Whew, Peter, way to go!  Are you all caught up now?  Wow, I had
no idea you were still holding on to this old post of mine.  How long
ago was that, anyway?

Peter(quoting):
> Fruit trees are generally begun by grafting (cutting and splicing) the
>top of one seedling of potentially good fruits-bearing type, onto the
>hardy root-stock of another seedling of a related family type. We
>leave it to your imagination what becomes of the root-half of
>seedling (baby tree) #1 and the top half of seedling #2...
>Then we come to "dwarfing."
> no fewer than four separate trees chopped apart,
>Next we come to the art of pruning,
>...a slave-tree that is gacked and chopped EVERY YEAR OF ITS
>LIFE we are judging the matter by their own standards, not debating the
>point of WHETHER plants feel pain and suffering..

An important point!

Quote continues:
>Regarding spraying, ... truck-sized John Bean sprayers or foggers that seem
 ubiquitous >in this occupation.
>"...snatching and tearing it off before its time, while it is still green.""
 this is the way that fruit is harvested for shipment and sale..."

That's the problem with debating with realists.  They always try to
confuse you with the facts.  I still say fruitarianism is the most
*potentially* non-violent diet!       :-)
BTW, I'd like to say in my defense that the lovely orange tree in my
backyard doesn't get this kind of treatment, though I no nothing of its
pedigree.  The closest thing we do to tree-abuse is watering it with
the dog's bath water.    ;-]   We prune only dead wood.  But don't tell
anybody that I do prune my roses. I wonder if NFL read this?
 I suspect this was aimed more at them than at me.
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.

Peter:
>>> By the way we human beings treat each other and how we are
>>>trashing the planet, it seems the reverse is true.

Martha:
>>Since most "civilized" people are not vegans, it's pretty hard to
>>make this comparison.

Peter:
>I do not remember what I specifically was referring to when I made
>this remark...

I think it was something about the contention (which I did not make)
about the "civilized vegan" lifestyle being superior to that of
indigenous peoples.

>... 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.

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.
Point #2:  Are Hindus less peaceful than others? I didn't know this.
Maybe you're referring to wife-burning?  I think this gets a lot of press
but is not as pervasive as it seems.  You know how the press is.
Remember a few years ago when the Painted Cave fire "wiped out"
Santa Barbara?  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.
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.

Peter:
>>>The way we treat animals in raising them for food is cruel & brutal,
>>>but not necessarily the act of killing for food.

Martha:
>>I can't think of a way to kill an animal (except maybe a tamed farm
>>animal) that is not cruel.  Do you >have any examples?

Peter:
>I do not believe that the act of killing an animal is brutal only that
>modern factory farming of animals is.

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
3)  I can relate to the pain that a mother would feel if her child is
killed, and
4)  If the animal you take down is a mother of very young, you've
reduced their chances of survival to near zero.

>You cannot judge the importance of a nutrient by the amounts
>needed.

True.  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.

>In a few years you will on your knees asking me to forgive you for
>your vegan arrogance. :-)

In your dreams!      ;-D
Besides, I'm not a vegan, remember?  Correction:  I've been a
raw-vegan for 3-1/2 days.  But I don't know if I'll be able to keep that
up for a week in Florida with my in-laws!

Peter:
>I wish I knew. Most raw vegans have already been on the cooked
>vegan path and found it to be inadequate.

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?

Peter:
>>>... Yet, remaining in denial in spite of the
>>>overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because the truth is too
>>>painful, is no  solution either.

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 Kirt'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!

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.
:-)
Oh, you Southern Californians!!!

Peter:
>The population crisis is a product of political, religious and cultural
>limitations not overheated sexual activity.

I don't know anybody who has had children for religious reasons.  I
know people who don't use birth control for relious reasons
(something I can't understand, but *don't* get me started).  And for
them, less randiness might be a blessing.  I can see your point about
cultural reasons.  Political reasons?  Please explain.

Tierra said:
>> (snip her experience killing a rabbit)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
>to kill without needing their "permission."

I feel like I want to respond to this, but am a loss for what to say...
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?  Like the
ones who "ask permission," or who saying they are "honoring the
animal."  Most simply leave it up to someone else.  OK, it's cultural
conditioning, but then where did that cultural paradigm come from?
Maybe we are at an evolutionary crossroads.  Ward?

Martha:
>>Are any of you on the list into edible gardening? Maybe the
>moderators of veg-raw wouldn't mind if we traded gardening tips?
>Not at all. I think this topic will be of interest to many on the list.

Thanks, but it doesn't look like I have any takers.     :-\

Cheers,
Martha