don't
>even know many vegetarians, do you? I mean besides on-line? I know
>two lacto-ovos personally, and zero vegans. I have met a couple of
>vegans before. Even most of the people in the vegetarian cooking
>class I took years ago were not vegetarian, just wanting to include
>some meatless meals in their diets. Over the years I have met hundreds
>of vegans/vegetarians
Vegans/vegetarians are still a minority in our society that's true. The
Hindu culture has often been held up by vegetarian advocates as being
more peaceful and spiritually evolved than those that include more meat
in their diet. I disagree with this notion and find the aboriginal
societies where people are living more in tune with their instincts and
needs to be much more harmonious. The old eskimo culture is legendary
in this respect.
>Point #2: Are Hindus less peaceful than others? I didn't know this.
Maybe the gas from all the legumes they eat makes them irritable and
more prone to violence? ;-)
>Maybe you're referring to wife-burning? BTW, Brazil, which is a heavy
>meat-eating country, also has a problem with wife-killing. So I don't
>see how you can make a connection with vegetarianism
Wife-burning is a very serious problem in India though this was not
what I specifically had in mind. I was thinking more of all the
religious and social pecking orders that seem to cause an endless
stream of conflicts and strife. My point was that by looking at India
there is not much indication that leaving meat of the human diet makes
a for a more peaceful society.
>Point #3: I don't think most Hindus are even vegetarian, and none are
>vegan, at least not by religion. If I remember my Religious Studies
>class (taught by a Hindu) correctly, while the cow is sacred, under
>the caste system the Pariah (untouchables) could still eat the meat
>when the cow died by natural means. Other castes could eat meat but
>not beef. Only the elitist Brahmans ate no flesh. And milk was/is
>eaten by all segments of society. I've met several Hindus in my life
>and only one (aforementioned teacher) was a vegetarian.
Roy, you are just back from India. Does the above correspond with your
observations?
>I agree about the factory farms. No doubt in my mind that hunting is
>less cruel than that, but I still say:
>1)The chase (or trapping) causes terror 2)The kill is any many cases
>painful and traumatic
Trapping I am against. The terror caused by the chase there is no
getting around, though if it escapes the animal quickly gets over it
and is not traumatized by the experience. As for the killing I will
repeat what I said in an earlier post that I believe that the animal
goes into a state of shock that blocks out most of the pain.
>3) I can relate to the pain that a mother would feel if her child is
>killed, and
With our highly developed nervous systems our ability to feel pain &
sorrow is much more refined than that of most animals. The fact that
you are even able to reflect on this issue is a unique human quality.
>4) If the animal you take down is a mother of very young, you've
>reduced their chances of survival to near zero.
Which is why the young and weak should always be targeted first just
like in nature.
>I think I was saying that even if animal products are helpful or even
>needed in the human diet, the quantities consumed by most people I
>know are still problematic.
I wonder how bad even high quantities of animal foods are if most of
the refined & processed foods are cut out of the diet first..
>Besides, I'm not a vegan, remember?
Maybe that is why you are so sensitive and open-minded. I think most
vegans would have backed out of this thread long ago feeling quite
upset and offended.
Peter:
>>I wish I knew. Most raw vegans have already been on the cooked vegan
>>path and found it to be inadequate.
Martha:
>But, after raw-vegan didn't work for them, did they try introducing
>back small quantities of cooked foods, such as beans/grains? Or go
>straight into RAF?
My guess is that many of them have returned to eating some cooked vegan
foods. But more and more like myself believe that RAF is better and the
next natural step to take.
Peter:
>>> Yet, remaining in denial in spite of the overwhelming evidence to
>>>the contrary, because the truth is too painful, is no solution
>>>either.
Martha:
>I thought you might like to know that this statement made quite an
>impact on me. It's the reason why, a couple of months ago, I decided
>against deleting Quirt's posts unread. He was always going on about
>some wonderful creature he was consuming, and it was starting to make
>me sick. But then (thanks to you) I decided I shouldn't turn my back
>on any point of view. Since then, Kirt and I have had some nice
>conversations and I'm glad I wasn't so hasty!
I have enjoyed following the interaction between you and Kirt and glad
that I could make a difference.
Peter continues:
>>Trying to improve ones life and to overcome some of our ancestral
>>limitations is very admirable. But if it doesn=12t fit you must
>>acquit. :-)
Martha:
>Oh, you Southern Californians!!!
I guess living 1/2 mile from the murder scene has taken its toll on me.
;-)
>I don't know anybody who has had children for religious reasons. I
>know people who don't use birth control for religious reasons
>(something I can't understand, but *don't* get me started).
In many cultures having few or no children has been seen as some kind
of curse from the gods. Fertility has been tied to spirituality ever
since the dawn of man.
>And for them, less randiness might be a blessing.
True, but it is not the main cause.
>I can see your point about cultural reasons. Political reasons?
>Please explain.
In many societies throughout history having many children has been
regarded as a civic & patriotic duty and rewarded accordingly to
guarantee the survival of the society. I believe some communist
countries went down this path
Peter:
>>I still do not buy it. If you had not felt that accepting energy my
>>guess is that you would have felt pretty guilty. If killing animals
>>is a natural human act, as I believe it is, you will (re)learn with
>>time =
Martha:
>What does it mean that so many people need to justify killing, as if
>they intuitively feel it's unkind and somehow wrong to do it?
I would love to see some vegans try to answer this question. In my
opinion it is just social conditioning like the fear of spiders and can
easily be overcome with a little effort. On a side note I wonder if
most vegans are pro-choice and if so how they justify it?
>Cheers, Martha
Enjoy your trip to Florida!
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
