Hi JL & all
Let me state up front that I am not making any assertions
about vegetarian eating promoting peacefulness, and in fact I
don't hold this view.
>Jean-Louis Tu:
>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.
I honestly haven't heard many vegetarians claim your A.
Actually the only one I can think of is John Robbins when he
said you're eating adreniline when you eat meat. Your B
makes more sense than A, esp. if modified a bit, to, say,
"The less-violent are more likely to be attracted to
vegetarianism (than the average-violent?).
>Hitler is just a counterexample to the first one
Exactly. Just one rather notorious counter-example. It
hardly disproves a rule, since all rules have exceptions
(except this one ;-) ). But once again, I'm not claiming the
"rule" is true.
Here's my latest musing: *If* the body wants meat and isn't
getting it, it sees this as a deprivation (n.b. Kirt: please
realize I, like Alan, am talking figuratively, not claiming the
body "wants" or "sees" anything as in concious intent or
sight). The body's response is to increase aggressiveness
hormones or whatever it is, "thinking" it needs to be more
aggressive in order to get the meat.
No flames, please. It isn't an opinion, just a mental
meander.
>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).
OK, I'll go first. I acknowledge that I'd like to kill Hitler right
now for being a vegetarian (and possibly one or two other
reasons).
>Some animals that don't eat eat meat (bulls, horses...) can
>injure you badly when angry enough or when their life is
>threatened.
Not to mention what they do to each other during mating
season.
Cheers,
Martha
|
