>jean-claude:
>>who was the most to blame from a vegetarian point of view for cruauty.?

As I seem to be the only sole lost vegetarian here, I feel called
for a honest answer.
The action of killing such a pigeon - well really brings up some strange
feelings - not at all against the killer (peace, jean-claude + son)
even not for the pigeon - just beeing afraid to do so myself.
It shudders me - it would be cruelty to myself.

Then - don't forget - that pigeon was living in the wild (on own risk)
and as you tell nearly dead from itself. It would have died anyway.
For me this looks 100 times better than buying a pork rind in the
supermarket.

But even if it was already dead - (killed by the kraw) I couldn't
eat this, really. Maybe very short before starving to death.

More and more i tend to see the relation meat/killing in a opposite way
than what's usual:
Most people (on the list you can feel that too) think of meat as the best
thing to get and are to some extent searching for some
"excuse" or reasoning why no excuse is necessary - or at least
discussing about the question of guilt.
To be able to get the precious thing - in amounts.

Opposed to this, i feel that meats are more of an emergency food for
deserted areas and well suited only for specialists (predators).
Food on the planet comes only from plants. Animals eating plants have
the best and richest resources. Predators have a much more inefficient
nutrition base. For a much smaller population then. Humans are many.
Predators have to live from low-energy food
(wild meat has much protein and few energy) and do the ugly killing
(or if it's already dead - eat carrion).
Somehow a lion is more a mortician than a king.

I admit that a plain peace of meat (raw?) has some advantages above
many common food sources. Mainly in an *anti-allergen* point of view,
because plant protein sources are most always bundled with antinutrients
which seem to be underestimated and not well-understood.

Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>From a vegetarian point of view? You're all going to hell. ;)
>
Not vegetarian, but some religious points of view do imply a suchalike view.
The essene text, the hindu, the buddhist philosophy forbid or discourage
killings. And that mainly as a selfish way. Hindu's don't eat meat
because they don't want bad luck or destiny  in the rest of the future.
So speaks the essene evangelic.

For me -vegetarian- it's only : thanks god there are other and different
things to eat - more esthetical and more "clean" to me.
Thanks god also in a paleolithical context.

But if jean-claude liked the very small meat peaces as tastefull
- well - so are tastes.

Now I wrote so much, although I already planned to go back to a mode
of occasionally lurking and maybe occasionally topics
(away from always only meat). Better so....

Amadeus