Martha:

> Hitler's supposed (debatable) vegetarianism was, if factual,
> apparently for health reasons.  Not about killing animals but
> concern that they were killing him.  There's a discussion on it
> at:
> http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/hitler_vegetarian.html
> just in case anybody's interested.  I've never been sure what
> the point is that people are trying to make with this.

The obvious: consider the two statements

A: Not eating meat helps you become less violent; meat (or even
concentrated protein) makes you more aggressive.

B: Non-violent people are vegetarians, because meat-eating is violent
in essence.

Note that these two assertions are distinct, and often made by
vegetarians. Hitler is just a counterexample to the first one (but not
to the second one). Of course, some people will claim that he was not
a _raw_ vegetarian, and that cooked grains have the same effect on
aggressivity than meat, but then consider that
   1] fanatism is not uncommon in raw vegetarian/vegan circles: I have
seen many (verbally) violent raw veg*ns (virtual violence? e-violence?);
   2] it is true that eating raw makes you feel more calm, but
sometimes calmness is merely a side-effect of lack of energy, and in
addition, many murderers are calm or even cold-blooded.

As for statement "B", I believe that violence is hidden somewhere in
us, and it is important to acknowledge its existence, not to be afraid
of it (even if that violence is not exteriorized in everyday's
life). Some animals that don't eat eat meat (bulls, horses...) can
injure you badly when angry enough or when their life is
threatened. When I was in 2nd grade, we once played at throwing
stones at each other: adults don't do that anymore, but violence
becomes verbal, political, or is expressed in sports, or movies, or
video games; sometimes, it is repressed (and Ellie might say that
neurological/psychological problems follow).


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>