colon cancer

[rhaazz]

I'm happy doing the LC thing. I'm an ethical vegetarian and preached to all who would let me -- for years -- that a diet full animal fat is bad for you, as well as unethical (in terms of our duties to animals and the planet).

Well, check out the surprises that life had in store for me. Now that I'm eating tons of animal fat in the form of cheese, mayonnaise, butter, and eggs, I'm losing weight, my cholesterol is down, my fingernails are healthy & strong for the first time in years, my hair is thicker, I have more sustained energy . . . . etc.

I buy all my animal products from humane and organic producers so I don't feel TOO bad about it.

But I had one concern. Diverticulitis runs in my family and I'm worried about colon cancer.

When I was eating a high carb diet, I would poop about three times a day (no kidding), and was sure that I would never develop colon cancer.

Now that I poop maybe once every other day, I'm worried.

Thoughts?

[Dean4Prez]

How many vegetables are you eating per day? Are you still in Induction and getting just three cups?

[gotbeer]

Three times a day? Wow.

Such frequent movements often indicate (or foreshadow) Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) or Ulcerative Colitis (UC) - both of which are associated with a hightened risk of cancer.

Low carb diets often help with these diseases (something to which I can attest to personally in the case of UC).

[Lisa N]

Well...first of all, there is no direct link between how many times a day you move your bowels and colon cancer. Since the bulk in your diet has decreased, it's only natural that the amount of fecal matter to be eliminated would also decrease. As you move through the different phases of low carb towards maintainance, you should be gradually increasing your daily carb allowance and using mostly veggies and some fruits as well as nuts and seeds to achieve that increase. By the time that you get to maintainance, you may be eating more veggies (and a greater variety of them) than you ever have in your life along with some fruits and whole grains as well.
Recent studies have shown that there is no direct link between the consumption of animal proteins and colon cancer and as for the diverticulitis, it's more likely to be aggravated by grains than beef. Same goes for IBS.

Edited to add: I moved this post to the General Health forum in hopes that more people would see it and be able to add their knowledge and experience to the topic. :)

[rhaazz]

Thanks for the replies!

I thought though that colon cancer was caused by the very slow movement of animal protein through the digestive tract? Animal protein takes so long to digest, that it rots in there for days, becoming toxic. Vegetable matter, by contrast, moves quickly and doesn't have the chance to become so toxic.

I also thought that there was a correlation between the length of an animal's intestines (short for meat eaters and long for primarily vegetable eaters) and what it should be eating. Since we have very long intestines, we should be eating mostly vegtable matter.

I agree, you know, this concern will probably resolve itself once I reach my goal weight and increase the number of veggies in my diet.

[gotbeer]

Those arguments (food digestion speed, “rotting”, and intestine length) are propounded and spread by the literature of the Hare Krishna’s – a strongly vegetarian-oriented faith. This fact doesn’t make the arguments wrong in and of itself, but the actual scientific foundation for the arguments is lacking.

First, they assume that creatures are either plant eaters or flesh eaters. Humans, apes and many other animals are omnivores – we can and do eat both plants and animals.

Second, both plant and animal tissues are digested just fine in the intestines of omnivores (and rot rather nicely outside of it). Their use of the term “rot” is a scare-word, designed to elicit an emotional response, not a scientific one.

Third, meat doesn’t linger in the intestines for days nor become toxic any more than vegetable matter does. One can get food poisoning from contaminated vegetables as well as meats. The only “linger” exception occurs in those prone to constipation – and if you are getting enough fiber, the “lingering” disappears.

Obesity is a major threat – for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc. The question for me becomes one of the balancing of risks – even if meat bumps up the colon cancer risk, to me, the decline of the other risks does more to offset other risks. Interestingly, studies that have shown increased colon cancer for meat-eaters show little difference in mortality, suggesting that the meat-related cancers are more benign and treatable than other types.

Also, there is a quality of life issue here as well – getting and being thinner is improving my life in many ways. If it came down to it, I’d rather have 20 more good years than 30 more miserable ones.

[rhaazz]

I'm a vegetarian, and not a "Hare Krishna." Don't lump all vegetarians into some fruity cult.

There are many good reasons not to eat meat.

1. Eating meat means that you are cruel to animals. I wouldn't kick my dog, and for the very same reason, would not eat an animal (unless I had absolutely no alternative). But many people who like to think of themselves as kind are perfectly willing to have animals kept in crowded and inhumane conditions, then slaughtered, so that they can eat them.

2. Eating meat means that you are harming the planet and its people. It takes more than a 100 gallos of water to produce a pound of animal protein, and about 1/5 that to produce a pound of vegetable protein. It also takes more fuel, more pesticide, more fertilizer, more land. When the majority of the world's population is starving, it makes no sense to devote most of arable land to the production of grain that will be fed to animals that will -- very, very inefficiently -- go to feed a tiny fraction of the world's wealthiest and most privileged people. It's disgusting and morally wrong.

3. Eating meat is irrational. People who eat meat say "they're just animals," or "they can't speak," or "they can't think." So? The issue is, "Can they suffer?" When it comes to inflicting pain on another living being, the only considerations should be, 1. Can this being feel pain -- i.e., does it have a central nervous system? and 2. Can this pain possibly be avoided?

Many many people are vegetarians because they want to live a life that is as free of violence and cruelty as is possible. And yes, I understand that it is NOT possible to live COMPLETELY free from inflicting violence and cruelty on other living beings. And yes, I understand that there are OTHER ways of reducing the amount of violence and cruelty in the world, and that vegetarianism is not the only way. Please don't oversimplify what I am saying here. All I am saying is that vegetarianism is a rational, pragmatic (and not perfect) way to try to live in a humane and responsible way.

[gotbeer]

"Fruity cult"? Isn't that a bit abusive towards that gentle, veggie faith? Yours are violent and cruel words, I think. Are you sure about those plants you've been eating?

If I were you, I'd be nicer to those fellow travelers who espouse the same ideology as you - indeed, they published it years ago in almost exactly the same word-for-word treatment as your earlier post.

Personally, I love the Hare Krishna's. Their food is great (if too carby), their worship and artwork are colorful, and their devotion seems genuine. They are no more fruity than any other religion.

My point was, their viewpoint (and your arguments) come more from religious inspiration than scientific rigor.

1. Eating veggies means that you are cruel to plants. At least the animals can cry out and run away - plants suffer in silence. People who think of themselves as kind will still happily rip a defenseless carrot from the arms of its warm Mother Earth - or worse, pay for others to do it for them.

2. Eating plants means that you are harming the planet and its peoples. Agricultural land practices - plowing, fertilizing, and using pesticides - kill far more creatures than living off free-range grazing animals.

3. Eating meat is rational - indeed, recent studies show it IMPROVES brain function as well as improving physical health.

Despite these shortcomings, I really don't mind vegetarians at all - in fact, every person I can convert to vegetarianism means more meat is left for me!

[rhaazz]

Wow.

I am really, realy offended by your inaccurate and careless spouting of preconceived notions about me and my "fellow travelers."

You did not even bother to read what I said and yet you feel qualified to tell me why I am a vegetarian and what's wrong with my views.

OK, actually, I admit, know very little about the Hare Krishnas. What I do know about them is not very positive -- they do seem like a cult to me. I have read accounts of people who have left the Hare Krishnas and felt that they had been brainwashed and exploited. But I am willing to be corrected on that.

But as for telling me that I have no right to have an opinion that others might not agree with -- Did you even bother to read my post? I did not say I was -- or that vegetarianism is - perfect. I did not say that vegetarians never got irritated, or espoused controversial views.

It was not inconsistent with my position to call Hare Krishnas a cult, and had you bothered to read my post you would have understood that. I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life.

As for kindness to my "fellow travelers" -- Excuse me?

You obviously think there are about 50 vegetarians in this world and we can all be lumped into one little group and we all think the same.

Please trust me when I tell you, YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.

There are millions of people all over the world who practice vegetarianism for so many different reasons that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to agree with all of them on every issue.

Again, since you seem not to be a very careful reader, let me reiterate: I cannot possibly be expected to agree with every living vegetarian on the planet about every issuse.

And no, I am not "religiously" inspired.

You have so many misconspetions that it is really hard to address them all.

As for religious inspiration -- Let me be CLEAR here:

I do not believe in God,

or any religious system,

and don't tell me I do when you know virtually nothing about me.

I was inspired to become a vegetarian by a Moral Philosophy course I took in college. OK? Want proof? Want the phone number of my philosophy professor? Want the titles of the books I read?

Try reading Pater Singer's "Animal Liberation" if you want to understand my motivations for becoming a vegetarian. Otherwise, please, please, don't tell me who I am or why I do what I do -- especially when you don't even bother to read my posts -- the ONLY source of information about me that you have.

Intellectual rigor -- NOT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS -- inspired me to become a vegetarian.

OK, as for cruelty to plants.

Let me reiterate:

question one is,

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS?

and question two is,

AVOIDABLE PAIN?

Remember? When the question of cruelty comes up, you must ask yourself two questions,

First, "Does this creature have the capacity to feel pain?"

Second, "Is this pain avoidable?"

To adddress your (almost certainly sarcastic and mocking) "concerns":

1. PLANTS ALMOST CERTAINLY DO NOT FEEL PAIN AS THEY LACK CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS.

2. BUT, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, LET US ASSUME THEY FEEL PAIN.

IF THEY DO FEEL PAIN, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID INFLICTING IT ON THEM WITHOUT DYING OURSELVES BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT TO EAT AT ALL.

THEREFORE THE "PAIN" IF ANY TO ANIMALS IS NOT AVOIDABLE WITHOUT DYING OURSELVES.

MY GOAL -- REMEMBER? -- IS TO AVOID INFLICTING UNNECESSARY PAIN WHILE REMAINING ALIVE MYSELF. AS I SAID, I WOULD EAT AN ANIMAL IF THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT EATING MEAT OR DYING.

3. IF YOU TRULY WISH TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF PLANTS, THEN BECOME A VEGETARIAN. PRESENTLY YOU ARE CAUSING THE UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF MILLIONS MORE PLANTS BY EATING MEAT -- FED ON PLANTS -- THAN YOU WOULD BY SIMPLY EATING THE PLANTS THEMSELVES.

If you had read my post you would have understood that.

Good luck to you. I hope that someday you learn the meaning of the phrase "intellectual rigor."

[gotbeer]

No need to shout, dear. I heard you; I just didn't believe you were correct.

I've read your posts - indeed, I responded to them, point by point, 1-2-3. Just because I read your posts doesn't mean I have to agree with you - do you believe everything that you read? Disagreement is a natural part of any rational, truth-seeking process - a good thing. I'm surprised I have to explain that to a lawyer.

Quote: "I am really, realy offended by your inaccurate and careless spouting of preconceived notions about me and my 'fellow travelers.'"

The offending words in question were mostly yours. I tweaked them slightly, of course, to show you how they applied to your own position. For example, your "preconceived notion" was that "many people who like to think of themselves as kind are perfectly willing to have animals kept in crowded and inhumane conditions, then slaughtered, so that they can eat them." My reply, that plant-eaters did the same to defenseless plants, merely echoed (and parodied) your own prejudices.

Quote: "But as for telling me that I have no right to have an opinion that others might not agree with ..."

Really? Where did I say or even imply that?

I disagree with your opinions, yes, but I never said you didn't have the inalienable personal right to any errant idea you may fancy.

Quote: "I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life. "

Yes dear, I heard. While "attempting" is admirable, actually succeeding in one's attempts is better. Claiming a feeble moral justification despite one's admitted moral failings just doesn't sound flattering to one's position, don't you think? It sounds to me like a defense of "well, yes, Your Honor, I did shoot him, but it is okay, because I really didn't like the fact that I did."

Quote: "You obviously think there are about 50 vegetarians in this world and we can all be lumped into one little group and we all think the same.."

Actually, I think there are 0 actual vegetarians, since all vegetables contain microscopic animals that one cannot avoid ingesting. Seriously, though - you had no hesitation adopting yours as a nominal vegetarian position - why are you so enraged and offended when someone else dares to question the assumptions behind it? After all, if you don't want to defend a vegetarian position you can always stop replying to my posts.

Quote: 'First, "Does this creature have the capacity to feel pain?"'

How carno-centric of you to assume that central nervous system pain is the only meaningful source of suffering. Left without water in the sun, for example, plants suffer and die. Experiments have shown that stressed plants communicate that stress with each other via chemical messengers passed back and forth between in their root systems. Hell, even non-biological legal fictions like "corporations" can suffer pain in the form of "growing pains", "economic pain", and "regulatory pain".

Quote: 'Second, "Is this pain avoidable?"'

In the case of plants - no, or at least, not yet: we don't yet know enough about botanical pain (or economic pain, for that matter) to relieve the sufferings of those mercilessly harvested for food (or corporate greed). In the case of large animals, however, we could relieve their suffering if we wanted to - anesthetic technology is easily advanced enough to curtail central nervous system pain during animal harvest. At present, most food animals have quick deaths with minimal pain - and given that I have to die, too, someday, that is how I'd want to go. (Being shot post-coitus by a 21-year-old girlfriend's jealous husband would be ideal).

Quote: 3. "If you truly wish to reduce unnecessary death of plants, then become a vegetarian..." [to avoid the additional deaths of plants fed to meat animals].

I'm not sure why you've switched from "pain" to "death" as the thing to be avoided - they are not at all the same, after all - but since you brought it up, let's take a moment to consider avoiding death instead of avoiding pain as the superior moral good. Grazing animals typically don't KILL the plants they eat - they are more like lawn mowers, trimming the leaves back without causing mortal suffering. For plants, this might be painful, but it also might be no worse than trimming hair or shedding skin cells. Most agriculture practices, by contrast, kill the plants wholesale during harvest or ingestion - the carrot dies bite-by-bite between your molars.

As an afterthought...

Here's a link to a Hare Krishna-run vegetarian website: http://society.krishna.org/Articles/2002/05/035.html . The issues raised and words used are eerily similar to yours, even if there is no actual link between them and you. As an atheist myself, I guess I'd be really disturbed and upset if some religion echoed my thoughts so closely, too.

[rhaazz]

There very well may be some overlap between the reasons compelling Hare Krishnas and the reasons that other ethical vegetarians choose not to eat meat.

I really don't know and I don't care.

You're the one who brought up the Hare Krishnas, with your notion that my vegetarianism is provoked by "religious" impulses.

I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy and honesty to admit that you were wrong about that notion.

The one relevant thing you said about the Hare Krishnas is that I don't know enough about them to dismiss them as a "fruity cult."

I agree. That was an ill-considered remark. I really do not have enough information about that group to take a position on them.

You see, I do try to acknowledge areas in which I am relatively ignorant, and I do try to admit that there are things I do not know.

I wish you would do the same.

You clearly have not read any animal rights philosophers and, just as I am in no position to debate the merits of the Hare Krishnas, you are in no position to debate ethical vegetarianism until you are better educated.

As for your analogy about "It's ok that I shot him, you honor, because I felt bad about it afterwards" --- I honestly do not see what point you're trying to make here.

It's not that I DISAGREE with your point. It's that I have utterly no idea what it is.

Thatanalogy seems to have something with my point that most nonvegetarians -- just as you do here -- try to attack vegetarianism by pointing the finger at a given vegetarian and saying "Look at this person's moral failings! Aha! See, I can dismiss vegetarianism!" (For example, your position in an earlier post was that if I am opposed to cruelty I should not scoff nastily at Hare Krishnas.)

You're probably right. I shouldn't scoff nastily at Hare Krishnas -- or at you, for that matter.

I just don't see what my moral failings have to do with vegetariansim.

Ethcal vegetariansim was the topic under discussion.

I believe that the merits or otherwise of ethical vegetarianism have very little to do with me.

Consider this: Martin Luther King Jr was an imperfect eprson. He was, for example, terrible womanizer, something many would consider a moral failing because it is likely to inflict pain on those close to the womanizer.

Yet many of his positions about civil rights were highly ethical.

It would be just plain stupid to reject civil rights on the grounds that some of its advocates were not completely kind in all their actions.

Similarly, it would be just plain stupid to reject ethical vegetarianism because some of its advocates are not completely kind in all their actions.

I don't know if this is what you were saying or thinking when you pointed out my failings, but if it was, it was not relevantto the question of the ethics of vegetarianism.

The issue is ethical vegetarianism, not me.

I certainly don't reject the idea that we should all STRIVE to be ethical and kind in all our actions.

(Was this the point you were trying to make in the "it doesn't matter that I shot him You Honor because I feel bad about it" analogy?)

Good lord. If that what you think I'm saying -- STOP! It's NOT!

Of course I am a seriously flawed person -- and so are you.

Of course, we should strive to be ethical and kind in all our actions. We will fail but we should try.

I was merely pointing out that if you are attacking ethical vegetarianism because vegetarians are not unimpeachably ethical in all their acts, you are making no sense.

Also, I am not saying that vegetarianism is the only way to be a kind person or help the planet.

Maybe you are right about free range cattle. Maybe that is a humane and ecologically sound option.

I really don't know, because I have not studied it, and do not choose to debate issues that I have not studied.

As for your position that plants "suffer." Perhaps they do. Again, I do not know because I have not seen the studies that prove this. What you say about "sending stress signals" to other plants does not sound like pain as I know it.

1. Physical pain, as I experience it, depends on a central nervous system.

2. I know that physical pain, as I experience it, can be horrible, and I know that it is wrong for others to inflict physical pain on me without my consent or any benefit to me.

3. I also know that I wish to avoid death for as long as possible. I believe that it would be wrong for another to inflict death on me without my consent.

4. I believe that most human beings share my feelings about unnecessary pain and death.

5. Therefore, I believe it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain or death, generally speaking, on other human beings, because they usually do not consent to it.

[It would not, for example, necessarily be unethical to inflict pain on a human being who needed some medical procedure involving unavoidable pain and who consented to it; not would it necessarily be unethical to inflict pain on a person who was seeking pain for masochistic purposes and who consented to the pain. Similarly, it would not necessarily be unethical to assist in the suicide of a person who had good reasons to want to die and who consented to the activity.]

Generally speaking, however, it is unethical to inflict pain or death on human beings who wish to avoid pain and death, do not consent, and do not experience any benefit from their own pain or death.

Next,

1. I also believe that other non human beings possessed of a central nervous system have very much the same experience of pain that I do.

2. I also believe that they also seek to avoid death for as long as possible.

3. I believe that in the desire to avoid pain and death so far as possible, nonhuman animals are very similar to human animals.

4. I believe that this similarity between human and nonhuman animals is significant.

5. I believe that if it is unethical for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain or death on another human being without that person's consent, it is also unethical for me to inflict pain or death on a nonhuman animal without that animal's consent.

The reason is, there is no significant difference between the animal's basic desire to avoid pain and death and my desire to avoid pain and death.

There are many differences between human and nonhuman animals, but in this regard, the desire to avoid pain and death, I am convinced that there are no significant differences.

I have several important assumptions here:

1. Assumption number one:

I am assuming that animals do not consent to the pain or death they experience when we keep them in inhumane conditions and slaughter them.

[However, it may be ethical under some conditions to kill animals. I recently read an interesting book about an Aboriginal people who DO ask for animals' consent before eating them. This people lives in near-starvation and total poverty and truly eat barely enough to survive. They have no agriculture and simply wander. They never know where their next meal is coming from, Their way of life does not strike me as unethical, because -- whether or not the animals truly consent -- this people is wholly committed to living at peace and in harmony with their environment and each other. This is not my belief system, however. For the world in which I live, I believe that vegetarianism make more sense.

Similarly, I believe some medical and scientific research on animals may be necessary. I would hope that animal researchers would do their best to treat the animals humanely.]

2. Assumption number two:

I am assuming that if plants experience stress, it is not pain as I know it, and that the moral implications for me of plant stress are not the same as the moral implications of animal stress.

I am relatively confident that plant "stress" is not suffering as I know it because (1) plants lack a central nervous system similar to my own and (2) the pain response in human beings and animals serves an evolutionary purpose: it incites them to flee from attackers, but generally cannot serve such a purpose in plants that cannot flee predators.

If anything, plants BENEFIT from those that eat them:for many plants, being eaten is crucial to their propagation -- it's how they spread their seeds.

3. Assumption number three:

The significant differences between human and nonhuman animals do not obliterate the important similarities between their desires to avoid pain and death.

Just as the fact that the person sitting next to me may have gifts that are more valuable to the world than mine does not give that person the right to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on me,

so it is also true that my different abilities do not give me the right to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals.

A being's capacity to make the world a better place is not relevant to that being's basic rights to be free from unnecesary pain or death.

4. Assumption number four:

I do not believe that killing an animal is as wrong as killing a human being.

5.

Also, I am not saying that vegetarianism is the only -- or even one of the best -- ways to be a good and nonviolent person.

For example, I sometimes think that driving a car every day and living a life rich in consumer good is more violent and more morally wrong than eating meat. (If I really have enough money to go to New York for a weekend then why don't I have enough money to donate the same sumto the homeless? If I can buy season tickets to the opera why am I not supporting Oxfam? The way I am consuming a disproportionate share of this world's wealth is morally indefenisble and probably worse than eating meat.)

I'm not trying to shift the debate back to me and whether I am a good person. Rather, I'm saying, vegetarianism isn't the end of the story.

However, I am completely convinced that NOT killing beings fully as capable as ourselves of desiring life and freedom from pain is better than killing them.

[Elihnig]

Here are some links about the myths of vegetarianism.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html

You have the right to eat as you wish, but be informed.

Now that I'm eating tons of animal fat in the form of cheese, mayonnaise, butter, and eggs, I'm losing weight, my cholesterol is down, my fingernails are healthy & strong for the first time in years, my hair is thicker, I have more sustained energy . . . . etc.

Your body seems to agree with what you are doing for it.

Beth

[gymeejet]

hi raz,
see why i did not want to get into the meat-eating discussion on my thread ? i know where it digresses. LOL.

we should not kill animals. there are no qualifications. each animal has a right to its life, irregardless of its ability to make the world a better place. but boy, if that were the qualification, then we should obliterate humans completely. we do not make this world a better place.

anyone who thinks that humans in someway are needed for the survival/betterment of the earth, are really off their rockers. we are about the only species on the earth that continually disrupts the ecology of the planet.

some of us may indeed make the world nicer for humans, but certainly not for the earth. and then, only for a certain grouping of other humans. mostly what we do, is do things for the betterment of ourselves, with little regard for others. that would be much more indicative of human behavior.

if some alien life form, that found us tasty, ever inhabited the earth, people would very quickly change their minds. but it is my belief that any society that ever developed enough for interstellar travel, would have also developed the wisdom not to hurt other beings. but perhaps i am too optimistic about that one.

[rhaazz]

OK, thanks for the links.

I'm willing to think that the health benefits of vegetarianism mayhave been exaggerated.

But I will never agree with anyone who thinks there's no moral value in avoiding inflicting unnecessary pain or death on living beings that wish to avoid unnecessary pain and death just as much as we do.

[rhaazz]

Elihnig: this part of one of those posts is just WRONG: "A question frequently posed by vegetarians is: how can you justify killing an innocent animal for food? This question may seem difficult to answer at first but really it is not. Would it be reasonable to ask a lion to justify his killing of an innocent gazelle? Of course not: it is natural for the lion to kill the gazelle and that is justification enough. And what of a gazelle's right not to be eaten? Put this way, you can see that such questions are really meaningless. The same is true for us, for we are not a vegetarian species. "

The lion has no choice but to eat a gazelle.

We have a choice.

It's this simple:

Imagine a person driving down a road at night. A deer is caught in his headlights, stunned, frozen.

He's driving a big huge SUV.

He COULD choose to wait for the deer to come to its senses and bound off into the forest. But he likes the taste of venison so he plows the deer down, takes it home, butchers it, and eats it.

It is absolutely CLEAR to me that he made the wrong choice. Clearly the more moral choice would be to wait a few moments, allow the deer to go off and live its life, and then go home and eat some tofu.

However, most meat eaters don't see this choice with any moral clarity because they do not actually SEE the animal suffer and die. Since they don't see it, they don't think about it.

And yes, there are some who actually do kill their own meat. Yuck.

[rhaazz]

Yes, gymeejet, I agree:

human beings -- as a group -- behave as though every other living organism on the planet were put here for us to us, abuse, and destroy at our whim. That's just wrong.

I don't however think that meat eating is wrong for ALL human beings.

Just as the lion must eat the gazelle, certain cultures -- hunter-gatherers living at subsistence level -- must eat meat.

But then, those ancient hunter-gatherer cultures are not destroying the planet in all the ways you mention.

[gymeejet]

hi raz,
in regards to bowel movements, this is the most common types of problems i see, when helping people - digestion/elimination problems.

i go #2 several times a day, but they are not huge stools. and it takes me longer to wipe than it does to go. people sitting there reading the newspaper have a problem.

ideally, we want fast digestion systems, so nutrients get in, and waste gets out quickly. but it also behooves us to have slow metabolisms. all these diet pills that basically speed up the metabolism in one way or the other, ARE BAD NEWS.

what we want to strive for are slow, relaxed, basal metabolisms. we do not want our bodies working hard, when we are at rest. but when we want to go, the energy of a turbocharger. sort of like the big guy with the muscles, but a jovial personality, UNTIL YOU GET HIM MAD - LOL.

[rhaazz]

gymeejet, I thought that more muscle mass gave you a faster metabolism? Isn't more muscle mass a good thing?

[gymeejet]

adding muscle does allow us to burn more calories, and to a certain extent, help us to keep fat off.

we are all born to have certain hormone levels. our bodies will always attempt to adjust to these hormone levels. some of these hormone levels are the cause for each of us having so many body fat cells, and it is the number of fat cells that dictate our body's preferred body fat percentage.

this is why liposuction actually does work, because it eliminates some fat cells, thereby actually lowering the body's set point.

each of us is only gonna have so much muscle, mostly determined by our testosterone levels. and i do believe it is a good idea for us to have as much muscle as our body naturally allows.

but within those limits, we are better off with slowed down metabolisms. we age slower, we have less anxieties about getting older, and all the things that go along with it.

if someone is carrying around more fat than what is ideal for that person, speeding up the metabolism is not the answer, for the answer to all problems is to fix the problem at the source, which is what medicine almost never does. most pills that one takes, work by shutting down some enzyme that may have gone out of kilter, but it does not address the reason why it went out of kilter in the first place, which means that because the real problem was never solved, it still exists to create other problems for us in the future.

[gymeejet]

in fact, the biggest thing i preach is STAY IN BALANCE, so that your body can work as it was designed.

[Bon]

rhaazz--
I have had diverticulosis since at least 1995. Had part of my colon removed in 2001. It's a disease that used to affect only the elderly, but is showing up in many folks in their 30s. This is due to our poor diet -- especially not enough fiber -- and those nasty carbs contribute to the problem.

If this runs in your family (it's not hereditary, but bad eating habits are), you may want to use preventative measures with this WOE. Every day I take metamucil and one colace pill. Colace (or the cheaper generic) is a stool softener, and will keep stool soft so it moves through the intestine easily. Drink LOTS of water. Flax oil is excellent, also.

I have been on Atkins since 6/1/03, have lost 22 lbs., and mostly "go" once a day, if not more. Everyone should have a "movement" daily. If they aren't, they're not ridding themselves of toxins and place undue pressure on their colon. If you are worried that you're not going often enough, taking a stool softener will help move things along -- and it's not habit forming like laxatives, so you can take it daily.

I'm not a doctor, but I am living with this disease and successfully low-carbing. I hope my two cents helped a bit.

[Mara]

Ok, I normally don't get involved in these debates, as much as I enjoy reading them, but this one sucked me in --

Imagine a person driving down a road at night. A deer is caught in his headlights, stunned, frozen.

He's driving a big huge SUV.

He COULD choose to wait for the deer to come to its senses and bound off into the forest. But he likes the taste of venison so he plows the deer down, takes it home, butchers it, and eats it.


First of all, this analogy is ludicrous, flat-out. Whatever moral issues you may have with the "superiority" of vegetarianism, I'm not sure there's anyone in the world stupid enough to take the $5000+ damage to his SUV, not to mention the potential risk of losing his life because he "likes the taste of venison." I mean, come on - while this analogy might appeal to you on an emotional level, and fill you with a righteous fervor of the evil abuses of "meat-eaters", it doesn't hold water as a real-life situation. I think most "meat-eaters" wouldn't see it as a moral choice for the simple fact that it's not one. But, to continue with your analogy, it's also hard to think that the fictional "guy" in your example wouldn't see the animal "suffer and die", after crawling out of his wrecked SUV and extricating the wounded, thrashing animal from wherever it ended up, putting it out of its agony and throwing it in the back to take home.

Secondly,
The lion has no choice but to eat a gazelle.

We have a choice.


this doesn't hold water either. Our evolutionary and archeological history make it quite clear that without consumption of animal tissues, we would have never progressed to the level of agriculture in the first place. (And no, please do not take this as an invitation to argue on the merits of creationism - that's been covered quite thoroughly on another thread.) Alright you may say, that might have been true for our ancestors, but not now, when so many non-animal protein sources are available. Well, you yourself in this very thread mentioned the benefits to your health that you've seen after adding animal proteins and fats back into your dietary regime. Now that I'm eating tons of animal fat in the form of cheese, mayonnaise, butter, and eggs, I'm losing weight, my cholesterol is down, my fingernails are healthy & strong for the first time in years, my hair is thicker, I have more sustained energy . . . . etc. Animals must be sustained and raised in an orderly fashion to produce these things. In other words, there are still resources being devoted to their care, feed, and upkeep, the same as if these animals were being raised strictly for their own meat. Also, when the animals reach the end of their productive life, after having spent so many resources in the animal's production, shouldn't we, morally, utilize said animal to its fullest?

Finally, I'd like to address the hunting issue. You said:

And yes, there are some who actually do kill their own meat. Yuck.

Is it really moral to stand by and watch the animal suffer a slow starvation due to overpopulation run out of control? Deer are quite capable of surviving in neighborhoods where any chance of natural predation has been reduced to 0%. Instead, they run out into the streets, and are struck quite accidentally by motorists and left to die slowly on the side of the road. Or, as I mentioned earlier, slowly starve to death in the winter when the available food can't support the population. Hunting not only prevents the population from reaching such dire straights, it allows for the "harvest" of animal proteins (with a better essential fatty acid profile, no less) without the expenditure of resources that giant factory farms (whether animal or vegetable in nature) require. It also enables me to raise my own fruits and vegetables in my backyard, using composting to enrich my earth by re-using resources, instead of stripping it, requiring a high expenditure of resources, as well as the injection of artificial chemicals in the forms of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides as mass agriculture does. And finally, to interject my own personal feelings here, from a cycle-of-life, respect for animals position, giving thanks to the spirit of the animal that died so that I can be sustained is a daily part of my life.

I'm not sure how a question about colon cancer ended up in a vegetarian debate, but I think while your intentions are admirable, and respect your right to choose, "preaching" vegetarianism as the moral alternative doesn't stand up under scrutiny to me.

Just my 2 cents...now it's back to lurking for me! :roll:

[rhaazz]

Wow, Bon, that was great! You're really helpful! Thanks.

[Quinadal]

Personally, I think all total vegetarians are fruitcakes that don't have a clue to reality. People were made to eat meat and plants. Anyone that raises their kids on a veggie.vegan diet needs to have those kids taken from them as child abusers.

[rhaazz]

Mara, you missed the point of my analogy by focussing on irrelevant details. It doesn't matter whether there's an SUV instead of a Humvee, or a deer instead of a fox, or it's nighttime instead of daytime, or it's a man instead of a woman.

The only point I am making is that unnecessary cruelty to animals, and killing of animals, should be avoided.

If you think about it, you yourself almost certainly practice this principle every single time you treat any animal humanely. It's intuitive for most people that it is more ethical to avoid cruelty to animals.

Of course, if you're a psychopath who likes to go around torturing animals, then everything I've just said is wasted on you.

As far as the necessity of eating animal tissues -- this is clearly not the case as there are any number of extremely healthy vegetarians running around and liing long healthy productive lives.

As far as the necessity of eating animal tissues prior to the development of agriculture -- I DID say that for ancient hunter-gatherer cultures meat eating is a necessity.

So when I said "we have a choice," I was referring to the "we" who live in a modern industrialized society.

Clearly, we DO have a choice.

I have exercised that choice.

So, yes, that statement DOES "hold water."

And as for the health benefits of ANIMAL proteins -- one can get these from humanely farmed eggs and dairy.

Obviously, there is No need to KILL anything.

As far as the overpopulation of deer, etc. -- hunting is not the solution. Animals in the wild DO regulate their own populations in lean years by having fewer offspring.

As far as farm animals now in existence -- it is clear that even if my wildest dreams come true and the world adopts a vegetarian diet, this process will happen very gradually, over hundred of years. The number of animals in farm production will gradually decline.

When animals die, of natural causes, of course, do whatever you wish with their dead bodies. Just don't inflict unnecessary suffering or pain on them.

[gotbeer]

Oh, cool! We made it to the war zone!! :yay:

The application of moral precepts to the food chain is just not as clear-cut and "eating A is good" and "eating B is bad".

The food chain predates the development of human morality by 3 billion years at least. It developed in amorality and continues that way.

Observe the food chain and this is what you see:

Some animals eat living plants.
Some animals kill and eat other living animals.
Some plants eat other living plants (Mistletoe, for example).
Some plants kill and eat living animals (the Venus flytrap, for example).

What can we conclude from this? Is the meat-eating Venus Flytrap less moral than the plant-eating Mistletoe? The question is silly because human moral standards are irrelevent to the food chain.

The morality of the food chain seems to be this:

1. Every living thing is food for something else.
2. Eat or be eaten.
3. Don't waste your food.

Obey the morality of the food chain and you, your progeny, and your species are rewarded with an improved chance of survival.

Ignore it, and you, you progeny, and your species will become extinct pretty quickly.

In the face of these realities, the high-minded ideals of "avoiding killing" and "minimizing pain" become unaffordable luxuries.

If we are "destroying the planet" it is only because we have done a masterful job of harnessing the food chain to our own benefit. We are still not as successful as insects and fungus but we're making progress.

***
On the question of feelings: I love animals. I love them to the point that I am an animal rescue volunteer. I presently have 12 cats living in my house - 4 of my own, and 8 as temporary fosters awaiting placement in good homes. Over the years my details records indicate that 231 cats have passed through my doors. 206 were eventually adopted elsewhere, 2 disappeared after a burglary, and 11 died of natural causes.

Cats are obligate carnivores - they must eat lots of meat to survive. I could have saved thousands of other animals by just allowing area animal shelters to kill the 231 cats I rescued. By the convoluted "morality" of animal rights, would this slaughter have been justified?

***
I'll try to explain my point of: "It's ok that I shot him, you honor, because I felt bad about it afterwards". (This was a part of my reponse to your explanation of vegetarianism: "I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life. ")

The point is this: attempting to avoid evil, and failing, is not a moral good. If an alternative to vegetarianism is more efficient in avoiding evil (by being less cruel), then it is morally superior to vegetarianism. Meat-eating is such an alternative:

Eating 1-2 pounds of beef a day, I could live for over a year on the death of just one big grazing cow.

Eating 1-2 pounds of grain a day for a year involves: clearing an acre of land (countless deaths of plants, mice, voles, birds, etc), fertilizing that land (countless deaths of fish from the run-off), spraying pesticides (killing the countless insects, and more birds and mice), harvesting the grain (by uprooting and killing the plants), then grinding up the grain (killing it, too).

The score:

Meat-eating: 1 death (the cow) per year per eater.
Vegetarianism: at least 1 million deaths (both plants and animals) per year per eater.

The morally superior victor at minimizing deaths:

Meat-eating, by a factor of about 1 to 1,000,000.

[rhaazz]

Quiadal, you're ill informed. But I am not going to debate the [well-documented] health benefits of a vegetarian diet -- except to say THERE IS NO NUTRIENT IN MEAT THAT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM EGGS AND DAIRY.

But health is NOT why I'm a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian because I do not want to go around killing sentient beings that wish to avoid death and pain.

Quinadal, you almost certainly also do not go around inflicting unnecessary pain on animals -- at least, the ones you can see. If you had a dog, you wouldn't go home and kick it, would you?

I'm simply pointing out that the same principle applies to animals that produce our meat.

[rhaazz]

gotbeer, the fact that something happens in nature doesn't make it RIGHT in human civilization.

There are animals that commit infanticide, murder, and rape -- these behaviors are "natural" and make sense, given their environment.

But obviously those same behaviors are immoral for human beings in this society (I am not going to comment about other societies that I do not know about).

I'm just curious, gotbeer, have you ever taken a moral philosophy class?

If you had, you would know that "natural = moral" is a widespread fallacy.

[tholian8]

I am a former vegetarian. I have also taken philosophy classes, although my opinions on meat eating are informed purely by my personal story. I would never tell anyone else what they should or should not eat, as I believe individual human bodies differ too widely for one dietary "prescription" to fit all...which goes for LC as well!

As an ovo-lacto vegetarian for nine years, I gained 25 pounds and my well-being deteriorated to the point where I was depressed and listless most of the time, and beset with all sorts of nagging aches and pains. I was constantly hungry and bad-tempered from wildly fluctuating blood sugar levels. Physically, I was miserable, and I felt totally out of control of my body.

I vegetarian-LC'ed for about one month in 1999, before giving up and putting meat back in my LC diet. I almost couldn't believe the difference in how I felt. My energy levels went up immensely. I no longer felt the constant hunger that I had even on LC before re-introducing meat. My aches and pains vanished literally overnight. I didn't like working with raw meat in my kitchen (still don't), and I really had to get used to eating meat again (I didn't keel over though). But despite my squeamishness, I could not and would not ignore the blatantly obvious benefits of including meat in my eating plan. Although I went off LC dieting after a few months, due to lack of support at home, I never went back to being a veggie. I just felt much, much better as an omnivore.

Believe me, I tried every vegetarian option I could think of to get my protein up without having to eat meat. And nothing worked as well, not by a long shot. The unpleasant truth is that, for whatever reason, eating meat appears to be GOOD FOR MY HEALTH. These days, my energy has returned to what it was in my pre-veg incarnation...small wonder, I observe wryly, since my diet has pretty much returned to what it was in those days, as well.

Now, in my opinion, there was one animal who was made to suffer greatly, perhaps even--in a sense--tortured, during my vegetarian period.

ME.

Am I not a sentient being who deserves to be relieved of pain? Or should I have stuck with the veggie diet? What would have been the morally correct thing for me to do?

Or in other words, how much diminution to the quality of my own life should I be required to accept, in the name of not causing pain to or killing animals?

Or, in perfectly plain English, how much should I be expected to martyr myself on behalf of livestock, in order to be a morally good person?

Emily

[gymeejet]

tholian,
the fact that you can afford a television has no bearing on whether i can get one. either i can afford it or not. the fact that you are having problems does not give you the right to inflict problems on someone else. each animal has a right to its own life. i am not only living, BUT THRIVING, without meat. i would suffice to say that there is no 1 food that is essential. i have heard tons of rationalizations from people who do not want to feel guilty when they eat meat, but the taking of a life is wrong. like i posted earlier, if all of a sudden some aliens more powerful than us appeared, you would change your tune pretty quickly. do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

[jeanne48]

Dear rhaaz and gotbeer,

Regarding the length of intestines for digesting vegetation vs. meat--if you watch National Geographic or other documentaries regarding animals, you will note that these documentaries say Gorillas have a "pot belly" to best digest their diet of vegetation and fruits. E'nuff said.

So rhaaz...I agree with you regarding the "intestines." If the Hare Krishnas agree with us, too, so be it.

gotbeer--I am surprised at you! I've been reading your posts and you sound very intelligent. Let's not defend this diet beyond reason--the diet works (even rhaaz says so) without any debate between vegetarians/animal lovers vs. meat lovers/plant humanitarians. We eat the meat that eats the plants, LOL. So, we'll get our grain one way or another. :lol: It's called the "food chain."

I am an animal lover and if I had to kill to eat (which my family had to do at one time in Alaska) I would probably starve. However, the meat is out there and hypocrite though I seem to be, I will eat it.

Y'all have a great day!

God bless,


Jeanne48

[Quinadal]

Quiadal, you're ill informed. But I am not going to debate the [well-documented] health benefits of a vegetarian diet --
You mean the birth defects that B12 deficiency causes? Show me ONE study that shows vegetarianism is healthy that the PCRM WASN'T involved in.

except to say THERE IS NO NUTRIENT IN MEAT THAT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM EGGS AND DAIRY.
1 egg contains .5 mcg of b12, 1 cup milk contains .9 mcg.
3 oz of beef contains 2.1 and beef LIVER contains 60!
The RDA is 6.
Who eats 12 eggs or 6 cups of milk A DAY? You can ONLY get B12 from ANIMAL PRODUCTS!



Quinadal, you almost certainly also do not go around inflicting unnecessary pain on animals -- at least, the ones you can see. If you had a dog, you wouldn't go home and kick it, would you?

I'm simply pointing out that the same principle applies to animals that produce our meat.
Beef cattle are there for ONE REASON ONLY--FOOD. I'm not saying that they should abuse those cattle (I don't eat veal), but meat is necessary for good health. Doctors HATE vegetarians because they don't heal well and take longer to cure than meat eaters. I've talked to many doctors at work (I'm a nurse) and they all agree, they can pick out a vegetarian in a crowd, because they're pasty and have an unhealthy complexion.
I eat 1-2 lbs of meat a day and have perfect cholesterol, my diabetes is under control and am never sick. I tried going veggie a few years ago. I was ALWAYS tired and got sick constantly. My skin dried out and my hair was falling out. My TOM would skip several months at a time. None of this normalized until I went low carb.

[aimie]

well...when i started reading this debate i was not going to get into this but...

i in no way want to offend anyone or say that no one is allowed to thier own opinion or beliefs.


so... with that said here are my beliefs and some friendly suggestions, although i realize this is the war zone...so some will take this the way they want to, and be offended and thats okay too because you have the right to perceive things the way you want...

i agree that animal cruelty is a very bad thing. i agree if you feel good and you like veggies and want to eat that way to save animals lives thats great. i agree that slaughter houses are horrible.

i use to be a vegetarian.

i did not eat anything that pertained to animal. one day after a trip with our children and youth from church we stopped and got chiliburgers... the smell of them were so good i tore into them... and have ate meat ever since.

it is okay to kill animals to eat. if it is done right. usually it is not. i can not preach to anyone because i know that the pork, beef, and chicken i eat was possibly probabley brutely killed in a slaughter house. i still eat it and just do not think about it or try not to any way. i guess that is the way most of us think.

there is nothing wrong with saving lives and protecting our beloved animal friends, but God gave them to us to eat just like the plants, veggies, fruit. He did not say we had to eat animals.

i think if someone wants to spare life, pain and suffering great for them it is wonderful. a person like that must have some love in thier heart. goodness and self control is a part of Gods plan for our lives.

sorry for who ever wrote this one but...the posts i read where plants were compared to animals was rediculous... come on now adults.

i would usually never bring God into a conversation like this but... i am a christian and it saddens me to think some one would say they do not believe in God. my mother has made that statement before also. i am really sad for her.

please DO NOT get me wrong. it is your choice to believe in what you want to. i respect that. God gives us the right to do so. ( believe) The Bible says God gave us meat to eat... in the Bible meat was considered to be food, all food. "meat" and veggies and etc...

im not here to say any one is wrong in thier beliefs about anything mentioned here except for believing in God because He is real and some day we will see for ourselves.

the only reason i brought up God in this was because i read somewhere where some one did not believe. i just wanted to say think about that statement. quote:" i do not believe in God" because He is real.

im not here to attack you. please just think a little more about it.

when we seek God we will find the answers we are looking for.

rhaaz, i think you are a kind hearted person and it is great that you care for animals. i feel the same way you do about the slaughterers. i just cant believe that a person with such a big heart has no room for God. like i said it is you choice. i hope i have not offended you.

oh yes... if you feel that some veggie groups are cults that is your right and you should not have been attacked. i feel like some "christian" groups are cults in fact i know they are. but respect that they believe in what they believe in... just as i believe in God. but i guess that is why this is the war zone... so i guess i will wait to see how many attack me or my God. I have been convicted to present the good news to anyone willing to listen and if they turn away that is thier choice and if they say things about God they will have to answer to Him for that... i have done my part. (spreading the gospel) for God so loved the world. John 3:16.


ps:

about the bathroom thing. I use stool softner. i also do a colon cleansing every once in a while.

[gymeejet]

i am thriving without meat. also, has anyone heard of vitamin supplementation ? pretty easy to do. you can get the b-complex from non-animal sources.

http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm#possible

A number of reliable vegan food sources for vitamin B12 are known. One brand of nutritional yeast, Red Star T-6635+, has been tested and shown to contain active vitamin B12. This brand of yeast is often labeled as Vegetar-ian Support Formula with or without T-6635+ in parentheses following this new name. It is a reliable source of vitamin B12. Nutritional yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a food yeast, grown on a molasses solution, which comes as yellow flakes or powder. It has a cheesy taste. Nutritional yeast is different from brewer's yeast or torula yeast. It can often be used by those sensitive to other yeasts.

[Quinadal]

i am thriving without meat. also, has anyone heard of vitamin supplementation ? pretty easy to do. you can get the b-complex from non-animal sources.

http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm#possible

A number of reliable vegan food sources for vitamin B12 are known. One brand of nutritional yeast, Red Star T-6635+, has been tested and shown to contain active vitamin B12. This brand of yeast is often labeled as Vegetar-ian Support Formula with or without T-6635+ in parentheses following this new name. It is a reliable source of vitamin B12. Nutritional yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a food yeast, grown on a molasses solution, which comes as yellow flakes or powder. It has a cheesy taste. Nutritional yeast is different from brewer's yeast or torula yeast. It can often be used by those sensitive to other yeasts.
Why would you want to take supplements when you could eat real food?
I looked at nutritional yeast nutritional info. 2 TBS has 133% of the RDA, but it also has 7 g of carbs! hmmmm lets see....... 9 oz of meat= 105% 0 carbs, or 2 TBS of fungus= 133% and 7 carbs.......
Of course, you have to KILL the yeast first...aka-super heating it or adding boiling water. Picture all those little fungi screaming as they get boiled alive! :lol: "HELP ME! HELP ME!!!!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

[gymeejet]

while i could not find the specs for red star yeast, i have KAL yeast right in front of me, as i eat it. it contains 8 g of protein, and 1 g of sugar, 1/2 g of fat, and 4 g of fiber, and 130% of B12. again, look for another rationalization as to why one needs to eat meat. MEAT IS NOT NECESSARY. not to mention the tons of hormones, rush of adrenaline, all sorts of crap fed the animals so they can get more per pound, plus all the meat poisonings at restaurants, etc. i am living proof that meat is not needed.

[Quinadal]

The stats I posted were for Red Star yeast

[tholian8]

tholian,
the fact that you can afford a television has no bearing on whether i can get one. either i can afford it or not. the fact that you are having problems does not give you the right to inflict problems on someone else. each animal has a right to its own life. i am not only living, BUT THRIVING, without meat. i would suffice to say that there is no 1 food that is essential. i have heard tons of rationalizations from people who do not want to feel guilty when they eat meat, but the taking of a life is wrong. like i posted earlier, if all of a sudden some aliens more powerful than us appeared, you would change your tune pretty quickly. do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Well, I asked, so you answered. Guess I should have expected something like this.

I never said meat was essential, only that I personally feel much better in provable ways (condition of hair and nails, energy level, weight control) when I include it in my diet. I never claimed that this applies to anyone other than myself. However, my return to meat-eating was based on experiments I did on my own body, and I will not be argued out of it.

OBTW, I don't feel the least bit guilty. You find you can thrive without meat. By experimenting on myself, I discovered--to my great surprise--that I could not. And I do not believe that, for example, beef cattle have a greater right to thrive than I do.

Never before in my life have I been told that I should sacrifice one iota of my personal health on behalf of barnyard animals. This seems somewhat irrational to me. We are not talking about having some material object, such as a television, or not. We are talking about lowering the quality of my health, something that impacts me every second of every day. It also impacts everyone who is in relationship with me. It also negatively impacts my contribution to society in myriad ways.

Again, I make no claims here about the general suitability, or not, of a vegetarian diet as regards human nutrition. As before, my position comes solely out of my personal experience with vegetarian and omnivorous diets.

Emily

[rhaazz]

I agree, Emily, I would never tell ANYONE what they should or should not eat.

And for the same reasons as you: my personal experience.

Giving up meat was one of the hardest things I ever did.

I would never impose it on anyone.

I believe that eating meat is unethical

(yes, even for you, Emily -- and please don't hate me for saying this, because I really like you a lot, but the suffering you experienced as an ovo-lacto vegetarian -- and I wonder how could that be, because you were getting EXACTLY the same nutrients from eggs & cheese as meat -- but that suffering was relatively trivial compared to the suffering and death of the animals you now eat)

but you certainly have the right to choose what you can, and cannot sacrifice in your efforts to live a good life. Sacrificing pleasures (or perceived necessities) for the sake of the wellbeing of others is a very personal and difficult decision.

My position is only: it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals.

My position is NOT that every meat eater must immediately act on this knowledge to give up meat. That would simply be too much to ask.

I think that a perfectly acceptable response would be, "Yeah, ok, sure, lots of animals are suffering and dying for the sake of meat eaters. And yeah, as a general principle, it seems pretty obvious that it is better to avoid unnecessary suffering and death. However, I'm just not ready to stop eating meat -- it's too big a sacrifice for me right now."

[rhaazz]

Another vegan source of B 12 is tempeh -- it's an Indonesian food made with grains and legumes and a live culture, and I've never had trouble finding it in better grocery stores.

Mmmm, tempeh. :yum:

But even vegans who have NO dietary sources of B 12 are not found to lack it.

No one really knows why that is. There is some speculation that there are traces of B 12 in foods not ordinarily thought to contain it. There is also speculation that it can be manufactured by bacteria in the human gut.

But a true B 12 deficiency is extremely rare.

By the way:

I used to be a vegan for ethical reasons. Talk about energy? I was very lean (not surprisingly) and had TONS of energy. I was running up to 16 miles a day.

Anyway, I had to stop because in my new job there were too many group occasions for which the caterer had provided literally NOTHING for me to eat.

Plus, you really couldn't do the Atkins diet as a vegan, and I really like how Atkins is working fo rme right now.

So yeah, if someone were to say, "I can't change my diet according to your ethical principles because it's too inconvenient or is inconsistent with my need to lose weight" I would say, "yeah, I know what you mean, I've encountered the same difficulties and I too have had to make comrpomises."

[rhaazz]

aimie, I really, really liked your post! You seem like such a good and kind person!

I really like the way you set out your different views without being contentious.

What a good example you set in this forum! I wish I had your gentleness.

Thanks for that post. :)

[gymeejet]

hi tholian,
i never said that cattle had a GREATER right to thrive than you do. i would never make a non-sensical statement like that, for there is no definition that you can attach to it. i am sure the cow feels its life is more important, while you feel that yours is. it is when we use those feelings as some sort of rationalization that it is okay to kill another animal for our greater good, that i step in and say it is wrong. do unto others ....

[rhaazz]

Quinadal, some of the things you post are demonstrably not true.

Quote: " Doctors HATE vegetarians because they don't heal well and take longer to cure than meat eaters."

No, no, no, no.

I have been a vegetarian for twenty years.

I have enjoyed excellent health.

EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR I HAVE EVER VISITED APPROVES OF MY NOT EATING MEAT!!!!!!!!!!

MY CURRENT FAMILY PRACTITIONER IS A STRICT VEGETARIAN -- FOR HEALTH REASONS.

[tholian8]

rhaazz: This is where we have to part company, I'm afraid. You think it is morally wrong for me to eat animals. I don't. We are never going to bridge that chasm.

I never thought it was wrong to eat animals even when I was a vegetarian. I chose vegetarianism for two reasons, neither of which had anything to do with morals: the belief that it was a healthier diet, which turned out not to be true for me, and the influence of my partner (at the time), who disapproved of meat-eating even though she claimed she did not.

The fact that my choices had nothing whatsoever to do with my moral precepts or my religious beliefs, is what IMO made it possible for me to go back to meat-eating when it became apparent that I was feeling better on such a diet.

Interestingly, although we both ate exactly the same food, my ex thrived on a veggie diet, and my health suffered. She is still vegetarian today, from what I understand.

Emily

[aimie]

rhaazz,
i am glad you are not up set. thanks for reading. have a great evening. i look forward to reading more of your posts.

[Tiawyn]

THERE IS NO NUTRIENT IN MEAT THAT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM EGGS AND DAIRY.

But health is NOT why I'm a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian because I do not want to go around killing sentient beings that wish to avoid death and pain.


Well is it killing, or is it pain that you're trying to avoid? Because if it's pain - where do you think those eggs and dairy come from? From animals that live their lives in small cages, that are bred to produce more eggs (or milk) than would ever normally be possible. If you are a vegetarian for moral reasons, you certainly shouldn't be eating eggs or dairy food (or any animal product at all, for that matter).

[rhaazz]

Hey aimie -- check it out: our stats are almost identical! You go girl! Isn't it SOOO exciting to see the numbers drop below 150? I was totally psyched to move that big chunky weight to 100, just like the skinny girls weighing themselves at the gym. :)

And you know -- I have tried to learn to have faith in God, in the past. I used to be in Overeaters Anonymous. It's a 12 Step program just like Alcoholics Anonymous, and like AA, OA is centered on spirituality.

Sadly, I never was able to get myself to believe -- my rational self just kept coming up with so many arguments against the existence of God.

It was sad for me because I was really struck by how much more successful -- not just in program, but in life -- the people with faith were.

Can you BELIEVE we're having this chat in a thread titled "colon cancer"? :lol:

[rhaazz]

Yes, yes, yes!! I want to avoid inflicting unnecessary death AND pain.

Which is why I buy only organically farmed, free-range eggs and dairy.

These animals are not kept in small cages. They are cage free and allowed to engage in normal behaviors, exercise, socialize, explore, etc. They are under much less stress than the animals you describe.

Many believe that it is wrong to exploit animals even to the extent that these humanely treated animals are exploited.

I respect that position, and if I were able to at this point in my life, I would try to practice veganism. It doesn't seem possible to me to be a vegan right now, though I do hold hope for myself that someday I will be able to reduce my participation in the exploitation of animals.

Right now, however, a more pressing moral concern for me is my general selfishness. Right now, what really concerns me is not my participation in cruelty to animals, but rather how little I seem to be able to make myself donate to charity.

Changing your behavior is a slow process, though, you know? I'm working on this. I have a long way to go.

[gymeejet]

hi raz,
the universe is here today. either it had no beginning, or its beginning was due to something outside of this universe, since by definition, the universe was not here at that time.

both of these point to a supernatural force (i.e. not of this universe). whether that force is God, can never be proven/unproven while we reside in this universe. but there is no doubt something more powerful than you and i.

[rhaazz]

I love that articulation, gymeejet. The times when I was closest to having faith, it was in something like the vastness and mystery you describe.

Again -- in your wildest dreams, did you EVER think you'd be discussing this under a thread titled "colon cancer"?

We start out talking about poop and end up talking about God.

[gotbeer]

My experiences in MATH class taught me well enough that 1 death from meat-eating is better than the 1 million deaths needed to sustain a vegetarian.

[gotbeer]

I found some interesting material on Peter Singer, the veggie "ethicist":

link to statement (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/2900/psai3.html)

Excerpt:

Statement on the Hiring of Peter Singer

We the undersigned protest the hiring of Dr. Peter Singer as the Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values. We protest his hiring because Dr. Singer denies the intrinsic moral worth of an entire class of human beings – newborn children – and promotes policies that would deprive many infants with disabilities of their basic human right to legal protection against homicide.

In his book Practical Ethics, Dr. Singer states that no infant has as strong a claim to life as a rational, self-conscious human being.1 Dr. Singer’s criteria for distinguishing newborn infants from “normal human beings”2 (including more mature infants) thus hinge on subjectively imposed conditions such as “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”.3 This lesser claim to life is also applied to those older children or adults whose mental age is and has always been that of an infant.4 His assertion of the appropriateness of killing some humans based on others’ decision concerning the “quality” of their lives should strike fear into everyone who cherishes equality and honors human life.

Furthermore, Dr. Singer defines certain disabled persons as individuals who are living “a life not worth living.”5 His views permit the killing of certain newborn infants with disabilities up to 28 days after birth.6 Dr. Singer states that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often, it is not wrong at all.”7 Dr. Singer’s message threatens individuals with disabilities and contributes to the erosion of the public’s regard for the fundamental human rights of disabled people.

Finally, Dr. Singer suggests that the regulated killing of babies with spina bifida be permitted.8 He would extend to parents the authority to “replace” a Down’s syndrome or hemophiliac infant (i.e. kill the child and conceive another) if adequate family or societal resources were not forthcoming. 9 Even though Dr. Singer concentrates on disabled infants, the ethical arguments and metaphors that he provisionally adopts10 leave open the potential empowerment of parents to kill a non-disabled newborn whose “replacement” would ameliorate their prospects for a happy life.11

1 Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics 2nd edition p. 182
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid. p. 181
5 Ibid. p. 184
6 Kuhse & Singer, Should the Baby Live?, pp.194-97
7 Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics 2nd edition p. 191
8 Ibid. pp. 184, 202-03
9 Ibid. pp. 186-90
10 Ibid. pp. x-xi, 127, 129-31
11 Ibid. pp. 182, 186

[Lisa N]

Wow...that's absolutely frightening and sickening. The same rationale could also be extended to adults who have become brain damaged through accident or stroke/heart attack. What about adults who have suffered spinal cord injuries? Are their lives not worth living as well and therefore subject to termination?
Yikes!

[gotbeer]

More on Singer:

The ethics of baby-killing

His protesters call him a Nazi, a hater and a snob, but the most interesting truth about Peter Singer is that there are many more like him.

By Jason Zinoman

link to article (http://archive.salon.com/books/it/1999/07/02/philosopher/)

July 2, 1999 | On a gray Saturday morning in April, two vastly dissimilar groups congregated in front of Nassau Hall at the center of Princeton University's campus. A band of handicapped protesters, who had come to New Jersey to rally against the appointment of the new Ira W. De Camp professor of bioethics, Peter Singer, stood 40 feet from a neat circle of prospective parents, eagerly listening to undergraduate David Beal sell them on the virtues of the Ivy League school.

Beal, a red-faced enthusiast with a surplus of school spirit, lectured loudly about the glorious diversity of Princeton University: All 50 states are represented in the student body, he explained, and public figures like Toni Morrison and Dan Quayle come to speak. As he spit out his practiced speech, a bitter-looking disabled man who learned about Peter Singer that day began a lonely chant: "Hey hey, ho ho/Peter Singer's got to go./Hey hey, ho ho..." Although a few parents turned their heads, most of them didn't seem to notice at all.

An accomplished scholar and intellectual pioneer, Peter Singer first gained attention with his book "Animal Liberation," which sparked the animal rights movement. More recently, the Australian philosopher has been attacked for his rigorously utilitarian views on the sanctity, or lack thereof, of human life. His most controversial stance is his belief that it's not always morally wrong to kill a severely disabled infant who is not rational, self-aware and autonomous -- the three morally significant qualities, he argues, when considering the life of a sentient being.

In a recent New York Times article, Sylvia Nasar compared the controversy surrounding Singer to the one that flared when City College hired Bertrand Russell in 1940, only to later rescind the offer because of the philosopher's liberal views on premarital sex. But nobody thinks that Princeton University will rescind its offer to Peter Singer. Princeton's president has consistently defended Singer, and the faculty and alumni, like those prospective parents, have studiously ignored the controversy.

Buoyed by newspaper articles and outraged editorials, however, a small anti-Singer group on campus planned an early morning protest to boost its cause. The anti-Singer rally featured about 200 sign-toting protesters, several of whom made short, orchestrated speeches. From their commentary, it appeared that few had read more than brief excerpts from Singer's writing; they had a wildly sinister view of his philosophy. Many of these veteran activists were part of New Jersey Right to Life, which had held a smaller demonstration at Princeton months before. The pro-lifers were joined by a smaller crowd of handicapped-rights activists, led by contingents from Disabilities in Action and the Illinois group Not Dead Yet, whose president, Carol Cleigh, has been quoted as calling the professor "the most dangerous man in the world today."

The protesters carried signs with slogans like "Go Back Down Under"; the smattering of speeches were laced with lines like, "I'm not a philosopher or an ethicist but I do know what is right and wrong." The general message: Singer is an arrogant, elitist intellectual who has come to America to poison the minds of our Ivy League youth. The protesters called him a killer, a Nazi, a hater and, perhaps most telling of all, a snob. One sign proclaimed, "Dr. Singer: the new Dr. Mengele." Murray Sabrin, a New Jersey Republican candidate for Senate, accused Singer of advocating "infanticide as a mainstream philosophical premise" and joked, "This proves that anything is believable, especially in higher education."

Oddly, when people attacked Singer, many started talking about the danger he posed to them personally. "I'm elderly," moaned Jon Rutkowski. "So what are we going to do next, kill the old people? I think I'm valuable to society."

In the most dramatic example of this kind of personalized politics, the burly ex-captain of the Princeton football team spoke to the assembled crowd. A big fellow with a small voice, the quarterback touched on everything from the abomination of homosexual acts to the immorality of premarital sex (no doubt he would have been keen to protest Bertrand Russell as well). The hiring of Peter Singer was just the last slide down the slippery, tie-dyed slope of moral relativism. And no one was spared blame.

"We're all cowards," he shouted. "Let's admit it. At school, I didn't speak up because I thought I'd be laughed at. At work, I don't speak up because I don't want to be fired."

The crowd madly cheered for their own cowardice, raising the rally to a feverish pitch. Yet conspicuously absent from this event was any substantial student or faculty presence. Chris Benek, founder of Students Against Infanticide, which organized the rally, explained away the low student turnout as just another reflection of youthful apoliticism. "Students here are ridiculously apathetic," he said. "They're just more interested in academics." Yet it wasn't just students who ignored the rally. Although organizers sought appearances from every single Republican presidential candidate -- a pool of people presumably out searching for viable political issues to endorse or condemn -- all declined the invitation.

After such heartfelt recriminations from so many varying special interest groups, why hadn't the protest inspired a more robust response? Had this odd coalition of conservatives, disability activists and euthanasia opponents failed to create a coherent enough message? Or had the media blown the whole controversy way out of proportion?

Despite all the alarmist profiles and editorials, it's doubtful that Singer holds any real threat to our nation's children. He isn't advocating that the government or doctors make life-and-death decisions instead of parents; in fact, he wants parents to have more power to make these decisions. Nor is he taking an active role outside the academy like the recently convicted Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He's simply pursuing the logical conclusions of his utilitarian philosophy -- a philosophy that happens to constitute a perfectly mainstream field of thought within contemporary academia.

According to Dale Jamieson, a philosophy professor at Carleton University, there are several prominent philosophers -- from Dick Hare at Oxford to the University of Wisconsin's Dan Wikler -- who are "generally on the same side of these issues [infanticide and euthanasia]." So why is Singer the only one who gets protested?

In part it may be his own willingness to enter the fray of public debate. As New York University philosophy professor Peter Unger argues: "People have gotten the idea that he is a guy who just gets protests." With his 1991 essay for the New York Review of Books chronicling the banning of his work in Germany, Singer cemented his reputation as one of philosophy's only bad boys.

Some might argue that such moves reveal that Singer invites notoriety, but what finally makes Singer unique and controversial is not what he says, but how he says it. Not only does Singer write more lucid and cogent prose than most philosophers, but he also doesn't mince words. He can turn a glib phrase as well as the next media personality, and drive a polemical point home like a seasoned rabble-rouser. One of the chapters in his book "Practical Ethics" is titled "What's Wrong With Killing," and he begins "Animal Liberation" with this ringing accusation: "This book is about the tyranny of human over nonhuman animals. This tyranny has caused and today is still causing an amount of pain and suffering that can only be compared with that which resulted from the centuries of tyranny by white humans over black humans. The struggle against this tyranny is a struggle as important as any of the moral and social issues that have been fought over in recent years."

It is such direct, jargon-less prose that sometimes leaves him open to popular attack. Singer obviously wants to be part of the public discourse on these issues. In an e-mail, he admits that protests "can be constructive, if people are willing to discuss the issues openly and honestly." While this is undoubtedly true, Singer, familiar with the hyperbole and distortions of political protests, was quick to add, "Unfortunately, often they are not."

salon.com | July 2, 1999

[rhaazz]

Yeah, Princeton should listen to intellectual giants like you, gotbeer, and not hire him.

[gotbeer]

And good of you to carry on the good work of Singer, rhaazz.

[Quinadal]

hmmm maybe Singer should have been killed at birth. Or is being a complete jackass without a sense of morals not a birth defect?

[gymeejet]

gotbeer, let's stop the silly dramatics. i have no doubts that we could find meat-eaters with just as bad as morality. it has nothing to do with situation at hand. in my opinion, society in general has a tremendous misplaced value system. it is appalling to me that over half of americans think that women should be allowed to abort their babies. the taking of life is wrong. no one has the right to end another's life.

[alaskaman]

Putting aside for a moment the fetid Dr. Singer, lets look again at the colon cancer issue. On pp 175-76 of "life without bread" we see that a1998 Australian study showed that on high-fat diet, all of the markers of potential cancer were BETTER than the highly touted lowfat diet. There's a line in an Alan Arkin movie, "The return of Captain Invincible" where the president says, "is that all I'm going to get, gentlemen? BullS---?"

[gotbeer]

gymeejet, do you really want to add abortion as an issue to this thread? Talk about silly dramatics!!!

[Lisa N]

it has nothing to do with situation at hand.

Frankly, I believe it does. Here you have a person who on the one hand is gravely concerned with the pain and suffering of animals who then on the other hand states that he feels there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with taking the life of a disabled infant based on the fact that he does not believe that infant to be rational, self-aware or autonomous. Based on that reasoning, most animals are neither rational nor self-aware so killing them would not be morally wrong. Furthermore, based on that reasoning, no infant would fit that criteria so killing any infant (healthy or otherwise) would not be morally wrong if the parents felt that it was necessary to do so, say, for convenience sake or the lack of monetary resources.
What I'd like to know is how you can rationalize concern for the pain and suffering of animals and then turn around and condone infanticide. IMHO, there's something very wrong with that set of ethics.

[beachmum]

What do you do when cockroaches invade your house? Kill the one running across your bed? Put out the poison so they can die a painful death? Just wondering (and LOL).

And if cockroaches aren't sentient enough, how about rats? Probably as sentient as a rabbit, which the French love to eat.

Hope you're not offended by these questions. It's just that we have a lot of cockroaches here in coastal SC.

[gotbeer]

Singer's seemingly insane results (pro-animal and anti-impaired-infant) do have a pseudo-rational basis in minimizing suffering: animals DON'T suffer in their (normal) lives (he thinks) so DON'T kill them, but impaired infants DO suffer in their (abnormal) lives (he thinks), so DO kill them. In this limited way I see his position as consistent but scabrous nevertheless.

Unfortunately for Singer and his cadre of sycophants, his errors are legion.

First, he assumes that animal domestication and/or death equates to animal suffering, when in fact, domestication efforts are unsuccessful without the acquiescence of the animal, and most animal slaughter is done with an eye towards minimizing their pain. If I were a cow, I'd rather die from a quick blow to the head in a slaughterhouse than have my throat ripped apart by a lion.

Second, as Lisa noted, he elevates animal suffering to be an evil equal to (or greater than!) human suffering. I like my own species a bit better than I regard others, when push comes to shove - a good thing in biological (species survival) terms, legal terms, and theological terms, whichever one may prefer.

Third, he assumes a painful human life is a worthless life. As it turns out, humans can lead meaningful, happy, valuable lives despite their pains and handicaps. Extreme pain, in some cases, may make one want to choose death for oneself (and oneself ONLY), but morphing this personal decision into a societal policy is a huge, tyrannical leap. Singer thus eschews our society's tyranny over animals yet touts a new societal tyranny over our own malformed infants? What the hell is that? I guess in his own twisted terms we could breed calves to be malformed and pain-wracked so that killing THEM would give us tasty and guilt-free veal. (Just deprive the pregnant cows of folate and the resulting neural tube defects in the calves would do the trick nicely.)

Fourth, he ignores the collateral damage caused by his beliefs - vegetarianism results in agricultural practices that create animal suffering and death on a scale that is a million to one greater than that of the pastoral grazing of food animals. Furthermore, the extinction rate of domesticated species is zero, while undomesticated species vanish every day - free those cows, and they might die out.

[Shellyf34]

Don't listen to Gymeejet, he doesn't even believe lowcarb is ethical! :rolleyes:

I believe you have just joined this forum to cause problems, right? Like a good arguement, correct? You have the audacity to bring up the abortion issue...As to what women go through, you have no idea and you never will. Don't even go there. Aren't women on birth control guilty of killing millions of sperm? Gee, shame on them for stopping them from their "special purpose" in life...

As for me? I like vegetarians...taste like chicken.

[gotbeer]

another article on Singer: this time, by a disabled disability lawyer on her face-to-face meeting with him..

Unspeakable Conversations

Harriet McBryde Johnson asks, should I have been killed at birth?
In "Unspeakable Conversations," she presents the case for her life.

By HARRIET McBRYDE JOHNSON NY Times 2/16/2003

link to article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B1EFD3A5F0C758DDDAB0894DB404482)

He insists he doesn't want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child. It has nothing to do with me. I should not feel threatened.

Whenever I try to wrap my head around his tight string of syllogisms, my brain gets so fried it's . . . almost fun. Mercy! It's like ''Alice in Wonderland.''

It is a chilly Monday in late March, just less than a year ago. I am at Princeton University. My host is Prof. Peter Singer, often called -- and not just by his book publicist -- the most influential philosopher of our time. He is the man who wants me dead. No, that's not at all fair. He wants to legalize the killing of certain babies who might come to be like me if allowed to live. He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn't consider them ''persons.'' What does it take to be a person? Awareness of your own existence in time. The capacity to harbor preferences as to the future, including the preference for continuing to live.

At this stage of my life, he says, I am a person. However, as an infant, I wasn't. I, like all humans, was born without self-awareness. And eventually, assuming my brain finally gets so fried that I fall into that wonderland where self and other and present and past and future blur into one boundless, formless all or nothing, then I'll lose my personhood and therefore my right to life. Then, he says, my family and doctors might put me out of my misery, or out of my bliss or oblivion, and no one count it murder.

I have agreed to two speaking engagements. In the morning, I talk to 150 undergraduates on selective infanticide. In the evening, it is a convivial discussion, over dinner, of assisted suicide. I am the token cripple with an opposing view.

I had several reasons for accepting Singer's invitation, some grounded in my involvement in the disability rights movement, others entirely personal. For the movement, it seemed an unusual opportunity to experiment with modes of discourse that might work with very tough audiences and bridge the divide between our perceptions and theirs. I didn't expect to straighten out Singer's head, but maybe I could reach a student or two. Among the personal reasons: I was sure it would make a great story, first for telling and then for writing down.

By now I've told it to family and friends and colleagues, over lunches and dinners, on long car trips, in scads of e-mail messages and a couple of formal speeches. But it seems to be a story that just won't settle down. After all these tellings, it still lacks a coherent structure; I'm miles away from a rational argument. I keep getting interrupted by questions -- like these:

Q: Was he totally grossed out by your physical appearance?

A: He gave no sign of it. None whatsoever.

Q: How did he handle having to interact with someone like you?

A: He behaved in every way appropriately, treated me as a respected professional acquaintance and was a gracious and accommodating host.

Q: Was it emotionally difficult for you to take part in a public discussion of whether your life should have happened?

A: It was very difficult. And horribly easy.

Q: Did he get that job at Princeton because they like his ideas on killing disabled babies?

A: It apparently didn't hurt, but he's most famous for animal rights. He's the author of ''Animal Liberation.''

Q: How can he put so much value on animal life and so little value on human life?

That last question is the only one I avoid. I used to say I don't know; it doesn't make sense. But now I've read some of Singer's writing, and I admit it does make sense -- within the conceptual world of Peter Singer. But I don't want to go there. Or at least not for long.

So I will start from those other questions and see where the story goes this time.


That first question, about my physical appearance, needs some explaining.

It's not that I'm ugly. It's more that most people don't know how to look at me. The sight of me is routinely discombobulating. The power wheelchair is enough to inspire gawking, but that's the least of it. Much more impressive is the impact on my body of more than four decades of a muscle-wasting disease. At this stage of my life, I'm Karen Carpenter thin, flesh mostly vanished, a jumble of bones in a floppy bag of skin. When, in childhood, my muscles got too weak to hold up my spine, I tried a brace for a while, but fortunately a skittish anesthesiologist said no to fusion, plates and pins -- all the apparatus that might have kept me straight. At 15, I threw away the back brace and let my spine reshape itself into a deep twisty S-curve. Now my right side is two deep canyons. To keep myself upright, I lean forward, rest my rib cage on my lap, plant my elbows beside my knees. Since my backbone found its own natural shape, I've been entirely comfortable in my skin.

I am in the first generation to survive to such decrepitude. Because antibiotics were available, we didn't die from the childhood pneumonias that often come with weakened respiratory systems. I guess it is natural enough that most people don't know what to make of us.

Two or three times in my life -- I recall particularly one largely crip, largely lesbian cookout halfway across the continent -- I have been looked at as a rare kind of beauty. There is also the bizarre fact that where I live, Charleston, S.C., some people call me Good Luck Lady: they consider it propitious to cross my path when a hurricane is coming and to kiss my head just before voting day. But most often the reactions are decidedly negative. Strangers on the street are moved to comment:

I admire you for being out; most people would give up.

God bless you! I'll pray for you.

You don't let the pain hold you back, do you?

If I had to live like you, I think I'd kill myself.

I used to try to explain that in fact I enjoy my life, that it's a great sensual pleasure to zoom by power chair on these delicious muggy streets, that I have no more reason to kill myself than most people. But it gets tedious. God didn't put me on this street to provide disability awareness training to the likes of them. In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you want to know.

But they don't want to know. They think they know everything there is to know, just by looking at me. That's how stereotypes work. They don't know that they're confused, that they're really expressing the discombobulation that comes in my wake.

So. What stands out when I recall first meeting Peter Singer in the spring of 2001 is his apparent immunity to my looks, his apparent lack of discombobulation, his immediate ability to deal with me as a person with a particular point of view.

Then, 2001. Singer has been invited to the College of Charleston, not two blocks from my house. He is to lecture on ''Rethinking Life and Death.'' I have been dispatched by Not Dead Yet, the national organization leading the disability-rights opposition to legalized assisted suicide and disability-based killing. I am to put out a leaflet and do something during the Q. and A.

On arriving almost an hour early to reconnoiter, I find the scene almost entirely peaceful; even the boisterous display of South Carolina spring is muted by gray wisps of Spanish moss and mottled oak bark.

I roll around the corner of the building and am confronted with the unnerving sight of two people I know sitting on a park bench eating veggie pitas with Singer. Sharon is a veteran activist for human rights. Herb is South Carolina's most famous atheist. Good people, I've always thought -- now sharing veggie pitas and conversation with a proponent of genocide. I try to beat a retreat, but Herb and Sharon have seen me. Sharon tosses her trash and comes over. After we exchange the usual courtesies, she asks, ''Would you like to meet Professor Singer?''

She doesn't have a clue. She probably likes his book on animal rights. ''I'll just talk to him in the Q. and A.''

But Herb, with Singer at his side, is fast approaching. They are looking at me, and Herb is talking, no doubt saying nice things about me. He'll be saying that I'm a disability rights lawyer and that I gave a talk against assisted suicide at his secular humanist group a while back. He didn't agree with everything I said, he'll say, but I was brilliant. Singer appears interested, engaged. I sit where I'm parked. Herb makes an introduction. Singer extends his hand.

I hesitate. I shouldn't shake hands with the Evil One. But he is Herb's guest, and I simply can't snub Herb's guest at the college where Herb teaches. Hereabouts, the rule is that if you're not prepared to shoot on sight, you have to be prepared to shake hands. I give Singer the three fingers on my right hand that still work. ''Good afternoon, Mr. Singer. I'm here for Not Dead Yet.'' I want to think he flinches just a little. Not Dead Yet did everything possible to disrupt his first week at Princeton. I sent a check to the fund for the 14 arrestees, who included comrades in power chairs. But if Singer flinches, he instantly recovers. He answers my questions about the lecture format. When he says he looks forward to an interesting exchange, he seems entirely sincere.


It is an interesting exchange. In the lecture hall that afternoon, Singer lays it all out. The ''illogic'' of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible.

As soon as he's done, I get the microphone and say I'd like to discuss selective infanticide. As a lawyer, I disagree with his jurisprudential assumptions. Logical inconsistency is not a sufficient reason to change the law. As an atheist, I object to his using religious terms (''the doctrine of the sanctity of human life'') to characterize his critics. Singer takes a note pad out of his pocket and jots down my points, apparently eager to take them on, and I proceed to the heart of my argument: that the presence or absence of a disability doesn't predict quality of life. I question his replacement-baby theory, with its assumption of ''other things equal,'' arguing that people are not fungible. I draw out a comparison of myself and my nondisabled brother Mac (the next-born after me), each of us with a combination of gifts and flaws so peculiar that we can't be measured on the same scale.

He responds to each point with clear and lucid counterarguments. He proceeds with the assumption that I am one of the people who might rightly have been killed at birth. He sticks to his guns, conceding just enough to show himself open-minded and flexible. We go back and forth for 10 long minutes. Even as I am horrified by what he says, and by the fact that I have been sucked into a civil discussion of whether I ought to exist, I can't help being dazzled by his verbal facility. He is so respectful, so free of condescension, so focused on the argument, that by the time the show is over, I'm not exactly angry with him. Yes, I am shaking, furious, enraged -- but it's for the big room, 200 of my fellow Charlestonians who have listened with polite interest, when in decency they should have run him out of town on a rail.

My encounter with Peter Singer merits a mention in my annual canned letter that December. I decide to send Singer a copy. In response, he sends me the nicest possible e-mail message. Dear Harriet (if he may) . . . Just back from Australia, where he's from. Agrees with my comments on the world situation. Supports my work against institutionalization. And then some pointed questions to clarify my views on selective infanticide.

I reply. Fine, call me Harriet, and I'll reciprocate in the interest of equality, though I'm accustomed to more formality. Skipping agreeable preambles, I answer his questions on disability-based infanticide and pose some of my own. Answers and more questions come back. Back and forth over several weeks it proceeds, an engaging discussion of baby killing, disability prejudice and related points of law and philosophy. Dear Harriet. Dear Peter.

Singer seems curious to learn how someone who is as good an atheist as he is could disagree with his entirely reasonable views. At the same time, I am trying to plumb his theories. What has him so convinced it would be best to allow parents to kill babies with severe disabilities, and not other kinds of babies, if no infant is a ''person'' with a right to life? I learn it is partly that both biological and adoptive parents prefer healthy babies. But I have trouble with basing life-and-death decisions on market considerations when the market is structured by prejudice. I offer a hypothetical comparison: ''What about mixed-race babies, especially when the combination is entirely nonwhite, who I believe are just about as unadoptable as babies with disabilities?'' Wouldn't a law allowing the killing of these undervalued babies validate race prejudice? Singer agrees there is a problem. ''It would be horrible,'' he says, ''to see mixed-race babies being killed because they can't be adopted, whereas white ones could be.'' What's the difference? Preferences based on race are unreasonable. Preferences based on ability are not. Why? To Singer, it's pretty simple: disability makes a person ''worse off.''

Are we ''worse off''? I don't think so. Not in any meaningful sense. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy, and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.

Pressing me to admit a negative correlation between disability and happiness, Singer presents a situation: imagine a disabled child on the beach, watching the other children play.

It's right out of the telethon. I expected something more sophisticated from a professional thinker. I respond: ''As a little girl playing on the beach, I was already aware that some people felt sorry for me, that I wasn't frolicking with the same level of frenzy as other children. This annoyed me, and still does.'' I take the time to write a detailed description of how I, in fact, had fun playing on the beach, without the need of standing, walking or running. But, really, I've had enough. I suggest to Singer that we have exhausted our topic, and I'll be back in touch when I get around to writing about him.

He responds by inviting me to Princeton. I fire off an immediate maybe.


Of course I'm flattered. Mama will be impressed.

But there are things to consider. Not Dead Yet says -- and I completely agree -- that we should not legitimate Singer's views by giving them a forum. We should not make disabled lives subject to debate. Moreover, any spokesman chosen by the opposition is by definition a token. But even if I'm a token, I won't have to act like one. And anyway, I'm kind of stuck. If I decline, Singer can make some hay: ''I offered them a platform, but they refuse rational discussion.'' It's an old trick, and I've laid myself wide open.

My invitation is to have an exchange of views with Singer during his undergraduate course. He also proposes a second ''exchange,'' open to the whole university, later in the day. This sounds a lot like debating my life -- and on my opponent's turf, with my opponent moderating, to boot. I offer a counterproposal, to which Singer proves amenable. I will open the class with some comments on infanticide and related issues and then let Singer grill me as hard as he likes before we open it up for the students. Later in the day, I might take part in a discussion of some other disability issue in a neutral forum. Singer suggests a faculty-student discussion group sponsored by his department but with cross-departmental membership. The topic I select is ''Assisted Suicide, Disability Discrimination and the Illusion of Choice: A Disability Rights Perspective.'' I inform a few movement colleagues of this turn of events, and advice starts rolling in. I decide to go with the advisers who counsel me to do the gig, lie low and get out of Dodge.

I ask Singer to refer me to the person who arranges travel at Princeton. I imagine some capable and unflappable woman like my sister, Beth, whose varied job description at a North Carolina university includes handling visiting artists. Singer refers me to his own assistant, who certainly seems capable and unflappable enough. However, almost immediately Singer jumps back in via e-mail. It seems the nearest hotel has only one wheelchair-accessible suite, available with two rooms for $600 per night. What to do? I know I shouldn't be so accommodating, but I say I can make do with an inaccessible room if it has certain features. Other logistical issues come up. We go back and forth. Questions and answers. Do I really need a lift-equipped vehicle at the airport? Can't my assistant assist me into a conventional car? How wide is my wheelchair?

By the time we're done, Singer knows that I am 28 inches wide. I have trouble controlling my wheelchair if my hand gets cold. I am accustomed to driving on rough, irregular surfaces, but I get nervous turning on steep slopes. Even one step is too many. I can swallow purees, soft bread and grapes. I use a bedpan, not a toilet. None of this is a secret; none of it cause for angst. But I do wonder whether Singer is jotting down my specs in his little note pad as evidence of how ''bad off'' people like me really are.

I realize I must put one more issue on the table: etiquette. I was criticized within the movement when I confessed to shaking Singer's hand in Charleston, and some are appalled that I have agreed to break bread with him in Princeton. I think they have a very good point, but, again, I'm stuck. I'm engaged for a day of discussion, not a picket line. It is not in my power to marginalize Singer at Princeton; nothing would be accomplished by displays of personal disrespect. However, chumminess is clearly inappropriate. I tell Singer that in the lecture hall it can't be Harriet and Peter; it must be Ms. Johnson and Mr. Singer.

He seems genuinely nettled. Shouldn't it be Ms. Johnson and Professor Singer, if I want to be formal? To counter, I invoke the ceremonial low-country usage, Attorney Johnson and Professor Singer, but point out that Mr./Ms. is the custom in American political debates and might seem more normal in New Jersey. All right, he says. Ms./Mr. it will be.

I describe this awkward social situation to the lawyer in my office who has served as my default lunch partner for the past 14 years. He gives forth a full-body shudder.

''That poor, sorry son of a bitch! He has no idea what he's in for.''

Being a disability rights lawyer lecturing at Princeton does confer some cachet at the Newark airport. I need all the cachet I can get. Delta Airlines has torn up my power chair. It is a fairly frequent occurrence for any air traveler on wheels.

When they inform me of the damage in Atlanta, I throw a monumental fit and tell them to have a repair person meet me in Newark with new batteries to replace the ones inexplicably destroyed. Then I am told no new batteries can be had until the morning. It's Sunday night. On arrival in Newark, I'm told of a plan to put me up there for the night and get me repaired and driven to Princeton by 10 a.m.

''That won't work. I'm lecturing at 10. I need to get there tonight, go to sleep and be in my right mind tomorrow.''

''What? You're lecturing? They told us it was a conference. We need to get you fixed tonight!''

Carla, the gate agent, relieves me of the need to throw any further fits by undertaking on my behalf the fit of all fits.

Carmen, the personal assistant with whom I'm traveling, pushes me in my disabled chair around the airport in search of a place to use the bedpan. However, instead of diaper-changing tables, which are functional though far from private, we find a flip-down plastic shelf that doesn't look like it would hold my 70 pounds of body weight. It's no big deal; I've restricted my fluids. But Carmen is a little freaked. It is her first adventure in power-chair air travel. I thought I prepared her for the trip, but I guess I neglected to warn her about the probability of wheelchair destruction. I keep forgetting that even people who know me well don't know much about my world.

We reach the hotel at 10:15 p.m., four hours late.


I wake up tired. I slept better than I would have slept in Newark with an unrepaired chair, but any hotel bed is a near guarantee of morning crankiness. I tell Carmen to leave the TV off. I don't want to hear the temperature.

I do the morning stretch. Medical people call it passive movement, but it's not really passive. Carmen's hands move my limbs, following my precise instructions, her strength giving effect to my will. Carmen knows the routine, so it is in near silence that we begin easing slowly into the day. I let myself be propped up to eat oatmeal and drink tea. Then there's the bedpan and then bathing and dressing, still in bed. As the caffeine kicks in, silence gives way to conversation about practical things. Carmen lifts me into my chair and straps a rolled towel under my ribs for comfort and stability. She tugs at my clothes to remove wrinkles that could cause pressure sores. She switches on my motors and gives me the means of moving without anyone's help. They don't call it a power chair for nothing.

I drive to the mirror. I do my hair in one long braid. Even this primal hairdo requires, at this stage of my life, joint effort. I undo yesterday's braid, fix the part and comb the hair in front. Carmen combs where I can't reach. I divide the mass into three long hanks and start the braid just behind my left ear. Section by section, I hand it over to her, and her unimpaired young fingers pull tight, crisscross, until the braid is fully formed.

A big polyester scarf completes my costume. Carmen lays it over my back. I tie it the way I want it, but Carmen starts fussing with it, trying to tuck it down in the back. I tell her that it's fine, and she stops.

On top of the scarf, she wraps the two big shawls that I hope will substitute for an overcoat. I don't own any real winter clothes. I just stay out of the cold, such cold as we get in Charleston.

We review her instructions for the day. Keep me in view and earshot. Be instantly available but not intrusive. Be polite, but don't answer any questions about me. I am glad that she has agreed to come. She's strong, smart, adaptable and very loyal. But now she is digging under the shawls, fussing with that scarf again.

''Carmen. What are you doing?''

''I thought I could hide this furry thing you sit on.''

''Leave it. Singer knows lots of people eat meat. Now he'll know some crips sit on sheepskin.''


The walk is cold but mercifully short. The hotel is just across the street from Princeton's wrought-iron gate and a few short blocks from the building where Singer's assistant shows us to the elevator. The elevator doubles as the janitor's closet -- the cart with the big trash can and all the accouterments is rolled aside so I can get in. Evidently there aren't a lot of wheelchair people using this building.

We ride the broom closet down to the basement and are led down a long passageway to a big lecture hall. As the students drift in, I engage in light badinage with the sound technician. He is squeamish about touching me, but I insist that the cordless lavaliere is my mike of choice. I invite him to clip it to the big polyester scarf.

The students enter from the rear door, way up at ground level, and walk down stairs to their seats. I feel like an animal in the zoo. I hadn't reckoned on the architecture, those tiers of steps that separate me from a human wall of apparent physical and mental perfection, that keep me confined down here in my pit.

It is 5 before 10. Singer is loping down the stairs. I feel like signaling to Carmen to open the door, summon the broom closet and get me out of here. But Singer greets me pleasantly and hands me Princeton's check for $500, the fee he offered with apologies for its inadequacy.

So. On with the show.


My talk to the students is pretty Southern. I've decided to pound them with heart, hammer them with narrative and say ''y'all'' and ''folks.'' I play with the emotional tone, giving them little peaks and valleys, modulating three times in one 45-second patch. I talk about justice. Even beauty and love. I figure they haven't been getting much of that from Singer.

Of course, I give them some argument too. I mean to honor my contractual obligations. I lead with the hypothetical about mixed-race, nonwhite babies and build the ending around the question of who should have the burden of proof as to the quality of disabled lives. And woven throughout the talk is the presentation of myself as a representative of a minority group that has been rendered invisible by prejudice and oppression, a participant in a discussion that would not occur in a just world.

I let it go a little longer than I should. Their faces show they're going where I'm leading, and I don't look forward to letting them go. But the clock on the wall reminds me of promises I mean to keep, and I stop talking and submit myself to examination and inquiry.

Singer's response is surprisingly soft. Maybe after hearing that this discussion is insulting and painful to me, he doesn't want to exacerbate my discomfort. His reframing of the issues is almost pro forma, abstract, entirely impersonal. Likewise, the students' inquiries are abstract and fairly predictable: anencephaly, permanent unconsciousness, eugenic abortion. I respond to some of them with stories, but mostly I give answers I could have e-mailed in.

I call on a young man near the top of the room.

''Do you eat meat?''

''Yes, I do.''

''Then how do you justify--''

''I haven't made any study of animal rights, so anything I could say on the subject wouldn't be worth everyone's time.''

The next student wants to work the comparison of disability and race, and Singer joins the discussion until he elicits a comment from me that he can characterize as racist. He scores a point, but that's all right. I've never claimed to be free of prejudice, just struggling with it.

Singer proposes taking me on a walk around campus, unless I think it would be too cold. What the hell? ''It's probably warmed up some. Let's go out and see how I do.''

He doesn't know how to get out of the building without using the stairs, so this time it is my assistant leading the way. Carmen has learned of another elevator, which arrives empty. When we get out of the building, she falls behind a couple of paces, like a respectful chaperone.

In the classroom there was a question about keeping alive the unconscious. In response, I told a story about a family I knew as a child, which took loving care of a nonresponsive teenage girl, acting out their unconditional commitment to each other, making all the other children, and me as their visitor, feel safe. This doesn't satisfy Singer. ''Let's assume we can prove, absolutely, that the individual is totally unconscious and that we can know, absolutely, that the individual will never regain consciousness.''

I see no need to state an objection, with no stenographer present to record it; I'll play the game and let him continue.

''Assuming all that,'' he says, ''don't you think continuing to take care of that individual would be a bit -- weird?''

''No. Done right, it could be profoundly beautiful.''

''But what about the caregiver, a woman typically, who is forced to provide all this service to a family member, unable to work, unable to have a life of her own?''

''That's not the way it should be. Not the way it has to be. As a society, we should pay workers to provide that care, in the home. In some places, it's been done that way for years. That woman shouldn't be forced to do it, any more than my family should be forced to do my care.''

Singer takes me around the architectural smorgasbord that is Princeton University by a route that includes not one step, unramped curb or turn on a slope. Within the strange limits of this strange assignment, it seems Singer is doing all he can to make me comfortable.

He asks what I thought of the students' questions.

''They were fine, about what I expected. I was a little surprised by the question about meat eating.''

''I apologize for that. That was out of left field. But -- I think what he wanted to know is how you can have such high respect for human life and so little respect for animal life.''

''People have lately been asking me the converse, how you can have so much respect for animal life and so little respect for human life.''

''And what do you answer?''

''I say I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.''

''Well, in my view--''

''Look. I have lived in blissful ignorance all these years, and I'm not prepared to give that up today.''

''Fair enough,'' he says and proceeds to recount bits of Princeton history. He stops. ''This will be of particular interest to you, I think. This is where your colleagues with Not Dead Yet set up their blockade.'' I'm grateful for the reminder. My brothers and sisters were here before me and behaved far more appropriately than I am doing.


A van delivers Carmen and me early for the evening forum. Singer says he hopes I had a pleasant afternoon.

Yes, indeed. I report a pleasant lunch and a very pleasant nap, and I tell him about the Christopher Reeve Suite in the hotel, which has been remodeled to accommodate Reeve, who has family in the area.

''Do you suppose that's the $600 accessible suite they told me about?''

''Without doubt. And if I'd known it was the Christopher Reeve Suite, I would have held out for it.''

''Of course you would have!'' Singer laughs. ''And we'd have had no choice, would we?''

We talk about the disability rights critique of Reeve and various other topics. Singer is easy to talk to, good company. Too bad he sees lives like mine as avoidable mistakes.

I'm looking forward to the soft vegetarian meal that has been arranged; I'm hungry. Assisted suicide, as difficult as it is, doesn't cause the kind of agony I felt discussing disability-based infanticide. In this one, I understand, and to some degree can sympathize with, the opposing point of view -- misguided though it is.

My opening sticks to the five-minute time limit. I introduce the issue as framed by academic articles Not Dead Yet recommended for my use. Andrew Batavia argues for assisted suicide based on autonomy, a principle generally held high in the disability rights movement. In general, he says, the movement fights for our right to control our own lives; when we need assistance to effect our choices, assistance should be available to us as a matter of right. If the choice is to end our lives, he says, we should have assistance then as well. But Carol Gill says that it is differential treatment -- disability discrimination -- to try to prevent most suicides while facilitating the suicides of ill and disabled people. The social-science literature suggests that the public in general, and physicians in particular, tend to underestimate the quality of life of disabled people, compared with our own assessments of our lives. The case for assisted suicide rests on stereotypes that our lives are inherently so bad that it is entirely rational if we want to die.

I side with Gill. What worries me most about the proposals for legalized assisted suicide is their veneer of beneficence -- the medical determination that, for a given individual, suicide is reasonable or right. It is not about autonomy but about nondisabled people telling us what's good for us.

In the discussion that follows, I argue that choice is illusory in a context of pervasive inequality. Choices are structured by oppression. We shouldn't offer assistance with suicide until we all have the assistance we need to get out of bed in the morning and live a good life. Common causes of suicidality -- dependence, institutional confinement, being a burden -- are entirely curable. Singer, seated on my right, participates in the discussion but doesn't dominate it. During the meal, I occasionally ask him to put things within my reach, and he competently complies.

I feel as if I'm getting to a few of them, when a student asks me a question. The words are all familiar, but they're strung together in a way so meaningless that I can't even retain them -- it's like a long sentence in Tagalog. I can only admit my limitations. ''That question's too abstract for me to deal with. Can you rephrase it?''

He indicates that it is as clear as he can make it, so I move on.

A little while later, my right elbow slips out from under me. This is awkward. Normally I get whoever is on my right to do this sort of thing. Why not now? I gesture to Singer. He leans over, and I whisper, ''Grasp this wrist and pull forward one inch, without lifting.'' He follows my instructions to the letter. He sees that now I can again reach my food with my fork. And he may now understand what I was saying a minute ago, that most of the assistance disabled people need does not demand medical training.

A philosophy professor says, ''It appears that your objections to assisted suicide are essentially tactical.''

''Excuse me?''

''By that I mean they are grounded in current conditions of political, social and economic inequality. What if we assume that such conditions do not exist?''

''Why would we want to do that?''

''I want to get to the real basis for the position you take.''

I feel as if I'm losing caste. It is suddenly very clear that I'm not a philosopher. I'm like one of those old practitioners who used to visit my law school, full of bluster about life in the real world. Such a bore! A once-sharp mind gone muddy! And I'm only 44 -- not all that old.

The forum is ended, and I've been able to eat very little of my pureed food. I ask Carmen to find the caterer and get me a container. Singer jumps up to take care of it. He returns with a box and obligingly packs my food to go.

When I get home, people are clamoring for the story. The lawyers want the blow-by-blow of my forensic triumph over the formidable foe; when I tell them it wasn't like that, they insist that it was. Within the disability rights community, there is less confidence. It is generally assumed that I handled the substantive discussion well, but people worry that my civility may have given Singer a new kind of legitimacy. I hear from Laura, a beloved movement sister. She is appalled that I let Singer provide even minor physical assistance at the dinner. ''Where was your assistant?'' she wants to know. How could I put myself in a relationship with Singer that made him appear so human, even kind?

I struggle to explain. I didn't feel disempowered; quite the contrary, it seemed a good thing to make him do some useful work. And then, the hard part: I've come to believe that Singer actually is human, even kind in his way. There ensues a discussion of good and evil and personal assistance and power and philosophy and tactics for which I'm profoundly grateful.

I e-mail Laura again. This time I inform her that I've changed my will. She will inherit a book that Singer gave me, a collection of his writings with a weirdly appropriate inscription: ''To Harriet Johnson, So that you will have a better answer to questions about animals. And thanks for coming to Princeton. Peter Singer. March 25, 2002.'' She responds that she is changing her will, too. I'll get the autographed photo of Jerry Lewis she received as an M.D.A. poster child. We joke that each of us has given the other a ''reason to live.''

I have had a nice e-mail message from Singer, hoping Carmen and I and the chair got home without injury, relaying positive feedback from my audiences -- and taking me to task for a statement that isn't supported by a relevant legal authority, which he looked up. I report that we got home exhausted but unharmed and concede that he has caught me in a generalization that should have been qualified. It's clear that the conversation will continue.

I am soon sucked into the daily demands of law practice, family, community and politics. In the closing days of the state legislative session, I help get a bill passed that I hope will move us one small step toward a world in which killing won't be such an appealing solution to the ''problem'' of disability. It is good to focus on this kind of work. But the conversations with and about Singer continue. Unable to muster the appropriate moral judgments, I ask myself a tough question: am I in fact a silly little lady whose head is easily turned by a man who gives her a kind of attention she enjoys? I hope not, but I confess that I've never been able to sustain righteous anger for more than about 30 minutes at a time. My view of life tends more toward tragedy.

The tragic view comes closest to describing how I now look at Peter Singer. He is a man of unusual gifts, reaching for the heights. He writes that he is trying to create a system of ethics derived from fact and reason, that largely throws off the perspectives of religion, place, family, tribe, community and maybe even species -- to ''take the point of view of the universe.'' His is a grand, heroic undertaking.

But like the protagonist in a classical drama, Singer has his flaw. It is his unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently ''worse off,'' that we ''suffer,'' that we have lesser ''prospects of a happy life.'' Because of this all-too-common prejudice, and his rare courage in taking it to its logical conclusion, catastrophe looms. Here in the midpoint of the play, I can't look at him without fellow-feeling.

I am regularly confronted by people who tell me that Singer doesn't deserve my human sympathy. I should make him an object of implacable wrath, to be cut off, silenced, destroyed absolutely. And I find myself lacking a logical argument to the contrary.

I am talking to my sister Beth on the phone. ''You kind of like the monster, don't you?'' she says.

I find myself unable to evade, certainly unwilling to lie. ''Yeah, in a way. And he's not exactly a monster.''

''You know, Harriet, there were some very pleasant Nazis. They say the SS guards went home and played on the floor with their children every night.''

She can tell that I'm chastened; she changes the topic, lets me off the hook. Her harshness has come as a surprise. She isn't inclined to moralizing; in our family, I'm the one who sets people straight.

When I put the phone down, my argumentative nature feels frustrated. In my mind, I replay the conversation, but this time defend my position.

''He's not exactly a monster. He just has some strange ways of looking at things.''

''He's advocating genocide.''

''That's the thing. In his mind, he isn't. He's only giving parents a choice. He thinks the humans he is talking about aren't people, aren't 'persons.'''

''But that's the way it always works, isn't it? They're always animals or vermin or chattel goods. Objects, not persons. He's repackaging some old ideas. Making them acceptable.''

''I think his ideas are new, in a way. It's not old-fashioned hate. It's a twisted, misinformed, warped kind of beneficence. His motive is to do good.''

''What do you care about motives?'' she asks. ''Doesn't this beneficent killing make disabled brothers and sisters just as dead?''

''But he isn't killing anyone. It's just talk.''

''Just talk? It's talk with an agenda, talk aimed at forming policy. Talk that's getting a receptive audience. You of all people know the power of that kind of talk.''

''Well, sure, but--''

''If talk didn't matter, would you make it your life's work?''

''But,'' I say, ''his talk won't matter in the end. He won't succeed in reinventing morality. He stirs the pot, brings things out into the open. But ultimately we'll make a world that's fit to live in, a society that has room for all its flawed creatures. History will remember Singer as a curious example of the bizarre things that can happen when paradigms collide.''

''What if you're wrong? What if he convinces people that there's no morally significant difference between a fetus and a newborn, and just as disabled fetuses are routinely aborted now, so disabled babies are routinely killed? Might some future generation take it further than Singer wants to go? Might some say there's no morally significant line between a newborn and a 3-year-old?''

''Sure. Singer concedes that a bright line cannot be drawn. But he doesn't propose killing anyone who prefers to live.''

''That overarching respect for the individual's preference for life -might some say it's a fiction, a fetish, a quasi-religious belief?''

''Yes,'' I say. ''That's pretty close to what I think. As an atheist, I think all preferences are moot once you kill someone. The injury is entirely to the surviving community.''

''So what if that view wins out, but you can't break disability prejudice? What if you wind up in a world where the disabled person's 'irrational' preference to live must yield to society's 'rational' interest in reducing the incidence of disability? Doesn't horror kick in somewhere? Maybe as you watch the door close behind whoever has wheeled you into the gas chamber?''

''That's not going to happen.''

''Do you have empirical evidence?'' she asks. ''A logical argument?''

''Of course not. And I know it's happened before, in what was considered the most progressive medical community in the world. But it won't happen. I have to believe that.''

Belief. Is that what it comes down to? Am I a person of faith after all? Or am I clinging to foolish hope that the tragic protagonist, this one time, will shift course before it's too late?

I don't think so. It's less about belief, less about hope, than about a practical need for definitions I can live with.

If I define Singer's kind of disability prejudice as an ultimate evil, and him as a monster, then I must so define all who believe disabled lives are inherently worse off or that a life without a certain kind of consciousness lacks value. That definition would make monsters of many of the people with whom I move on the sidewalks, do business, break bread, swap stories and share the grunt work of local politics. It would reach some of my family and most of my nondisabled friends, people who show me personal kindness and who sometimes manage to love me through their ignorance. I can't live with a definition of ultimate evil that encompasses all of them. I can't refuse the monster-majority basic respect and human sympathy. It's not in my heart to deny every single one of them, categorically, my affection and my love.

The peculiar drama of my life has placed me in a world that by and large thinks it would be better if people like me did not exist. My fight has been for accommodation, the world to me and me to the world.

As a disability pariah, I must struggle for a place, for kinship, for community, for connection. Because I am still seeking acceptance of my humanity, Singer's call to get past species seems a luxury way beyond my reach. My goal isn't to shed the perspective that comes from my particular experience, but to give voice to it. I want to be engaged in the tribal fury that rages when opposing perspectives are let loose.

As a shield from the terrible purity of Singer's vision, I'll look to the corruption that comes from interconnectedness. To justify my hopes that Singer's theoretical world -- and its entirely logical extensions -- won't become real, I'll invoke the muck and mess and undeniable reality of disabled lives well lived. That's the best I can do.

Harriet McBryde Johnson is a lawyer in solo practice in Charleston, S.C. She has been a disability rights activist and advocate for more than 25 years.

[rhaazz]

Gotbeer, my dear, you seem to be making the three mistakes that you have been making all along:

assuming that all vegetarians share the same opinions on EVERY topic

and

assuming that if a vegetarian behaves badly in ONE area you are entitled to reject vegetarianism

and

opining on subjects you haven't studied.

What does Singer's view on infanticide have to do with vegetarianism?

You are even more iresponsible than I thought if you think that you can paint all vegetarians with the same brish.

Neither I, no my college moral philosophy professor, agree with Singer on infanticide.

Sigh. Gotbeer, please try to stay on topic.

[rhaazz]

Lisa N, not all vegetarians support infanticide. In fact, I personally have not met one and I do not agree with Singer's views on infanticide, just as I (probably) do not agree with many of the hare krishna's views.

The fact that some vegetarians do or say things you disagree with does NOT make it ok for you to eat meat.

[gotbeer]

My Darling rhaazz, again and again you touted the mighty Dr. Peter Singer as a solid moral authority an idiot like me ought to study. So, surprise, I did - and found your moral superstar advocates infanticide.

In legal terms (you're a lawyer, you say), by destroying his moral credentials, I have impeached the credibility of your only witness. That is what his love of infanticide has to do with his vegetarianism.

So sorry that your beloved veggie demigod has such feet of clay.

Dry your tears, sweetie-pie. You only lose by one million to one, not even counting the wretched teachings of the ONLY philosopher/witness you quoted as worthy of our attention. It turns out that the Hare Krishna's you disrespected so nastily are closer to a coherent agreement with your beliefs on vegetarianism and infanticide than Singer ever was. If I were you, I'd start learning their chants.

BTW, the steak I just had for dinner was yummier than any field mouse or carrot you will ever slay - but not as sweet as my victory.

Oh, and when you say that I'm "iresponsible" [sic] for painting all vegetarians with one "brish" [sic] - I don't.

So far, it is just you.

And just to stay on topic - after that steak, my colon feels GREAT!!

Any questions?

[Lisa N]

The fact that some vegetarians do or say things you disagree with does NOT make it ok for you to eat meat.

With all due respect, rhaazz, your moral views and values are yours but trying to force or coerce me to adopt them against my wishes/moral views/values opens up a can of worms that I really don't think you want to open. After all, turnabout is fair play. If vegetarians can accuse meat eaters of being immoral and cruel because they eat meat and on that basis attempt to coerce them into ceasing and desisting from meat eating, then they had better be prepared to hear and have applied to them other's values and morals as well.
Another issue that has been brought up and not fully addressed is whether or not it is really necessary to eat meat (and therefore to kill animals to get it)? I maintain that it is. Personal taste and nutritional concerns aside, only about 11-15% of the earth's surface is amenable to agriculture. Can such a small amount of the earth's surface, even if it is all used for agriculture (and would this be wise given that the current rate of deforrestation and farming are causing an alarming increase in unusable desert areas), feed the entire population of the planet? No. Where would those areas that are unable to farm their land get their food? From those that have an abundance? We do that now and still nearly a third of the population of the plant is starving. How many more would starve if we suddenly enforced vegetarianism on the whole of the planet? Again, is this practical? A vastly larger portion of the earth will, however, sustain grass and other plant life that cattle and other ruminants can eat. Allowing such animals to graze on the unarable land and then harvesting them for food is a very practical and efficient use of this land that would otherwise go unused while humans were starving. Another issue that has not been addressed is the use of water for irrigation of crops in a time of ever-increasing water shortages. Is using the available water for irrigation of farmland an efficient use of an ever-diminishing resource?
You mentioned earlier, in response to the comment that controlled harvesting of animals through hunting keeps animal populations at a level where they can be sustained by the available land, that this naturally occurs within these animal herds by their having fewer young. In part you are correct, but the fewer young occur the year after the shortage due to fewer breeding animals as many have died from starvation during the previous months of hardship or had miscarriages and stillbirths again due to starvation. Is it humane to allow large numbers of animals to slowly starve to death (or be violently killed by predators in their weakened condition) from lack of food versus a quick death from a hunter's bullet or arrow? Which causes them to suffer more?
I respect your personal choice to abstain from eating meat. I just don't happen to agree with it or think I should be forced to join you.

[rhaazz]

Thanks for your post, Lisa N. Yes, you should NOT be forced to join vegetarians. I agree, totally. I am not trying to force you to accept any views.

Especially when those views involve sacrifice. What we are and are not able to do for the wellbeing of others is OUR choice. I personally am not able to sacrifice certain consumer preferences at this moment even though I know that my choices are literally killing people in thirld world countries whose lives could be saved by my donations to charity.

Do I think it's ethical to buy ANOTHER dress instead of donating $250 to Oxfam? No. Does that mean that I'm currently able to make the sacrifice that my ethics dictate? No.

We all do what we can, when we can.

However, to the extent that you choose to participate in this debate, please do not ask me to consent to ideas that are false. It is false to assert that killing animals, without a compelling reason for doing so, is ethical.

The desire to eat an animal's flesh is NOT a compelling reason and does not justify killing that being.
As for wild animals' starving -- well, it's really hard to say how much of that is attributable to human interventions (by removing natural predators, habitat, climate change, etc.).

To the extent that in the wild animal suffering and death is NOT attributable to human itervention, then it's not our problem is it, and it does not enter this debate.

As for the small fraction of the earth's surface that is suitable for agriculture: most grain currently goes to farm animals not people.

So if the earth's resources are finite, let's not squander them on hugely inefficient food production (though that is not my primary reason for being a vegetarian. My primary reason is to reduce the pain & suffering of animals.)

[gotbeer]

To the extent that in the wild animal suffering and death is NOT attributable to human itervention [sic], then it's not our problem is it, and it does not enter this debate.

Rather warped ethics, if you ask me. :nono:

Everything is interconnected on this planet. To ignore preventable suffering and death just because humans didn't cause it strikes me as a moral crime far in excess of eating meat.

Whether human-related or not, to ignore any suffering is wretched.

If I see an infant locked in a hot car, I'm going to break out a window of that car and extract the kid, even if it is neither my car nor my infant. I'd be a heartless, immoral Singerite if I didn't. (36 children have died this year, so far, in sun-baked cars.

Likewise, if I saw two bighorn sheep with their horns entangled, I'd be moved to try to rescue them, even though their predicament was not any human's fault, and even if I had to shoot one to save the other. I'd be a heartless, immoral Singerite if I didn't.

[rhaazz]

You miscontrue me, again.

Of COURSE I am not saying that if one were to witmess easily preventable and wholly unnecessary suffering, such as an infant locked in a hot car -- or a farm animal about to be slaughtered for hamburger meat, for that matter -- one should not take steps to prevent that suffering and death.

That is the whole thrust of my argument: it is unethical to promote unnecessary pain and death.

I was simply trying to say that (1) human beings cannot use their own infliction of suffering and death (by destruction of habitat) to justify FURTHER infliction of suffering and death (by hunting) and (2) one cannot point to the impossibility of eradicating all suffering in this world as a justification for continuing to inflict more suffering.

As for your "everything is interconnected" argument, and your compassion for bighorn sheep that need your help in disconnecting their honrs, I'm not sure how this relates to vegetarians. if you wish to reduce the suffering of the hypothetical bighorn sheep, then you should stop eating ALL animals -- and instead get your animal protein in the form of eggs and cheese from humanely treated animals.

But if you're saying "everything is connected, therefore I get to eat meat because other animals do" -- no, this is simply another instance of the "natural = right" fallacy. Believe me, the "natural=right" fallacy has been used to justify all kinds of violence and cruelty -- unequal treatment of the sexes, slavery, imperialism, etc., for many years. The "natural = right" fallacy is no less incoherent when it is used to justify the eating of animals.

[rhaazz]

gotbeer,

1. Singer isn't my "idol". The BOOK Animal Liberation -- not the person who wrote it -- is what compelled me to become a vegetarian.

This is the mistake you make over, and over, and over, again, gotbeer: you conflate an IDEA with a PERSON. You conclude that if a PERSON has a flaw the IDEA can be rejected as well.

Again, I suspect you have not read any philosophy, or you would not be making that very common mistake.

But since you consistently dodge the question of whether you've ever studied moral philosophy, I'll never know, will I?

2. Taking Singer's statements out of context does not constitute "impeaching" him as a "witness." (Since he has neither been examined nor cross examined he can hardly be "impeached.")

His views on infanticide stem -- I believe -- from his commitment to removing sentimentality from ethics.

In other words, most people would not be cruel to a cute spaniel puppy because it arouses sentimental feelings in them. But the same people are willing to turn around and eat a hamburger because a cow does not arouse the same feelings in them.

Singer is saying, "take sentiment out of ethics. The question of what is right has nothing to do with the question of what is gratifying to us. The puppy is gratifying to us, and it pleases us, but the puppy's capacity to be pleasing does not entitle the puppy to more moral consideration than the cow."

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, AND DO NOT QUOTE THIS SENTENCE WITHOUT INCLUDING THE ONE THAT FOLLOWS IT, there is no reason to distinguish between the death of a severely disabled infant or a severely disabled cow. However -- most vegetarians do not take it that far --THERE IS NO NEED TO TAKE IT THAT FAR.

I personally do not think it is necessary to remove ALL sentimentality from ethics in order to make significant progress towards living an ethical life and I do part company with Singer there, as do most vegetarians.

ETHICAL VEGETARIANS ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO FIND PRACTICABLE, AND REALISTIC WAYS, IN OUR DAILY LIVES, TO REDUCE SUFFERING AND DEATH. AVOIDING PARTICIPATION IN THE KILLING OF ANIMALS IS ONE WAY TO TRY TO REDUCE SUFFERING AND DEATH. THERE ARE ALSO OTHER WAYS TO DO THIS ANY MANY OF US ARE PURSUING THOSE ALTERNATIVES, AS WELL.

SORRY TO SHOUT, GOTBEER, BUT YOU SEEM TO NEED THINGS SPELLED OUT IN THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE TERMS.

3. Don't be so petty as to use my typos to sneer at me. Good grief. Your resort to use of my typos to make your argument shows how little fuel your argument really has.

[gotbeer]

I'm curious, rhaazz.

Why would one want to remove sentiment from ethics?

Ethics draws from logic, facts, and a third catch-all category usually called "emotive". I'd think that an emotionless ethics would be the kind of nightmare machinery found in works such as "1984" and "Brave New World" - ignorant of human feelings and rights and hence, destructive of them.

Feelings/sentiments are the cornerstone of our innate moral compasses. Those with a diminished capacity for having feelings/sentiments - sociopaths and psychopaths - also seem to lack the capacity for ethical behavior.

While an unsentimental ethics might be more mathematically elegant and machine-friendly, as a guide to human living, it would really suck.

Furthermore, how can one seek to eliminate sentiment and yet still hold that reducing suffering is a good?

Without sentiment, why care about another's suffering at all? I mean, if we are to ignore our own feelings, why then should we still regard and respect the cow's feelings?

In a mathematical, unsentimenal ethics, the death of one cow is better than the death of the millions of plants and animals needed to sustain a vegetarian. Without a sentimental regard for your rights, I would be ethically bound to force you eat meat - despite even your screams of pain and disgust.

Don't be so petty as to use my typos to sneer at me.

It is not petty sneering at all - it is merely an ethically sound and unsentimental attempt to both clarify your points and improve your communication skills.

you conflate an IDEA with a PERSON.

Every idea originates with a person. If that person is credible, then their idea is possibly worthy of consideration. If that person is a nutcase, then their idea is more dubious. This is not the end of reason, of course, but source credibility is a well-established guideline of reasonable discourse.

You yourself have asked me about my education (ethics classes) - conflating me (my education) with my ideas. If such a conflation is a mistake, as you insist, then "whether [I]'ve ever studied moral philosophy" ought to be irrelevant to this discussion.

[Lisa N]

However, to the extent that you choose to participate in this debate, please do not ask me to consent to ideas that are false. It is false to assert that killing animals, without a compelling reason for doing so, is ethical.

What part of what I said was false? You neatly sidestepped what I said without actually addressing it. The fact of the matter is that the current world population stands at about 6 billion people. Even if immediate and effective birth control methods are employed in all countries and all reproducing age humans participated, the population is still likely to rise to nearly 15 billion before stabilizing. Currently, even if the entire surface of the planet could be cultivated, you would need 1 square kilometer to feed 32 people each year. That's probably doable. When the population gets to the point of 15 billion people, you would need 1 square kilometer to feed 80 people per year. More difficult, but still possible. Since we have established that only 12-15% of the planet currently is able to support and raise crops, now that same kilometer of land has to feed nearly 800 people per year. But wait...those extra 9 billion people have to live somewhere and this is likely going to reduce the amount of land available for raising crops even
further. The reasons for eating animals are starting to get more compelling...Let's not also forget that as those crops increase, so will the animals that feed on them; rabbits, rats, mice, etc (as well as the diseases that they carry)... Since their natural predators have been decreased greatly, we're going to see population explosions in all those species. I've lived in an area where the food was plenty for the mice and predators were few. It's nearly impossible to keep them out of your house.
As I said before, I can respect you not eating meat for your own moral reasons, but I think you should consider yourself lucky that you live in a part of the world where enough food in enough variety allows you to indulge those moral beliefs. A large portion of those on the planet can't afford such luxury.

As for the small fraction of the earth's surface that is suitable for agriculture: most grain currently goes to farm animals not people.

And even if it weren't, it would still not be enough to feed the growing population of the planet, nor supply them with complete proteins necessary for good health. Livestock don't need to be fed grain, as a matter of fact, grass fed animals are far healthier for us than grain fed in that they are leaner and have a much better balance of omega 3 to omega 6 fatty acids. Animals can live and thrive eating the grasses that grow on unfarmable soil that we can't eat and very efficiently turn those grasses into proteins and essential fatty acids as well as vitamins and minerals essential to health that we can eat and benefit from.

There is also the issue of eating dairy products. If everyone switches over to eating eggs and cheese for their protein sources, we're going to need a lot more cows and chickens and we're going to have to somehow feed them when resources are already in short supply (remember those 15 billion other people on the planet?). In order for a cow to keep producing milk, she must have a calf every year. Does she suffer when her calf is taken away from her? What are we to do with all these calves, especially the bulls, the majority of which are unneeded? If we let them live and put them out to pasture to graze away the rest of their days in bliss it won't be long before we have more animals than grass. Furthermore, this seems rather wasteful and an inefficient use of the land and resources that they consume. We could kill them at birth, but again, this seems rather wasteful and inefficient. Much more efficient to let them graze and care for them humanely until they are grown and then use them to feed all those hungry people.

most people would not be cruel to a cute spaniel puppy because it arouses sentimental feelings in them. But the same people are willing to turn around and eat a hamburger because a cow does not arouse the same feelings in them.

Not that I would do this, but there are cultures in which dogs are routinely raised and eaten for food. To them, keeping them as pets and not eating them is a waste of a valuable food resource. They don't see it as cruel...they see it as survival.

[Shellyf34]

Nicely said, Lisa!

I am not too keen on killing animals myself, but that is only because we are so far removed from the process. If we had been raised with it, it would be different and not that big a deal. But I'm telling you, if it came down to me and a cow, the cow is goin' down.

I do my part by buying organic, humanely treated beef, pork and chicken, raised on self sustaining ranches. Costs more, but worth it to me. I don't care how other people ate. If you want to be a vegetarian, fine. Just don't you dare look down your nose at me when I bite into my beef burger.

By the way, it is not very ethical, as stated earlier, to be a lacto-ovo vegetarian, for those animals are treated no better. :rolleyes: The only "ethical" vegetarians I truly respect are vegans. Now, THAT is a sacrifice!

PS Rhaaz, I hope you don't wear any leather or wool, because that would go against your principles, too, right?

[Quinadal]

In other words, most people would not be cruel to a cute spaniel puppy because it arouses sentimental feelings in them. But the same people are willing to turn around and eat a hamburger because a cow does not arouse the same feelings in them.
There's a BIG difference! the cute little cocker spaniel was raised to be a cute little cocker spaniel and a companion. The cow is there TO BE EATEN and NO other purpose!

ETHICAL VEGETARIANS ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO FIND PRACTICABLE, AND REALISTIC WAYS, IN OUR DAILY LIVES, TO REDUCE SUFFERING AND DEATH. AVOIDING PARTICIPATION IN THE KILLING OF ANIMALS IS ONE WAY TO TRY TO REDUCE SUFFERING AND DEATH. THERE ARE ALSO OTHER WAYS TO DO THIS ANY MANY OF US ARE PURSUING THOSE ALTERNATIVES, AS WELL.
You live in a dream world and so do all 'ethical' vegetarians. 'Ethical' vegetarians kill more animals in obtaining food than any meat eaters.

[Shellyf34]

And hey, aren't cute little cocker spaniels "dinner" in some parts of the world???

[Quinadal]

And hey, aren't cute little cocker spaniels "dinner" in some parts of the world???
True! True!

[Lisa N]

And hey, aren't cute little cocker spaniels "dinner" in some parts of the world???

Well...German Shephards are preferred, but I suppose they would eat any dog if they were hungry enough. Some dogs simply don't supply enough meat to make it worth the resources to raise them to an adult size. In some cases, it's not even a matter of pure hunger; they're considered a delicacy by some.
A friend of mine who lived in South Korea for a time has eaten German Shephard and tells me it's rather tasty if not a bit tough. Sorry....unless I was faced with no other choice, there are some animals that just don't appeal to me as food (like snakes and bugs, for instance, as well as dogs). Although I'm sure that if I were raised in a culture where they were a routine part of the menu, I'd probably feel differently.
We see dogs (and many other animals) very differently from other cultures. Where we project human characteristics on dogs and other animals such as loyalty, courage, etc...and pamper them in some cases excessively, other cultures simply see them as a food source.

[rhaazz]

gotbeer, this debate would really, really be enhanced if you had studied moral philosophy.

As it is, in your relatively uneducated state, you have a terribly hard time distinguishing what is relevant from what is irrelevant.

The fallacy of your position can be stated as follows: you purport to 'impeach' an idea by pointing out one of its advocates' flaws; yet you never actually address the merits of the idea that you claim to be 'impeaching.'

Had you ever studied moral philosophy, you would understand how completely irrelevant that approach is.

However, you are relatively unsophisticated, like most Americans. You cannot distinguish the failings of an idea from the failings of its proponent. You ignore the logical fallacy of equating a speaker's failings with those of his ideas.

Because of this widespread fallacy, political debate in this country is sadly impoverished -- instead of talking about the merits of politicians' policies, we talk about whether they're faithful to their spouses, etc.

Thus, if someone like you wishes to reject an idea, instead of addressing the idea, you look for a way to slam its proponent. Instead of addressing whether his ideas on civil rights were sound, someone like you, who practices the fallacy that "the merits of the idea can be judged by the speaker," would point to Martin Luther King Jr's womanizing. Instead of addressing whether it is ethical to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on nonhuman animals that are powerless to resist, you point to some of Singer's more shocking and bizarre statements.

gotbeer, the fallacy you are currently practicing is called "the argument ad hominem." But then, if you had had a decent education, you would know that.

[Quinadal]

gotbeer, this debate would really, really be enhanced if you had studied moral philosophy.

As it is, in your relatively uneducated state, you have a terribly hard time distinguishing what is relevant from what is irrelevant.


I love how when someone knows they've been proven wrong, they have to resort to insults and demeaning the opponents intelligence. "Oh you can't POSSIBLY be correct, you're too stupid." :p

[rhaazz]

Lisa N, I'm not really in a position to address your arguments.

For one thing, unlike gotbeer, I admit when I've reached the limits of my knowledge. I honestly have never encountered an argument quite like yours and am not in a position to debate it. I do not profess to be an expert about arable land and population and cannot enter a debate on those topics.

Second, I really like and admire you. You have helped me in very real ways. I don't know if I could have stuck with this WOE without your highly informed posts. Unlike gotbeer, your posts seem highly informed, thoughtful, and helpful. I love reading your posts and -- for my own self-preservation -- I don't want to get into a conflict with you.

Third, my vegetarianism is based on a desire not to inflict suffering and pain on animals.

I would not eat a hamburger for the same reason that I would not kick my dog.

It's that simple for me.

Your opposition to vegetarianism seems to be based on some sort of global environmental argument. If you can come up with a way to make eating meat ethical for you -- if you are sure that the animals you eat lived happily and died painlessly, and you are utterly convinced that their deaths are absolutely unavoidable -- then, ok. I won't quarrel with you. I don't agree, but at that point I am willing to agree to disagree.

[gotbeer]

FYI: My non-ad-hominem response to Singer's unsentimental ethics:

(posted by me) Why would one want to remove sentiment from ethics?

Ethics draws from logic, facts, and a third catch-all category usually called "emotive". I'd think that an emotionless ethics would be the kind of nightmare machinery found in works such as "1984" and "Brave New World" - ignorant of human feelings and rights and hence, destructive of them.

Feelings/sentiments are the cornerstone of our innate moral compasses. Those with a diminished capacity for having feelings/sentiments - sociopaths and psychopaths - also seem to lack the capacity for ethical behavior.

While an unsentimental ethics might be more mathematically elegant and machine-friendly, as a guide to human living, it would really suck.

And so on, and so on...

[gotbeer]

from rhaazz: if you are sure that the animals you eat lived happily and died painlessly, and you are utterly convinced that their deaths are absolutely unavoidable -- then, ok.

There is no need to set the bar so high.

1. "lived happily" - If the animal lived unhappily, it may have died happily. Eating it post mortem would be fine - if I didn't eat it, the worms and fungus would.

2. "and died painlessly" - If it died RELATIVELY painlessly - as in a quick blow to the head - its death is easier to justify than if it suffered the lingering pain of a "natural" death from predation or infirmity. Personally, I'd rather die a quick death from the gunshot of a jealous husband at age 50 than waste away slowly and painfully for 30 years to age 80.

3. "their deaths are absolutely unavoidable". Sorry to break this to you like this, but as it happens, ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, DIE. UNAVOIDABLY. GET OVER IT! The more important question is, did their life and death have meaning? For a domesticated food animal, their pampered life and sacrifice in death contribute to the survival of their species, and to the nourishment of those who assist in the survival of their species. That is a buttload of meaning. All you offer them in death as a vegetarian is the rotting of worms and fungus. You could not disrespect them more even if you tried. How shameful of you.

[suzemon]

I'm writing mostly to say thanks, this has been an interesting read on a subject that I've been torn about most of my adult life. Rhazz, gymeejet – you make a very strong argument towards something I have thought about a lot, the fact that as humans we have no more right to take the life of another animal than we do of another human. I love my dog, and if another culture thought terriers were a delicacy, I’d probably give my life to keep him out of their clutches. Others argue “Beef cattle are there for ONE REASON ONLY—FOOD”.. however, were we a vegan species, we would not continue to raise cattle for food. Beef cattle simply wouldn’t exist, enormous amounts of resources wouldn’t be put towards raising them and they wouldn’t be bred to suffer. One certainly couldn’t justify deliberate reproduction of humans to specifically be used in scientific experiments, so that argument doesn’t work for me.

That being said, I will admit, I eat meat. Often times without regard to what it really is or where it really came from - I was raised on it, and enjoy it’s taste and textures. Sometimes though, my conscience creeps up, and I ask myself, what right do you have? I’ve battled with that question a lot. As humans, we are (arguably, ha) the most advanced species on the planet. But does that give us the right to kill other, less advanced critters? Most of the time, when I really think about it, my internal dialog ends in something very close to “Yeah, ok, sure, lots of animals are suffering and dying for the sake of meat eaters. And yeah, as a general principle, it seems pretty obvious that it is better to avoid unnecessary suffering and death. However, I'm just not ready to stop eating meat -- it's too big a sacrifice for me right now”. Okay, maybe not quite that definitive, but close.

However, Lisa N, and some others here, make some seemingly very strong arguments regarding what our earth really can support. Of course it could just be the meat-eater in me grasping to justify, but there appears to be some pretty convincing material here that has definite potential merit. I’ve heard some other arguments in the same vain that have a lot of pull as well.

So while I can’t say this discussion has convinced me one way or the other, I’ve enjoyed most peoples arguments, comments and ideas. I must make exception, however, to a lot of what gotbeer has to say. While early on there were some concrete ideas, when he/she started touting the articles on this Pete Singer guy, I was a little peeved. The guy had some legit ideas, but was mostly a monster, in my opinion (which I’m entitled to and at the same time obligated not to force on anyone). But the connection is very weak – just because this ONE person who is a vegetarian ‘spokesman’ (for lack of a better word) has these extremist views on the disabled child/adult/human – in NO WAY means that the principles behind ethical vegetarianism are linked to the warped (again in my opinion) views of this ONE man. Yes, Rhazz noted a book written by this man as an inspiration to her becoming a vegetarian. That does not mean that she walks the streets professing his every belief (in fact as it sounds, she doesn’t share these beliefs at all). Einstein produced the theory of relativity… if it came out that he believed, I don’t know, in Smurfs, would that make the theory of relativity any less sound? It might mean he was a little crazy, but should it cause us to doubt the laws of physics? If something is right, not every person who sees its right-ness is right in everything they believe. And the sarcasm, and the way you poke fun at TYPOS of all things? Just plain obnoxious (again, in my ever so humble and belonging-only-to-myself-opinion).

[Lisa N]

rhaazz...

I also am not looking to get into a conflict with you on this issue and I do respect your wish to not inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals in general as well as your personal choice to abstain from eating animals based on those values. My arguments are soley for the purpose of showing where it would ultimately lead if everyone were to adopt a stance that it's unnecessary to kill animals for food; that it's likely to cause unimaginable suffering in your fellow humans and, like many other humans, I have something of a bias towards the preservation of my own species. That, however, does not preclude my having any thought or concern for the welbeing of those other species that share this planet with me.
In fact, I share your belief that it's morally wrong to unncessarily inflict pain and suffering on others and I agree that some of the things that are done to animals are downright horrific. I could relate some stories of things that I've seen in my own experience that would turn your stomach. I just don't happen to agree that raising animals in humane conditions and then killing them for food fits the definition of "unnecessary". As for being unavoidable, the only way to ensure that a living creature will not die is to prevent it from being conceived and born in the first place as all living creatures eventually die. Since aninimals have no concept of time or age, whether that animal dies in the prime of its life to become food for another species or in old age to become food for maggots, bacteria and carion eaters doesn't make much difference to the animal.
I think agreeing to disagree is a good place to leave this. :)

[rhaazz]

gotbeer,

1. There is another logical fallacy in your most recent post:

"Suffering/death is unavoidable therefore I am excused from acting morally."

Again, Intro to Moral Philosophy would have cleared this up for you.

So, you say, "all death is unavoidable." Yes, it is. But this statement does not justify any person in imposing unnecessary pain and death on any sentient being.

For example, if I were to shoot you and kill you,

and then I were to say, "well, he would have died eventually anyway -- and I probably even relieved him of years of pain from, say, cancer,"

I would not have succeeded in offering a persuasive justification for killing you.

Similarly, a person is not justified in killing animals in order to eat their flesh if he were to say, "well, it would have died, anyway -- and in the wild far more painfully than it did in the slaughterhouse."

2. As for removing sentiment from ethics -- it is helpful to do this because it allows one to think unhampered by cultural biases.

When you remove senitment, you see that there is no principled reason why it is acceptable to impose suffering and death on a pig but not on a golden retriever.

[rhaazz]

Wow, suzemom, I agreed with everything you said -- and thought you did an excellent job of remaining rational and keeping your cool in the midst of a pretty passionate debate.

:)

[gymeejet]

Me Alien. Lisa Human. Human know nothing of galactic powers. Humans mighty tasty - okay to eat.

by the way, none of us have any idea whether animals have concepts of time. but i would bet on it. i recall when elephants became smart, when we found out that they did indeed have a language - most of their conversations take place below our hearing range. in reality, it was we who became smart.

do unto others ...

[Lisa N]

Me Alien. Lisa Human. Human know nothing of galactic powers. Humans mighty tasty - okay to eat.

Let's at least try to keep it based in reality here. :lol:

[gymeejet]

it is very much based in reality, despite your sarcasm. humans are the most powerful species on the earth. if some group were able to have their will with us, i wonder how we would feel, being penned up, fattened up, and then eaten. of course, we were taken care of nicely. people change their tunes pretty quickly, when the shoe is on the other foot.

you guys have absolutely no argument to defeat a very basic idea, which is:

do unto others .....

[gymeejet]

just admit it - you want to eat meat, because you have grown up to like it, and at least not yet, unwilling to stop eating it. all these rationalizations only serve to make you look silly - like the kid with chocolate all over his teeth, telling his parents that he did not eat any of the cookies.

[Lisa N]

do unto others .....

Since you have stated on a couple of occasions that you are a Christian (I am as well, by the way), I have to ask you: Is God immoral or a hypocrite?

[rhaazz]

Lisa, when gymeejet comes up with the "humans = tasty" scenario -- it's a reference to a well-worn hypothetical that is often used in undergraduate philosophy classes.

This hypothetical has been around for a good thirty years, if not more.

(In fact, someone's actually written a novel based on this hypothetical. Can't remember the guy's name, but the title of the book is "Under the Skin." It's written from the point of view of a race of aliens who come to this planet and start harvesting human beings for food. Some bleeding heart liberal alien comes along at some point and says something like "Well, shoot, shouldn't we be compassionate to these poor animals and leave them to live their lives in peace?" The other aliens say "Are you kidding? We're hungry. We need the food. Anyway, look at them. They walk on two legs. They don't speak our language. They have no culture to speak of. They can't even accomplish inter-galactic travel. They're stupid, and we're hungry. You can't possibly think we should sacrifice our well-being for the sake of this clearly inferior species.")

[Lisa N]

And you know...based on that logic, I would be hard pressed to disagree with them. Unlike animals, I can see it from their perspective; survival of the fittest/strongest/smartest. Kill and eat to live. Not that I relish the thought of becoming the main course on an alien table. Of course the hypothetical situation doesn't take into account the fact that these hypothetical aliens could also just as easily find the animals of our planet as tasty as most of us do and eat them instead of us. After all, cows and sheep are infinitely easier to catch and kill than humans who are quite a bit smarter and more resourceful. Who knows...they may find us barbaric in our practice of eating plant life which they may consider far more advanced than us? Once you start getting into hypothetical situations, it can become whatever you wish it to.
However....theoretical situations aside, the question is still whether or not it is ethical to kill animals for food and the reality still remains that the planet that we currently live on is not capable of sustaining vegetarianism on a global scale. Is it ethical to propose that an entire global community convert to a way of eating that has the potential of endangering the survival of millions of humans because it is not capable of sustaining them all or is the suffering and deaths of millions of humans of no consequence as long as no animals are harmed in the process? Promoting it as a personal choice seems far more ethical to me.

[rhaazz]

I agree, I've never found the alien hypothetical very compelling. It's simply used to expose the fallacy of the idea that "greater intelligence/techonology = right to kill those with lesser intelligence/technology."

The reason the hypothetical is so popular is that it's very common for people to justify eating nonhuman animals by reference to superior human intelligence. Exposing that fallacy is pretty much all that hypothetical is good for.

As for the planet's capacity for supporting vegetarianism on a global scale -- that's a different argument, and not one I feel capable of engaging.

[Lisa N]

I agree, I've never found the alien hypothetical very compelling. It's simply used to expose the fallacy of the idea that "greater intelligence/techonology = right to kill those with lesser intelligence/technology."

It's never been my position that we have a right to kill animals indiscriminately because we are smarter/stronger/more advanced than they are, even if that principle plays itself out on in nature every day (remember the lion killing the gazelle for food?). Your response to that scenario is that the lion doesn't have any choice but the kill the gazelle (or antelope or zebra, etc...) for food and therefore the ethics of it don't come into question, but we do. My position is that when it comes down to it, we also have no choice unless we are willing to drastically reduce the numbers of our own species to accomodate that position so that vegetarianism is possible for everyone on the planet and in that situation would have a viable choice to eat animals or not.
Who knows, with advanced technology, it may someday be possible to produce a cheap complete protein source that is non-animal in origin in sufficient quantity to supply the entire population. Until such time, though, we're still stuck with the necessity of needing both plants and animals to live and we need both to ensure that as many people as possible have sufficient food to survive.
After all, a person who is starving or who has starving children doesn't want to debate the ethics of whether or not he should kill an animal to eat...their survival and the survival of their children is more important to them at that point than the life of an animal. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but I have yet to meet a person who would be willing to starve or allow their children to starve to avoid killing an animal when the death of that animal would prevent it.

[rhaazz]

I know, Lisa, you have never espoused the position that "greater intelligence = right to kill those with lesser intelligence." I was just trying to explain the history behind gymeejet's hypothetical.

(Also, to answer your rebuttal: "Why wouldn't the hypothetical aliens eat nonhuman animals?", in the hypo, the aliens are four-legged and prefer to eat animals -- primates -- that resemble the aliens the least. This detail is used to show students that it is unethical to base moral decisions on morphological difference or similarity to oneself.)

And, yes, many vegetarians I know *do* think we should drastically reduce the numbers of human beings on the planet -- though perhaps not for quite the reasons you suggest.

And I agree, if one were starving, and if no other food source were available, then yes, under those circumstances, killing a nonhuman animal could be a necessary (and therefore not unethical) act.

[Lisa N]

You know...in that hypothetical alien human = tasty situation, I can't help but think that considering the numbers and types of toxic substances that so many of us put into our bodies during our lifetimes (prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, transfats, preservatives, dyes, etc...) that any alien species might view us as no better than what we low carbers view junk food....tasty but toxic? Now isn't that a sobering thought? :rolleyes:
Furthermore, the really paranoid among us could make a case for the FDA food pyramid being nothing but an alien plot to fatten us all up for harvest...the government's in league with the aliens! :lol:

[rhaazz]

:lol:

You crack me up! Yes, we will be super-tasty because our high-carb diets have fattened us well.

And, like veal calves, our lack of exercise will make our muscles super-tender and extra-delicious!

[Lisa N]

Yup...and next thing you know all the alien doctors will be putting their patients on "low human" or "human-free" diets. :lol:

[rhaazz]

OK now that DID make me laugh out loud. And I needed it! God, here I am at work on Labor Day Weekend.

I wish an alien WOULD come along and put me out of my misery right now. :rolleyes:

[Lisa N]

Bummer about having to work on a holiday weekend. I understand that one well having worked in service industries and having a DH that did until recently. He switched jobs about a month ago and this will be the first holiday weekend in 10 years where he hasn't had to work at least one of the days that weekend. The girls are like..."Wow...you mean dad is going to be home 4 days in a row and we're not on vacation??" :)

[Quinadal]

In other words, most people would not be cruel to a cute spaniel puppy because it arouses sentimental feelings in them. But the same people are willing to turn around and eat a hamburger because a cow does not arouse the same feelings in them.
Actually, I think cows are VERY cute. I live in a rural area and see them all the time out grazing.
VERY cute...and VERY tasty! :p

[rhaazz]

well, then quinadal, it's a good thing that sentiment is not the basis for the argument for ethical vegetarianism.

[gymeejet]

hi raz,
thanks for explaining to lisa. i would not kill any animal for my betterment. if it meant that i would meet God sooner, so be it. i do not value a human animal's life any more than any other animal's life. each has an equal right to its own life. as long as it does not hurt me, i will not hurt it.

[Quinadal]

well, then quinadal, it's a good thing that sentiment is not the basis for the argument for ethical vegetarianism.Nope, it's not. The basis of the argument for ethical vegetarianism is delusion and fantasy.

[alaskaman]

I agree about cute animals - at the fair today saw all kinds of cows, lambs, goats etc. Realized i'd have a hard time raising one, then killing it. Still went out and got a porkchop on a stick, cause I'm not willing to try to live on olive oil and tofu. I think the best thing is, maybe a moose that lives a nice life, you take him out from a couple hundred yards, he never knows what hit him. Huntress, on this forum, does that. Glad we can all be civil about this, we're for sure not going to agree on everything. Bill

[rhaazz]

alaskaman, I actually agree with you -- if you can't give up meat, then the next best thing is to try not to inflict unnecessary suffering on the animals you do eat.

[gotbeer]

suzemon - Singer's views were touted by one person as the ethical basis for one school of vegetarianism. As it turned out, his other ethical teachings turned out to be pretty rancid.

Perhaps you enjoy following the ethical teachings of ethical monsters, but I do not. (Obnoxious enough for you?)

As it happens, Einstein didn't believe in the supernatural. If he had touted the supernatural as scientific fact without scientific evidence, then yes, he would lose credibility as a scientist. This wouldn't disprove relativity, but it would lead many to doubt it. Likewise, Singer loses credibility as an ethicist because his ethics suck. As I said before, these are doubts, not proof, but since ethics is not a scientific, emotionless discipline, doubts count for more than if ethics were subject to objective proof or disproof.

As to the extra-terrestrials: Let's say that ET-Ones start killing us for food, violently and painfully, threatening to wipe us out, and a new ET group comes along - ET-Twos - with a better deal: they promise to protect us from the ET-Ones, give us superior food and medicine that makes us healthier and lengthens our lives up to age 200, and the freedom to live our lives without fear. In return, all they require would be that we allow ourselves to be harvested for food when we die, or when we reach 201 years old.

If we were facing extinction, some of us might well take the deal gratefully from the ET2's, while the rest of humanity would be slaughtered to extinction by the ET1's.

This is the deal that domesticated food animals have made - rather than risk extinction from predators or varying food supplies, they have our protection in exchange for providing us with food. We are not always as gracious as the ET2's, but we are working on it.

(from rhaazz) As for removing sentiment from ethics -- it is helpful to do this because it allows one to think unhampered by cultural biases.

That is just so ridiculous on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. Without cultural bias, ethics vanishes completely - as with the ET1's, who, lacking our human cultural biases, feel free to munch away on us until our extinction, or with Singer, without biases, advocating infant killing. Vegetarianism appears to come from a misguided, mistaken attempt to compose a cow culture, and then, derive ethics from THAT. The truth is, we don't know what the cows are thinking, or even, if they think, but maybe if they could have such thoughts, they would see us as the ET2's, saving them from the ET1 lions, tigers and bears. (Oh, my.)

I challenge you to name one ethical good - or evil - that exists objectively, outside of culture, and is so axiomatic that could easily be accepted by cow, human, and ET alike.

[rhaazz]

True, gotbeer, one can never remove oneself entirely from culture.

However, some cultural biases do not stand up to scrutiny.

For example, it used to be a common cultural bias that white people are superior to black people.

Rational analysis eventually debunked this myth for most educated people

Currently, it is a common cultural bias that human beings are entitled to inflict unnecessary pain on nonhuman animals.

Rational analysis demonstrates that this idea is indefensible.

This is why rational thinking can result in moral progress and can help eliminate harmful cultural biases.

And no, gotbeer, you cannot dismiss ethical vegetarianism by pointing to some of Singer's less appealing ideas. As has been pointed out to you, your ad hominem assumptions here are fallacious.

Besides, there are many, many philosophers who are convinced by the basic idea that inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on sentient beings is indefensible.

By the way, gotbeer, did you notice my debunking of your other fallacious idea, "pain and death is inevitable therefore I'm entitled to eat meat"?

Didn't notice your acknowledgment of my response.

But then, you NEVER admit when you're wrong, do you?

[gotbeer]

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2003203280904.gif

[rhaazz]

:)

I have to admit, that was pretty clever.

(For me, though, it's much more of a concern that all my clothes were manufactured by what is, essentially, slave labor in countries that have no labor laws. How does one address this problem?)

[gotbeer]

Sorry, but I had to share that cartoon.

Besides, there are many, many philosophers who are convinced by the basic idea that inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on sentient beings is indefensible.

Ah, but our treatment of the cows serves a necessary purpose for both human and cow - the humans get food we need, and the cows get better food, better health care, and protection from the violent predation they would suffer in the wild. Their population is vastly greater in domestication than it would be otherwise - if vegetarians ruled, the cow economy would crash, and untold millions of cows would be abandoned to the cruel whims of nature, starvation, and predator.

If they understood the implications of that "freedom", I'm sure many cows would opt to stay on the feedlot.

Several years back, I spent Thanksgiving with a rancher buddy of mine. We got a call that a dozen of his steers had wandered out of a breech in his fence. We drove out to the steers, and formed a sparse human circle of 5 men around them. The steers calmly walked from man to man, and then back into their pasture.

It was quite a gut-check when they came bearing down on me. Any one of them could have squashed me like a bug - we had no weapons to defend ourselves if they had decided to charge.

But for them, it was no big deal - they were content in their domestication and our handling.

We ate roasted beef for that Thanksgiving, and I've never since tasted the like.

But then, you NEVER admit when you're wrong, do you?

When I'm wrong, I am happy to admit it. I thought the NY Jets would hammer the Washington Redskins last night - but the Redskins won, 16-13, on a late field goal. Ouch.

(For me, though, it's much more of a concern that all my clothes were manufactured by what is, essentially, slave labor in countries that have no labor laws. How does one address this problem?)

I guess there is always nudity, but I'd like to drop a few more pounds, first.

[rhaazz]

As I've said before, even in my wildest dreams of successful ethical vegetarian proselytizing, the farming of animals for food would be gradually phased out slowly, over several generations.

Yes the cow population would eventually shrink to a tiny fraction of its current size. That would be a good thing. The unborn cows would not be "harmed" by our failure to breed them -- just as, if the total population of human beings shrinks over time, the unborn human beings whose lives were prevented by birth control will not be "harmed" by previous generations' decision not to give birth to them.

As for the idea that eating meat is necessary -- if it were necessary, I would have died a long time ago. Obviously it is not "necessary." Eating meat may be convenient, or enjoyable for you. It is not "necessary."

As for the idea that cows "consent" to what we do to them -- I cannot agree with you there. As I said in one of my very first posts on this topic, I assume that nonhuman animals generally wish to avoid pain and death as much as human animals wish to avoid pain and death.

In a case of TRUE consent to death or pain -- as in assisted suicide or masochism -- it might not necessarily be unethical to inflict death or pain.

Generally speaking, however, I do not assume that human or nonhuman animals consent to my inflicting avoidable death or pain on them. This is true whether or not they trample me, given the opportunity to do so.

Look at how illogical your assumption is: because the cows (bred for docility) avoided behaving violently towards you, and accepted the only apparent option available to them (return to the field), you assume that they were saying "it's ok with us to suffer and die for your dining pleasure."

There are so many false assumptions wrapped up in your idea that I don't have time to go into them here. Seriously, reading that post, I have to think you're jkoking. As annoying as you are, you really don't seem stupid (lacking in some fundamental logic skills, maybe, but not stupid). You really cannot possibly think that the docility of domesticated animals counts as their consent to be slaughtered.

If you were right about the cows' return to the field, I could then logically proceed to take advantage of my dog's docility and torture her -- if I felt like it -- because hey, she's my dog and she'll never bite me, therefore she "consents" to whatever I do. Your position is not only stupid but frightening and dangerous.

It is hard to dispute that farm animals do not consent to pain and death. Abundant evidence from slaughterhouses demonstrates that the animals experience distress as they see other animals being killed, and that they try to escape their deaths.

[hairpin]

I just want to make a comment on an early posting by gotbeer.

Three times a day? Wow.

Such frequent movements often indicate (or foreshadow) Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) or Ulcerative Colitis (UC) - both of which are associated with a hightened risk of cancer.

Low carb diets often help with these diseases (something to which I can attest to personally in the case of UC).


It's kind of odd, and I'm pretty embarassed saying this. But before this diet I used to have bad stomach problems which I fear was IBS. Mostly I had horrible lower intestinal gas. (I'm so embarassed.) :blush: And it was disruptive to my life in general. I tried lots of stuff like cutting out cheese from my diet, food combining, stopped drinking sodas. I even went to a Chinese doctor and was drinking medicine for it and having acupuncture. They all worked to some degree. But I'm absolutely suprised that I haven't been having any problems since I've been on Atkins (almost a month now). I feel great and wished I'd have known early how this diet could make me feel.

[gotbeer]

Ah, I guess if IBS is cured by meat-eating, then those with IBS NEED to eat meat. (I suffer from colitis, myself, and the Atkins diet has helped that as well.)

[rhaazz]

hairpin, 2-3x/day isn't abnormal -- if it's not accompanied by discomfort, gas, bloating. I NEVER had any discomfort, ahem, "down there" -- until I started doing Atkins. Then -- OWEEE!!!

Seriously, I just didn't grasp the concept of constipation until Atkins. I was like, "hell, if you wanna poop, why don't you just poop?"

Little did I know.

The fact that on Atkins pooping was suddenly such a horrible issue (despite doing EVERYTHING they recommend -- fibre, water, exercise, supplements, veggies) made me think "This just can't be right."

But now I'm normal -- cut out a lot of the cheese, and that seemed to help.

[hysteria]

As far as the overpopulation of deer, etc. -- hunting is not the solution. Animals in the wild DO regulate their own populations in lean years by having fewer offspring.

OK - tell that to the thousands of people in Virginia who ACCIDENTALLY hit deer, foxes, squirrels, etc. They are not beady eyed, testosterone filled males baring down on defensless animals out of spite. I hit a squirrel once & a beautiful fox. Sometimes, inflicting pain on others (human or animal) is unavoidable. They are called ACCIDENTS. I realize your arguement is against the purposeful killing of animals for food, but I just wanted to point out that we all have flaws.
Another thing - By giving birth, we are choosing to inflict pain on another human being without their consent - a child is bound to get the flu at some point, correct? This is not the fault of parent or child, but the child must suffer, and could possibly die if the infection is too bad. We, as parents, make this choice. Since humans are the ones destroying the Earth and inflicting pain on innocents, I would hope you have made the decision not to have children. It would seem very hypocritical of your beliefs to do so.

[Lisa N]

By giving birth, we are choosing to inflict pain on another human being without their consent - a child is bound to get the flu at some point, correct?

Not to mention that the birth process itself is none too comfy for either party. Collarbones are frequently fractured and shoulders disolcated in newborns during the birth process.

[gotbeer]

Could meat be gradually phased out?

I rather doubt it - the economic dislocations associated with business declines are almost always rapid and brutal at the end. Most food businesses have tiny profit margins and hence would be especially vulnerable to downturns. As the businesses fail one-by-one and the cows are abandoned, the remaining animals would not fare well - especially those bred for docility. If we created them, we ought to keep them, rather than leave them defenseless.

Likewise, the legal problem of reducing/banning meat-eating would most likely call for a sudden dislocation like we have in our anti-narcotic laws: it is hard to craft a law that gradually and progressively limits meat-eating (or narcotic abuse) but easy to craft a law that bans them - and just imagine how brutal cow-trafficking would become (to both cows and humans) if it were made into an illegal vice rather than a legit industry.

As to the brutality of slaughterhouses:

This may be an area where pain and suffering could be eased further, and they ARE being eased further as our technology improves. A recent article in Scientific American detailed the efforts of an Asperger's Syndrome sufferer to use his disability to design new and more cow-friendly processing facilities - that article can be purchased on-line, I think.

As to the "need" to eat meat:

Putting aside for a moment the problems many IBS and UC sufferers would have on a veggie diet, one does not have to have a "need", per se, to ethically justify one's actions. For example, one may also act out of "comparative advantage": the justification that one's actions lead to improvements over an alternative action. The case of eating cows is a win-win - we eat the meat, and the cows get improvements in food, medicine, safety from predation and species survival.

As to the question of voluntary domestication and docility:

Only a handful species have been domesticated, and in every case, without the cooperation of the animals, the domestication would have failed. Some species are too violent in captivity; others become TOO docile (they fail to reproduce in captivity). Occasionally some domesticated animals return to a feral state - wild horses in the Americas devolved from domesticated European stock; dingoes in Australia were introduced to predate hares (also artificially introduced), and feral housecats are just about everywhere. These facts alone suggest that animal may be making choices in the matter.

Rhaazz, I believe you are caught on the horns of a dilemma, here - if those animals are not sentient (NOT making a choice), then by your own standards, eating them ought to be ok. If those animals are sentient, then we could not have domesticated them without their sentient consent - so again, eating them ought to be ok. And if their docility is our engineered creation, then they are ours to do with as we would: either preserve and protect, if we are good, or to free and destroy, because their extinction would quickly follow their liberation.

What do the cows (and humans, and ET's) really want?

No species seeks it's own extinction - each seeks first and foremost to leave viable progeny - to preserve itself. Members of a species do this even when reproduction is painful and dangerous; they do this when food, water and space are limited. (Those that don't, die off.) Species self-survival is the one ethical good that is universal and free of all cultural colors and species boundaries - the only culture it comes from is the culture of biological life.

One may reasonably argue, then, that above avoiding personal pain, and beyond avoiding personal death, cows value species survival, and to the extent that their domestication serves this end, they ought to be cool with it - and we should be cool with it, too.

[gymeejet]

whether an animal is domesticated or not, whether they are sentient or not, etc., etc., makes no difference. we have no right to take the life of another animal. once again, these arguments are all rationalizations so one does not feel guilty doing something that they know deep down is wrong. i hope we all evolve from eating meat some day, and i believe our species will do that.

[rhaazz]

gotbeer, Were you subjected to horrible violent sexual abuse as a child? Where did you get the notion that "the power to harm other means that one has the right to harm"? You sound like one of those psychopaths who tortured animals as a child.

You really scare me -- if you believe the things you ttype.

Oh -- and gotbeer? Could you please look up the meaning of "sentient"?

Thanks.

I'm sure you'll be glad to learn that you were completely mistaken in your guess at what the word meant.

Good luck in learning the rudiments of logic and in expanding your vocabulary. And I wish you even better luck in learning the basic rudimentary equipment of human morality.

Get some therapy -- FAST.

[pltrygeist]

If we try to break it down to eating living things we could probably make the same arguments for plants. Do plants not have the same "right" to exist as humans according to the lving being ideal? A very, very short list is the number of types of animals that do not consume another at some point.

Humans, on the basis of anatomical structure, are most likely omnivores.

[gymeejet]

hi pltry,
what i said was that "we have no right to take the life of another animal."

many attempt to use the plants argument, but i don't buy it. it has some life attributes in that they can reproduce other plants, etc. but they have no brain, no ability to feel pain, or any other emotion. it is not a life in the sense that an animal is a life. if we want to get ridiculous, we could start saying that a mountain is a life form, because it grows larger, and can change size.

even if the list of the animals that do not consume another at some point was zero, that is no basis for whether the action is right or wrong.

but there are quite a few animals that only eat vegetation.

i don't doubt that we have eaten meat in the past. whether it was necessary in the past to sustain life may not be ever entirely known for sure, but it is NOT NECESSARY today.

and 99% of the meat eaten comes from the supermarket, so it is not even a good nutritional food, with all the saturated fat, excess hormones, and god knows what else it was fed, to get it fat. most cases of food poisoning from restaurants always involves some sort of animal flesh.

eating meat today is simply something that people do because they enjoy the taste, and recite silly rationalizations that really make them sound SILLY. it reminds me of the child, with his teeth covered with chocolate, trying to deny he ate the last of the cookies. LOL.

[pltrygeist]

I have yet to hear anything scientifically-based from you. You’re trying to sound as if you really know what you’re talking about, but in the end, you are just arguing issues from an emotional basis and then putting a moral judgment on people. When someone does not agree with you even on scientific basis and you call it silly rationalization. Again, I hear no science. So let's be clear and call it exactly as it is, shall we?

As to quite a few animals that are strict vegetarian, that is true actually for a rather small minority of animals. Even plant consuming primates are known to eat insects and other small animals on occasion. Many species of birds consume berries and other plant life usually covered in insects…there are even some animal studies to show that they are visually aware of the small life forms crawling around on them when they eat them. The point is in layman’s terms that even some previously classified vegetarian animals actually have diets that are not 100% plant based.

I have addressed your issues with saturated fat before.

You might do some research into plant physiology about the pain perception aspect.

It's interesting to me how with the successes of low carb diets for both health reasons and weight loss purposes, the arguments against this practice are getting more and more idealized and less tangible/concrete in the absence of scientifically verifiable data with which to argue.

Don’t knock the supermarkets so hard…if it weren’t for them you would not likely be vegetarian as the amount of time, effort and storage space required to keep enough vegetables on hand for a vegetarian family is rather immense.

[gymeejet]

killing an animal is a moral issue, so it can not be argued scientifically. you guys are making rationalizations about why it is okay to kill an animal, because you are not willing to give it up. that is the whole crux of the situation, which you guys are not willing to admit. until you do so, i will continue to throw the truth right in your faces. KILLING AN ANIMAL IS NOT MORALLY OKAY. PERIOD. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT.

we have both ADDRESSED the issue about saturated fat. come back in 30 years when you have some long-term results. then we can talk - assuming that you have not died from cardiovascular disease, in the meantime.

[rhaazz]

The "amount of time, effort and storage space required to keep enough vegetables on hand for a vegetarian family is rather immense."

:lol:

Yeah, all that tofu is pushing us out of our house! Eeeek!

Seriously, pltrygeist, I cannot believe that you view the killing of plants as the ethical equivalent of killing an animal.

If I were to go over to your house and do two things, (1) torture your dog, and (2) pick one of your flowers,

would you view them as morally equivalent?

The issue here, for me, isn't "science," but morality.

Ethical vegetarianism -- at least for me -- is based on the following assumptions:

1. My experience of pain derives from my possession of a central nervous system and a brain. (Understand here that when we talk about "sentient beings," "sentience" means capacity for pleasue and pain. "Sentience" does NOT mean, as it is often misunderstood to mean, "capacity for thought or choice.")

2. Because I am sentient, I wish to avoid unnecesary pain. I also wish to delay my death.

3. Those who inflict unnecessary pain and death on me would be behaving unethically because they would be harming me unnecessarily.

(Understand here, the most important assumption is that "unnecessary harm = unethical.")

4. I assume that nonhuman animals possessed of similar central nervous systems also wish to avoid unnecessary pain and death.

5. Therefore, it is unethical for me to inflict unnecesary pain and death on nonhuman animals.

I don't KNOW any of this for sure. I am ASSUMING that animals feel pain, and I am ASSUMING that they do not want to be killed.

These assumptions are consistent with my observations of animal behavior.

But hey, who can really say? Maybe gotbeer is right -- maybe animals WANT to be killed for our dining pleasure.

I think that gotbeer is insane and he frightens me (he LIKES the idea of hurting animals). I think my assumptions are by comparison sane, and reasonable.

As for plants,

(1) Human and nonhuman animals evolved to have a pain response in order to survive: pain induces them to avoid events that inflict injury, thus increasing their chances of survival.

(2) Plants do not have the same pain response because they lack the capacity to move in order to avoid injurious events.

(3) Finally, I am assuming that if plants DO have a capacity for suffering, it is not based on the possession of a central nervous system and it is not sentience as I experience it.

(4) Therefore the suffering of plants does not have the same moral implications for me that the suffering of aniimals has.

Again, these as assumptions.

But let's say that plants DO suffer when we eat them

OK, so what? The fact that SOME suffering may be inevitable does NOT justify one in inflicting MORE and UNNECESSARY suffering.

(This reminds me of gotbeer's fallacious argument: "suffering and death is unavoidable therefore I can go around and inflict more suffering and death with a clear conscience.")

No. That's not right. You cannot go and inflict unnecessary suffering and death on a human or nonhuman animal and then justify your actions by saying "well plants are hurting, too!"

[Lisa N]

most cases of food poisoning from restaurants always involves some sort of animal flesh.

Nope. Most publicized cases of food poisoning come from animal flesh (E Coli). In fact, most cases of food poisoning come from: lettuce, fruits and other veggies (Shigella) and salad dressings (Salmonella). In the vast majority of cases, the contamination is not caused from the animal per se, but from improper hygiene on the part of the preparer or improper storage or failure to maintain the food product at a temperature high enough or low enough to prevent bacterial growth.

[gymeejet]

powerful aliens come to earth. they read up on human culture. what goes around, comes around. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. do unto others what you would have others do unto you. aliens SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY deduce that it must be okay to eat all humans that eat other animals. gymee have no one to debate with.

gymee also listen much to politicians. gymee, he smart. he know difference between scientific pseudo-babble designed to justify the unjustifiable, and REAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.

[gymeejet]

HI LISA,
well i would wonder how it is that you have so much knowledge about THINGS THAT ARE NOT PUBLICIZED. i know. probably from all those studies done by low-carb supporters.

it does not matter why meat causes poisoning. i don't disagree with you that it is mostly from poor hygiene. but you will get it just the same. animal flesh rots, is host to all sorts of bacteria, etc.

i also seem to recall the same logic about guns don't kill. bullets kill. if you don't have a gun, then the bullet is useless. if you do not eat meat at a restaurant, then you don't have to worry about the hygiene of meat keeping.

i will take my chances with lettuce left unrefrigerated for a day, while you can take the meat that has been unrefrigerated for a day - there is absolutely no comparison at all.

[rhaazz]

Isn't this a side issue? I thought we were arguing ethics.

[pltrygeist]

killing an animal is a moral issue, so it can not be argued scientifically. you guys are making rationalizations about why it is okay to kill an animal, because you are not willing to give it up. that is the whole crux of the situation, which you guys are not willing to admit. until you do so, i will continue to throw the truth right in your faces. KILLING AN ANIMAL IS NOT MORALLY OKAY. PERIOD. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT.

I eat meat because I have extensively studied clinical human nutrition and have found varying amounts of meat to be necessary for optimal health. Some people have greater protein requirements than me, and me more than others. For this reason, I am not willing to stop eating meat.

we have both ADDRESSED the issue about saturated fat. come back in 30 years when you have some long-term results. then we can talk - assuming that you have not died from cardiovascular disease, in the meantime.

Nice try. The evidence is already there to support my case. When you want to debate an issue you need to remove your emotional side in order to strengthen your case. Otherwise it comes off as angry and lashing out. Actually, as a vegetarian, are you aware that strict vegetarians do not comprise the group of longest living humans?


Seriously, pltrygeist, I cannot believe that you view the killing of plants as the ethical equivalent of killing an animal.

I’m curious: where did I specifically say that this is my ethical view?

What I was saying was that a moralistic viewpoint can be taken to extremes which is where it breaks down. That’s why moralism is difficult to defend: it can go to any number of degrees depending on what side of a debate on is on.

As you understand that there are many reasons why people become vegetarian. Some people feel that it’s the most healthy approach to living longer (I disagree but it’s everyone’s right to choose), some are vegetarian on the basis of religion, some are vegetarian on the basis of geographical location/economy/etc. When someone places moral judgment on those who eat meat, then they should also appeal to those who do not eat meat for the same reasons, moralistically. You judging them morally won’t happen because their behaviour supports your cause (please understand that by the term “your” I am implying vegetarians in general, not you specifically). However, this won’t happen often.


The issue here, for me, isn't "science," but morality.

I do not disagree that this is entirely your right, however, unlike gymeejet you do not seem to be placing moral judgment on everyone else (at least from what I’ve read so far). You have your convictions, but you are not passing judgment in the same way that he is. That’s the difference and that’s why you and I can probably debate on a much more even plane. Sorry, gymeejet, you’re too easy to pick apart when you get all emotional.


powerful aliens come to earth. they read up on human culture. what goes around, comes around. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. do unto others what you would have others do unto you. aliens SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY deduce that it must be okay to eat all humans that eat other animals. gymee have no one to debate with.

gymee also listen much to politicians. gymee, he smart. he know difference between scientific pseudo-babble designed to justify the unjustifiable, and REAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.

Rhazz, you said something about someone ELSE being insane? :lol:

Tell you what gymeejet, in 30 years I will come and visit you in the asylum. :cool:

But seriously, I question the truth of your last sentence in that quote.


animal flesh rots, is host to all sorts of bacteria, etc.

Let us not confuse improper food prep techniques with the value of a macronutrient as a whole.

if you do not eat meat at a restaurant, then you don't have to worry about the hygiene of meat keeping.

Unless particles from the tainted meat also touches your lettuce…

i will take my chances with lettuce left unrefrigerated for a day, while you can take the meat that has been unrefrigerated for a day - there is absolutely no comparison at all.

Does this apply to cured meat products like beef jerky? This, like many of your arguments, seems to have a sufficient dose of all-or-none absolutism.

[Lisa N]

well i would wonder how it is that you have so much knowledge about THINGS THAT ARE NOT PUBLICIZED. i know. probably from all those studies done by low-carb supporters

No, gymee...because I used to work in an emergency department and the vast majority of food poisoning cases that we saw could be traced back to either salmonella (from eating contaminated egg-based salad dressings...primarily mayonnaise) and infection from restaurant salad bars. As a matter of fact, the worst case of food poisoning I ever had was from a contaminated salad bar at a restaurant.
If your organic veggies are grown with manure as fertilizer, I'd highly suggest that you wash them well before consumption as that is one the primary sources of e. coli contamination.

I'd also like to note that you never did address my question to you as to whether or not you believed God to be immoral or hypocritical.

[rhaazz]

I agree, pltrygeist, it is important not to pass jugment on others. It's really hard to have this debate without giving people the impression that I think they're "bad" for eating meat.

The "aliens are coming to get us" scenario isn't gymeejet going off his rocker. It's a very popular and well-known hypothetical often used in moral philosophy classes to try to puncture students' assumptions about eating meat.

The point of that hypothetical is, if you think it's ok for you to eat other species, then it would have to be ok for other species (that had technology, intelligence, etc. that outstripped ours to the same extent that our technology, intelligence, etc. outstrip cows' intelligence).

But that hypothetical has never done much for me.

It must be very persuasive for it to be used so frequently -- I wonder why others find it compelling and I do not.

[pltrygeist]

I agree, pltrygeist, it is important not to pass jugment on others. It's really hard to have this debate without giving people the impression that I think they're "bad" for eating meat.

The "aliens are coming to get us" scenario isn't gymeejet going off his rocker. It's a very popular and well-known hypothetical often used in moral philosophy classes to try to puncture students' assumptions about eating meat.

The point of that hypothetical is, if you think it's ok for you to eat other species, then it would have to be ok for other species (that had technology, intelligence, etc. that outstripped ours to the same extent that our technology, intelligence, etc. outstrip cows' intelligence).

But that hypothetical has never done much for me.

It must be very persuasive for it to be used so frequently -- I wonder why others find it compelling and I do not.

Well assuming we know everything about life on our own planet then the idea works. However, what is so fascinating even about plants are the very things we don’t even have a clue about yet. Personally, it is interesting how plants have no CNS yet they do have some undetermined innate intelligence about them that we have not recognized that seems to go beyond genes. For instance, there is a plant that grows near almost every poison oak plant whose leaf when crumpled up and applied to the skin can stop the itching and rash. There is nothing I have seen that indicates how these plants “know” to grow near the poison oak or what purpose it serves otherwise. So personally, I think technology has given us big heads that we know all there is to know when in reality we’ve only defined a narrow range of specific possibilities. I only hope that we don’t use up the rainforests before we realize how much good exists there.

But if the aliens come to eat us because we’re eating other animals, then they probably would have done this anyway. I don’t know. Interesting concept though. Good food for thought (no pun intended). :lol:

[gymeejet]

pltry,
you can claim being the winner in the debate all you want. i think you are clearly losing. there is all sorts of literature (i gave you 3 quotes) that support humans belief in doing towards others, etc. the fact that we are the most powerful force on the planet allows us to be uppity and arrogant. i guarantee you that the meat-eaters of today would feel a whole lot different if they were being eaten, instead of doing the eating. you will never, ever beat me at that basic point.

as far as judging you meat-eaters, you seem to have missed the point entirely. what have i been saying ? admit that you eat meat because you like the taste. you would find my attitude different.

i understand the human equation very well. people are addicted to food. it plays a big role in most every social function. people eat other foods for the very same reason. it is just that no one is telling them to give up any non-flesh foods, because it does not result in the killing of another animal.

i find it an insult to my intelligence to hear all these silly rationalizations. if i come off angry, i am to a point. people, especially politicians, give REASONS for doing things, but they are never the real reason.

if a meat-eater was honest with me, i would be supportive, and just tell him that i hope sometime in the future he will be able to change, and leave it at that. but when i start hearing stupid rationalizations, i fight back with a vengeance.

as far as protein, we can get all the protein we need without ever touching meat. i get most all of mine from protein powder. if there are any individual aminos that you are still deficient in, after getting the number of grams that you need, then simply supplement with those - they can be gotten in powder form, as well.

the sulfur aminos (methionine, cysteine, taurine) are ones that i personally feel are limiting for just about everyone, with regards to the foods that we eat. they are also among our best detoxifiers, which in today's society, is more important than ever.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
thanks for your input on your emergency department experiences.

if i recall correctly, your question did not use the word "whether or not". you simply asked me if God was immoral or hypocritical. i took it to be just a derogatory statement designed solely to make me mad, so i chose the high road, and ignored it.

perhaps if you can tell me why you make the statement, and what relevance it has, i may be willing to give you an answer.

[Lisa N]

perhaps if you can tell me why you make the statement, and what relevance it has, i may be willing to give you an answer.

It was not a derogatory statment at all but a serious question since you claim to be a Christian. Because, gymee, in your use of the quote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" you take it to mean that Jesus (who the quote came from) intended this to apply to animals as well as humans. And yet, Jesus ate fish on a regular basis as well as other meat and as a practicing Jew would have slaughtered and eaten lamb at least once a year as part of the passover celebration and would have brought animals to the temple to be killed as sacrifices. So..either Jesus was a hypocrite and immoral himself for killing animals (which is in direct contradiction to what scripture teaches about Jesus in that as a man he was without sin) or He never intended the quote that you use to defend your position to apply to animals.
Next. God not only permitted the killing of animals all through the Old Testament, He required it as part of the daily sacrifices in the temple and permitted the priests to eat of the meat that was sacrificed. Furthermore, He also instructed Noah after the flood that both plants and animals were to be used for food from that time forward. Instead of telling the Jews "Don't eat animals" God later gives them guidelines about which animals could be used for food and which could not. So, if killing animals for food is immoral and indefensible then the God in whom you profess to believe is also guilty of immorality and a hypocrite for requiring humans to do that which is immoral and for not telling them to stop and instead giving guidelines for which animals to eat.
The Apostle Paul gave specific instructions to several churces about eating meat that was sacrificed to idols. Again, if it was immoral to kill and eat animals for food why did he not say so and instead instruct his readers to eat if their conscience permitted it (and that not because it was an animal but because of the purpose for which it had been killed).
If you choose to not eat meat because your conscience will not permit it, fine. But you have no right to quote a man who did exactly what you claim to be immoral to defend your position and you have no right to judge those whose conscience will allow them to eat animals for food as it seems God intended it to be since I can find nothing in scripture to indicate that God has changed His mind about animals being a food source for us.

Now, if you have no faith and do not believe in God then none of this argurment applies to you obviously but this is what I believe and quite frankly, it's not something I wish to debate here.

[pltrygeist]

pltry, you can claim being the winner in the debate all you want. i think you are clearly losing. there is all sorts of literature (i gave you 3 quotes) that support humans belief in doing towards others, etc. the fact that we are the most powerful force on the planet allows us to be uppity and arrogant.

All right, calm down, we’re just debating here, no need to get upset. Actually, as the top of the food chain I don’t think we’re the dominant force on the planet. Roaches, rats, birds, bacteria, viruses and yeast seem to have adapted in spite of almost everything we do to our detriment or gain.



i guarantee you that the meat-eaters of today would feel a whole lot different if they were being eaten, instead of doing the eating. you will never, ever beat me at that basic point.

Were missionaries in Africa vegetarian when their brethren were being cannibalized? Actually I have no idea but it might be interesting as a thesis or even topic for discussion.



admit that you eat meat because you like the taste. you would find my attitude different…. i find it an insult to my intelligence to hear all these silly rationalizations. if i come off angry, i am to a point. people, especially politicians, give REASONS for doing things, but they are never the real reason…. if a meat-eater was honest with me, i would be supportive, and just tell him that i hope sometime in the future he will be able to change, and leave it at that. but when i start hearing stupid rationalizations, i fight back with a vengeance.

Does meat taste good to me? Well, yes it does. Is that the sole reason I eat it? No. That is as truthful as I can say it. Can two truths exist for the same question? Yes.

I already told you that I have done personal research into clinical human nutrition and that for this reason I decided that for me and those I care for should not be exclusive vegetarians. If you do not believe this, I can’t help it. But it doesn’t change the truth no matter how angry it makes you.

Do I judge vegetarians? Not really. Actually, lacto-ovo vegetarians, if they make sure to get eggs certifiable free range as well as high quality cheeses are as healthy as any other population group as I can think of.



as far as protein, we can get all the protein we need without ever touching meat. i get most all of mine from protein powder. if there are any individual aminos that you are still deficient in, after getting the number of grams that you need, then simply supplement with those - they can be gotten in powder form, as well.

Then that should be clue #1 that your diet is not as natural as you might think. Supplements are supplements and not a replacement for whole foods. If a specific diet does not deliver all the necessary building blocks for the body then how can it be said to be entirely healthy? With that being said, I do think that taking occasional breaks from meat can be a nice stimulus to normalizing hormone systems in some persons. I even take a week or so every year and eat only vegetables, but for health reasons and not the same as yours.

Keep in mind that soy based proteins (unless one of 2 specific products) have been linked directly with myriad health problems including lowered testosterone, hormone dysfunction and metabolism imbalances. Not to be critical, but if your testosterone levels are still problematic I would strongly consider several agents to offset the soy. (I'm really trying to be helpful here and not sarcastic).

the sulfur aminos (methionine, cysteine, taurine) are ones that i personally feel are limiting for just about everyone, with regards to the foods that we eat. they are also among our best detoxifiers, which in today's society, is more important than ever.

Something is horribly wrong…I actually agree with you.:confused:

[gymeejet]

lisa,
since you do not want to discuss it further, i will refrain from answering.

pltry,
well i would prefer to be on non-fighting terms with you, as well.

actually, i feel very lucky that we have supplements. my generation is the first to really have such. i feel it allows us the opportunity to reach levels of health that did not exist for my parent's generation, and beyond.

to be able to take tests, look at one's amino levels, for example, and adjust them individually is just something that was unheard of, previously. i intend to be the poster boy for the diet to which i prescribe. to be pushing 50, and not have lost a step in energy levels, is truly exciting to me. i do not believe i could have done this well, without my knowledge. i view my nutritional needs simply as keeping each of my individual buckets full, so that my body can work as it was designed. each bucket is of course, each individual nutrient that my body needs, minus the toxics that it does not want.

once the body breaks down a protein molecule into its constituent amino acids, it makes no difference what protein the amino came from. i believe this to be true for all our nutrients. if you took my protein powder away from me, i do not believe i could be quite as healthy, as i currently am. or at the very least, i would have to work much harder to get correct amounts of protein, without putting junk into me that i do not want.

without testing, the biggest clue i have towards another one's health, is when they start talking about their food desires. the more people tend to crave foods, the more they tend to be out of balance. for me, i have no more cravings. although i certainly understand them, as i experienced them, when i was younger. i could very easily give up eating all together, if there was another way of supplying my body with the needed nutrients. this is really how we should all feel.

we are the only animal species stupid enough to ignore nature, and use food for other than the only one thing which it was designed - to nourish our bodies. and look at the results. diabetes is rampant in society, and doctors expect it to triple in the next 10-20 years. we pay very dearly when we think we can defeat nature, whether it be with our diets, or anything else. we may win for a short while, but we will lose in the long run.

people think we can destroy the planet. we can not. we can destroy the planets ability to nourish us, but not the planet itself. it did well without us, and it will do well without us again, if we are so stupid as to kill ourselves off, in one way or the other.

[Lisa N]

since you do not want to discuss it further, i will refrain from answering.

That last part was directed at those who do not believe in God because this thread is not for the purpose of determining if God does or does not exist and I don't wish to hijack it in that direction. Since you have already stated that you are a Christian and I assume that means you do believe in God, Jesus and the Bible feel free to address my points.


if you took my protein powder away from me, i do not believe i could be quite as healthy, as i currently am. or at the very least, i would have to work much harder to get correct amounts of protein, without putting junk into me that i do not want.

This right here should tell you that yours is not a workable plan for the general population. Your protein powder, if I remember correctly, is a combination of soy and whey. Whey comes from cows milk. Protein powder also runs $20.00 and up for a single can which makes it about $10.00 per pound and up not to mention what those amino supplements that you take cost. It's wonderful that you can afford to eat this way, but many (most) can not. It's also wonderful that you live in a part of the world where such products are widely available. I get a dozen eggs for $1.00 and a pound of chicken for 30 cents when it's on sale (about 60 cents when it isn't). Those prices are a lot more attractive those that need to feed families on a set income.

Keep in mind that soy based proteins (unless one of 2 specific products) have been linked directly with myriad health problems including lowered testosterone, hormone dysfunction and metabolism imbalances.

Don't forget that it can also cause problems with thyroid function in some people.

[pltrygeist]

Don't forget that it can also cause problems with thyroid function in some people.

I included it passively under the category of hormone problems. It has been a major reason why I try and avoid processed soy.

[Lisa N]

pltry...I'm finding I need to do the same thing myself and for the same reasons...thyroid function. I haven't cut soy protein completely out, but I do limit it pretty severely. I can't imagine what would happen to my thyroid function if my main source of protein were coming from processed soy products. :p

[gymeejet]

guys, there are an equal number of articles expounding the benefits of soy. i don't pay much attention to either side of the camp.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/985118284.html

the meat lobby is very strong. anything that offers an alternative to meat is gonna have all kinds of studies showing its harmful effects.

my thyroid is naturally low. i am glad of it. it is a clear indicator that i do not have a jittery system. it is one of the indicators that explain why i am aging more slowly than what is AVERAGE. as long as one has energy, one is better off with low thyroid. in fact, i would say low hormone levels, all together. the very fact that we eat meat, and ingest high levels of hormones is bad for us. females have menses almost 2 years earlier, from just a century before. they would be better off starting later, when they are more mature - certainly not sooner.

[gymeejet]

lisa,
i regard the old testament as just a jewish history book. it confirms in me that the jews did not understand God any more then, than they do now.

do you have any idea how many times they referred to God in militaristic terms ? God was their warrior who was gonna kill off their conquerors, which was just about everybody, at some point in history.

the arab peoples (jews and non-jews) are still fighting over some silly bit of land that they call holy. it is the clearest sign of how poorly religious rituals affect and dominate an individual's life.

i will discuss the new testament later. i do not claim to have all the answers, by any means.

[Lisa N]

females have menses almost 2 years earlier, from just a century before.

There are a number of explanations for this, one of which is that children in general are getting better nutrition and medical care now than they were a century ago causing them to grow faster and more consistently.
BTW, did you know that the onset of menses isn't necessarily determined by age, but a big factor is reaching a certain weight and body fat percentage?


i will discuss the new testament later. i do not claim to have all the answers, by any means.

My point here, gymee, is that you are using a religous stance to condemn the killing and eating of animals for food and the very person whom you are quoting when you say, "Do unto others" was either a hypocrite for not practicing what you interpret him to preach or you are simply using that quote to mean what you want it to and are just as guilty of misunderstanding and misinterpreting God's intentions as the Jews of the Old Testament whom you seem to think had no understanding of God. If they had misunderstood as far as eating animals for food, I would think that Jesus would have made an attempt to correct that misunderstanding but I can find nowhere in the record of what Jesus said in the New Testament where he codemns the killing and eating of animals for food and in fact, did so himself.
In other words, condemning meat eating from a Christian religious stance doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You said earlier that there is no defense against that quote, but it seems that there is.

[gymeejet]

lisa,
do you really think that kids are getting better nutrition today than a 100 years ago ? to me, that is scary, and makes me wonder if you see what is going on around you. our diets, on the average, are way worse than a century before.

as a christian, i believe that Christ was God's way of appearing to us in a form that our limited minds could understand, and relate to.

God certainly did not want us fighting over religious rituals, and the Holy Land is nothing but a bunch of sand. The fact that Christ walked on it, does not impart any special qualities to the sand.

do you recall the story of martha and mary ? (i think those were the female's names). one was sitting listening to Jesus, while the other one was scurrying about, cleaning the house, washing Jesus's feet, etc.

she then got mad at her sister, for being lazy. Jesus finally beckoned her to come listen to Him, and enjoy one another's company. Jesus did not want her fussing over Him, and Jesus certainly did not want people fighting over a bunch of sand that He walked on.

Jesus wanted us to listen to what He said, so that we can apply it to our daily lives. whether jews live in jerusalem or timbuktu is of no importance. the importance is whether they follow the advice of their teacher.

What many christians do not grasp, is that the NT is mainly a psychology book - the psychology of God. In it, there are expressed many stories, whose sole intent is to educate the reader, so that the reader can be more Christ-like.

whether many of the events actually occurred is not that significant, such as the parables. the significance is the lesson that the story imparts. like the good samaritan, and how we should treat others, even/especially ones we do not know or possibly do not like.

i would say the loaves and fishes indicates that the people of that area consumed fish. i would hesitate to use that as an example that Jesus was okaying it. but He certainly could not take a pound of protein powder, and turn it into a 1000 pounds, and hope the people understood - LOL.

but i do not claim to know the mind of God, and i am willing to admit that i have more questions than i do answers. i do know that God talks to me through my conscience. i know that killing animals is wrong, just as i know killing unborn babies is wrong. when i finish my final journey, i believe i will understand more fully about many of the things that i can only ponder about today, within the confines of my limited human form.

[Lisa N]

i would say the loaves and fishes indicates that the people of that area consumed fish. i would hesitate to use that as an example that Jesus was okaying it.

Perhaps not, but neither did he condemn it. You're also missing the point entirely that we have recorded instances of Jesus eating fish himself as well as the passover lamb. As a practicing Jew, this would have been required. As far as the Passover celebration is concerned, it's quite likely that it was Jesus himself who slaughtered the lamb to be eaten as part of the ceremony since he was the leader of the group. It's also likely that He ate goat and ox/cow as well, although all that are recorded are fish and lamb. Now you can claim that none of the events recorded in the New Testament actually happened, but even from a psychology/good living standpoint, you would think that if God didn't want us eating animals for food, He would have made that pretty clear.

i know that killing animals is wrong

And this is based on? Since we've established that Jesus not only did not condemn the killing and eating of animals but did so himself so if it is wrong to kill animals, then Jesus himself did wrong. Clearly, Jesus saw a distinction between killing animals for food and killing humans. If we are to follow Christ's example, then I would take this to mean that it is not wrong to kill and eat animals for food from a Christian standpoint.
If your conscience does not allow you to kill or eat an animal for food, this does not autmatically mean that this is applicable to all people in general and this fits with what Paul said in that if your conscience does not allow it [eating meat], don't do it, if it does, go right ahead without fear of condemnation.

do you really think that kids are getting better nutrition today than a 100 years ago ? to me, that is scary

In general, yes. Now, I do not mean the mass consumption of sugar-sweetened soda and snacks full of transfats. What I mean is the year-round availability of fresh food (meat, vegetables and fruits) in sufficient quantities to promote healthy growth. Medical care is far better and we have vitamin supplements available to us today that they did not have then. Food is commonly supplemented with additional vitamins and minerals. Today's children are also consuming more calories on a more consistent basis than they were a century ago making for more steady growth, so many girls are reaching that critical weight and body fat percentage at an earlier age than they were 100 years ago.
Now, I can't maintain that the addition of hormones to meat, etc...is not a factor, but it's certainly not the only factor or even the largest one especially given that hormones are stored in the fat of the meat which is largely removed from meat now and livestock producers are also required to stop giving any hormones at least 2 weeks prior to slaughter which means that a lot of them have already left the system. Most slaughtered meat contains no more (or only slightly more) hormones than would have been present in the meat had the animal not been given any hormones at all by the time they are slaughtered.

[pltrygeist]

we are the only animal species stupid enough to ignore nature, and use food for other than the only one thing which it was designed - to nourish our bodies.

Actually, if other animals were given opportunity to feed continuously they would. As they generally do not, and feeding tends to be cyclical (i.e., they take what mother nature gives them), bodyweight changes are likewise cyclical. So we can't really compare animals which tend to have little or no concept of food preparation and storage and mankind who cultivates, harvests and prepares for the long haul.

As to people overfeeding, this is called having a high survival value. Remember this term, "high survival value" because it applies to positive biological traits.

Someone else said this recently which makes good sense (it's paraphrased to the best of my knowledge):

"Our forefathers and mothers in the stone ages were survivors of plagues, droughts and famines. Those who either didn't eat or didn't have sufficient stored calories did not survive. Therefore they are really not our ancestors. Our ancestors were fat and therefore had enough corpulence to survive through hard times."

This is exactly the case. Fat people lived through hard times better than skinny people. So most of us likely carry the downstream genetic tendency to store excess body weight. Of course, you can store excess bodyweight if you don't eat, so the obese people are simply fulfilling their genetic inclination. I too carry this genetic tendency and have to work feverishly hard to keep my body fat levels at near 10%. So I can attest to how difficult it is to do so. However, obesity is not solely a matter of opportunity as we all have the responsibility to be as healthy as we can.

it is one of the indicators that explain why i am aging more slowly than what is AVERAGE.

Actually, this is an indicator of anabolism tendency. Anabolism is based not on thyroid function but on fatty acid oxidation indices (particularly low) therefore there is less chance of glycation and free radical formation. Anabolism tendency and imbalances have their own health related issues in time. That's another matter though.

as long as one has energy, one is better off with low thyroid. in fact, i would say low hormone levels, all together.

Energy levels are not an indicator of general health. However, quality of life index can be a useful tool. People with decreasing hormone levels have been shown to exhibit lower scores on quality of life index scale tests which have been remedied through nutrition and/or other means of normalizing hormone levels. However, if you have naturally low normal hormone levels and can sustain this as you age, then for you, you are doing well. However, low hormone levels is not at all correlated with increased longevity or high scores on quality of life index scale tests.

[hairpin]

Woah! This thread maybe should be moved to the Lounge section, seeing as how this thread has completely gone off topic.

[Lisa N]

Actually, if other animals were given opportunity to feed continuously they would.

Quite true. Since wild animals are used to food being scarce, many tend to eat as much as they can hold when food becomes available because instinct tells them that food may not be available again for a while and it's best to get as much as you can while you can. When food is readily available, they often don't have enough sense to eat only as much as they need and no more. I had a cat for about 9 years and left dry food out all day since I was told (by the vet, no less) that cats will generally not overeat. Either I had a defective cat or that is not true since he ate so much he grew to a 25 pounder before I started rationing his food. If he wasn't sleeping, he was eating! He was also a street cat before he came to live with me, so most likely had "learned" the lesson that food is often scarce and never unlearned it for as long as he lived with us even though food was never scarce then. I've seen the same behavior with the two dogs that we had while I was growing up.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i was never really pushing the christian aspect of it. i gave you 2 other american quotes that said basically the same thing. the do unto others.... is a widespread idea over most of human cultures.

if you recall, i was mainly arguing from the basis of us being the most powerful animal, and then if we weren't the most powerful anymore, and someone was harvesting us for food.

[rhaazz]

You now, what's interesting about your recent posts, gymeejet, is that on the one hand they seem so obvious ("power to harm is not the right to harm") and yet on the other, most people really don't understand this simple idea.

I'm thinking of some of gotbeer's recent posts. He REALLY thinks that because we have the power to harm animals we have the right to harm them.

Because we have succeeded in breeding varieties of domesticated animals that are usually too docile to resist us effectively, we have their CONSENT to subject them to whatever horrors we fancy.

I mean, think about it. Imagine we were to breed a particularly docile strain of human beings (selectively breeding over many generations those prone to conflict avoidance at all costs and those with very low IQs), and then we subjected that dumb & docile group of human beings to various horrors (slavery, prostitution, torture, slauthering them and eating their flesh, whatever),

and then we justified our actions by saying "Look at how docile they are! They CONSENT to our slaughtering them for food, raping them, keeping them in foul cramped conditions, etc. because they fail to effectively resist! They are willing to put up with this because they are relatively helpless on their own and they are GRATEFUL to us for taking care of them!

"I mean, look at the poor dumb bastards! They'd be utterly HELPLESS on their own! We're doing them a favor by keeping them enslaved! They're not fit to be free!"

And it would be true. The slave race of human beings would be no more fit to be free than farm animals. But whose fault is that?

[gymeejet]

hi raz,
well as far as i know, we do not yet speak moo-ese. LOL. that was one of the absolute silliest rationalizations i have heard, and it was so weak that i felt no need to make it look any sillier. LOL. all animals cling to their lives. self-survival is our first thought. we humans cling to our freedom ferociously. so do other animals. some are just too weak to do anything about it.

i do not believe that God put other animals on this earth as food fodder for us. it disheartens me to know that other animals eat each other. it disheartens me more to know that we do it, because we know better, and we do not need to for survival. it might dishearten me most of all to know that the human animal kills it like kind probably more than any other animal species.

all this is part of the imperfect world in which we live. God gives us free will to do as we choose here on earth. we pay a very dear price for it.

take care.

[rhaazz]

Yes, gymmeejet, it is an imperfect world. I can't bear to think about this topic anymore --- at least not for a while.

[mrfreddy]

i haven't had time to read this entire thread, so I am wondering if anyone has yet pointed out to our vegetarian friends that these animals they are so concerned about killing would in fact NOT EXIST at all if it were not for our desire to eat them! Virtually no chickens running around on the farm, far fewer cows grazing in the pastures, etc. etc.

So what is more cruel, killing them for food, or denying them their very, albeit, short and miserable, existance in the first place?

[gotbeer]

I have, and rhaazz hates me for that, too.

[Lisa N]

i was never really pushing the christian aspect of it. i gave you 2 other american quotes that said basically the same thing.

Ummm...and who do you think they were quoting?


well as far as i know, we do not yet speak moo-ese.

Nobody I know does. As a matter of fact, we don't even know whether or not these animals are capable of communcation above anything but the most rudimentary level, if at all. I'd also like to point out that since we can't communicate with animals a lot of assumptions are being made on both sides of the issue. A lot of projecting of human characteristics and desires is being done with the assumption that animals care about the quality and length of their existence with the assumption being that we do, so they must as well. Since animals have basically no concept of time/age (at least that anyone has been able to determine) and quality is a subjective term against which one has to have something to compare, how can this be?


if you recall, i was mainly arguing from the basis of us being the most powerful animal

If you really believe that we are the baddest animal on the planet, I'd like to challenge you to walk into the middle of a pride of hungry lions or face a grizzly bear unarmed. After all, if those animals are all that intelligent, they'll see that you aren't a threat since you aren't armed and much less powerful than they are and not harm you. Come to think of it...in their intelligence, they also have a choice in the matter since other food sources are available..they can either eat you or go find something else to eat. :lol:

it disheartens me to know that other animals eat each other.

Why? Would you have the entire animal kingdom become vegetarian even when they are not designed to be so just because the thought of death distresses you?
Living things die as much as we would wish it to be otherwise. This is a fact of life in the world that we live in, imperfect as it is; one animal dies so that another may live a bit longer. Another animal dies because it was not successful at avoiding disease or injury or could not find enough food to eat or water to drink. They will either die from old age and disease or from predation, starvation or injury. Humans are no different in that respect. As much as the idea of our own mortality distresses us, it is a fact that we will all someday die despite our best efforts to prolong our lives.
It is because of this that life is precious to us; we know that it is limited and will someday end as we know it now and none of us knows how many days we will be allowed to walk this earth before our lives come to an end. We have the ability to contemplate our mortality and anticipate the grief of loss, both to ourselves and those that we will leave behind.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
if you want to think that lions, tigers, or bears are the most powerful animal on the planet, i won't try to convince you otherwise. let me know when you arrive back in kansas.

i think that animals care about their life and living, because they run like a bat out of heck, when some bigger animal wants to eat them. i would say that might be a small hint.

the fact that things occur, does not make them any less disheartening.

i have first hand experience that animals can think and dream, from my baby felines. it is not much of a stretch to think that they may tend to react like us in many other regards. i still recall how smart elephants became when we discovered that they communicated with one another. do you think it might have been us who got smarter ? nah, i doubt it. we already know everything. after all, we can read the cow's mind, and know that it likes being harvested for food, so that it does not have to lead a real life.

[mrfreddy]

after all, we can read the cow's mind, and know that it likes being harvested for food, so that it does not have to lead a real life.

just a reminder, that cow and his/her mind would not even exist if it were not for me and my fellow beef eaters all around the planet...

back to the alien scenario, just for fun. Imagine the evil aliens show up, and give the human race two choices: 1) Everyone dies, the human race ceases to exist, or 2) Humans are allowed to live, but at a certain point in your life, you become alien food.

What choice would you make?

[gymeejet]

hi mrfreddy,
cows would exist, just as other animals exist.

in your hypothetical case, i would choose to die immediately. but because, there are no absolutes with regards to future events, i would choose life, because i would feel that there was always some chance for life, no matter how small.

however, you guys are asking the wrong question. here is the correct question.

would you choose 100% chance of life, but it ended with you being eaten, or would you choose a 1% chance of life, but one where you had free will. i would choose 1%, for life without free will is no life at all.

[mrfreddy]

[QUOTE=gymeejet]hi mrfreddy,
cows would exist, just as other animals exist.

QUOTE]

I think you're wrong about that. Think about it, most cows live as they do because ONLY because we humans want them for food and for leather products. If we had evolved as a vegetarian species and without a need for leather, there would never have been any need for cows, hence no cows!

I dont know the history of how cows came to be, but I do know that they could not exist in the wild on their own, as they depend on us for food and water. Maybe some pre-historic version of the cow would still exist in small numbers, but that would be it.

Same story for the chickens.

[mrfreddy]

however, you guys are asking the wrong question. here is the correct question.

would you choose 100% chance of life, but it ended with you being eaten, or would you choose a 1% chance of life, but one where you had free will. i would choose 1%, for life without free will is no life at all.


I'm sorry, your question is interesting, but it is the wrong question, becuase it is irrelevant as a metaphor for the plight of cows and chickens in our modern world.

If we suddenly decided to stop eating cows and wearing nice leather shoes and belts, etc., then there would be no econmic incentive for raising cows, so eventually, probably chaotically, cow populations would dwindle to near zero.

If you don't exist, you have 0 percent chance at free will.

[gymeejet]

cows would exist just like other animals do. go to india - you might see cows treated differently.

cows just would not be raised for food. so the population would be less (i chose 1%), but they would still exist, just like the many other animals that humans do not raise for food.

[gymeejet]

if we had never raised cows for meat, they would never be so docile. you are 100% correct. which means they would have been just like other animals born in the wild - they would have a fighting chance to survive. so we would never have created the frankenstein to begin with, which means if i had been destined to be a cow, i would have free will, and still have the genetics to live in the wild. i am glad you were able to see the error in your logic.

[gotbeer]

August 28, 2003, Thursday

THE ARTS/CULTURAL DESK

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Evolution on the Meat-Sex Exchange

By MEREDITH F. SMALL

SEX, TIME AND POWER
How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution

By Leonard Shlain
Illustrated. 420 pages. Viking. $25.95.

link to article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E4DD1139F93BA1575BC0A9659C8B63)


Humans and apes separated about six million years ago, and ever since then humans have been careering down an evolutionary path all their own. Lucky for us, bits of bones dropped along the way became fossilized, and these remains tell much about the physical evolution of the creatures that eventually became modern humans.

Harder to follow is the path of our behavior. No one really knows what early humans acted like, who they interacted with or what kind of social groups they preferred, and so the lifestyle of our ancient ancestors is only a guess. This part of our history is so up for grabs that there is lots of room for speculation by polymaths curious enough to read the mountain of anthropological literature and piece together a credible story of human behavioral evolution.

And why not? Anthropology has a long tradition of letting others look at the data. Authors like Robert Ardrey, Elaine Morgan, Carl Sagan and Jared Diamond, among many others, have all attempted to figure out where we came from and how we did it. Because no one could possibly be right -- we have no film from the Pleistocene and no written records of our ancient past to confirm or refute anything anyone says -- each account has merit and is worthy of discussion.

Leonard Shlain, a surgeon, is the latest to jump in with ''Sex, Time and Power,'' in which he makes a case for concentrating on women and their need for the mineral iron as the key to understanding our past. Women need high stores of iron, Dr. Shlain says, because they menstruate every month, become pregnant and nurse. In our evolutionary past the best way to restore depleted iron was to eat meat. But women were probably not hunters, and so they must have manipulated men with sexual favors to bringing home a blood-soaked dinner. This manipulative move, Dr. Shlain suggests, then set into motion just about every aspect of human behavior.

The reproductive biology of women supposedly supports his account: Menstruation, with a blood loss excessive compared with that of other mammals, makes women crave meat. Women have also lost the usual advertisement of fertility -- heat -- and are always open to sex. Men, who have high levels of testosterone, which increases their sex drive, are then lured into hunting and sharing meat by the promise of continuous sex from these menstruating, sexy women. The trade is meat for sex and everyone wins as genes are passed down by the iron-rich women who produce healthy, intelligent babies.

The female lust for meat, Dr. Shlain suggests, is responsible for the evolution of much of human behavior, including intimate relations between men and women, foresight and puzzle solving, complex social interactions, different psychological moods between men and women, and any number of human traits that we now see in the best and worst of us.

Dr. Shlain's account is supported by endless references to every human biological and behavioral feature that has ever been written about; he certainly has an exhaustive reading list. But everything he suggests, except for the specific detail of a need for iron, has been said before, which gives his account an old-fashioned feel. Meat for sex? We've been hearing about this since the 1960's. Men like sex and woman just want to make babies? Hasn't this been a party line since the 1950's? Even Dr. Shlain's enthusiasm for women as the prime movers of humanity (but thanks for thinking of us) comes off as dated given that female anthropologists like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Helen Fisher, Alison Jolly and many others have been writing about this for years.

Dr. Shlain should know that the feminist revolution reached into anthropology more than 30 years ago and no one now doubts that women were big-time players in evolution. To suggest that women should have their own genus name, Gyno sapiens, seems not only dated, but a bit silly.

There are also some telling mistakes that undermine his thesis. For example, the human brain did not suddenly expand 150,000 years ago with the appearance of modern humans, but about 1.5 million years ago, when brain size doubled for the first time and then continued to do so. The idea that menstruating women figured out the monthly calendar is also off because women without birth control who are pregnant or lactating rarely have periods, and in any case, many cultures do not follow a monthly calendar. Dr. Shlain also seems to believe that there is a purposeful trajectory of human evolution that landed us here as masters of the universe. Evolution is a much more zigzagging, messy process, and our history, like that of all animals, is fraught with mistakes and dead ends. Thinking that human evolution was guided along by women toward some clean and neat end is just wrong.

Dr. Shlain also pushes too far when he waxes lyrical from iron to the development of language, homosexuality, death, laughter, art, incest, fatherhood and patriarchy. Yes, human behavior is complex, but is it really necessary to speculate on every single human behavior and assume they all make evolutionary sense? In the end, the message about iron, which is an interesting tidbit, is lost in Dr. Shlain's need to impress the reader with his wide-reaching intellect.


Meredith F. Small is a writer and professor of anthropology at Cornell University.

[gotbeer]

Interesting article - despite all their silly squabbling, it turns out that almost all "vegetarians" are really meat-eaters after all. Also, the Iron problem gets some comments as well.

The Lean Plate Club: Vegging Out

By Sally Squires
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page HE03

link to article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44870-2003Sep8.html)

What exactly is it that vegetarians eat?

That's a question asked by researchers in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which has devoted much of this month's issue to the study of those who eat no meat, poultry or fish.

Or, at least profess that they do.

It turns out that a number of people who report being vegetarians actually consume meat, poultry and fish regularly. They just eat these foods less often than the rest of the nation's omnivores.

In a study of daily food records from more than 13,000 Americans collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Loma Linda University researchers discovered that fewer than 1 percent of those surveyed (including self-described vegetarians) reported eating no animal flesh when quizzed in detail about their eating habits.

"Different people define being a vegetarian in different ways," says lead author Ella Hasso-Haddad, an associate professor of nutrition at Loma Linda.

It's commonly understood that vegetarians don't eat meat, poultry or fish. Lacto-ovo vegetarians eat some dairy products and eggs. Vegans, on the other hand, eschew all animal products, whether from land or sea, including dairy products, plus clothing made from wool, silk and leather. "There aren't many of those in the United States," says Hasso-Haddad.

The study found that people who consider themselves vegetarian -- no matter how strictly they actually avoid animal products -- appear to eat more healthfully than their omnivorous counterparts. For example, self-described vegetarians followed diets lower in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol They also consumed more fiber and fruit than the meat-eaters. Strict vegetarians -- that group of less than 1 percent -- consumed more grains, legumes, vegetables, fruit and wine than other self-described vegetarians.

Here's what researchers conclude in their round-up of vegetarian fare:

It's smart to spice it up. Embracing cuisine rich in spices may help enhance a meatless diet, notes J.W. Lampe of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Spices appear to help boost the immune system, reduce inflammation and fight infection, Lampe says.

Seafood is not the only source of healthy fat. Without seafood, some vegetarian diets -- especially vegan regimens -- may fall short of healthful omega-3 fatty acids, reports Pennsylvania State University's Penny Kris-Etherton. Some good plant-based choices to optimize omega-3 intake: flaxseed, canola oil, wild rice and various beans, especially mungo beans -- a black lentil-like bean popular in Indian cooking.

Plant-based foods are good for the heart and the brain. Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health reports that a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, nuts and whole grains is associated with a significantly lower risk of coronary artery disease and stroke. These foods probably protect by providing healthful fats, vitamins and minerals, various phytochemicals, fiber and plant protein, Hu says. Healthful vegetarian diets are "not necessarily low in fat," he notes, but should use unsaturated liquid vegetable oil and nuts as the primary source of fat. Whole grains and an "abundance of fruit and vegetables" are best as the main form of carbohydrates, he concludes.

It may be wise to check your hemoglobin levels. Meat is the main dietary source of iron and zinc, two essential minerals. No surprise, then, that studies show vegetarians may have lower levels of these minerals. Whether that translates to a health risk -- or a benefit -- in the well-nourished United States is being determined. Proof for the benefit of iron supplements is also not proven, notes J.R. Hunt of the USDA's Grand Forks Human Research Center in North Dakota, who suggests it may be prudent to test hemoglobin levels occasionally in vegetarian children and women of childbearing age.

-- Sally Squires

[mrfreddy]

if we had never raised cows for meat, they would never be so docile. you are 100% correct. which means they would have been just like other animals born in the wild - they would have a fighting chance to survive. so we would never have created the frankenstein to begin with, which means if i had been destined to be a cow, i would have free will, and still have the genetics to live in the wild. i am glad you were able to see the error in your logic.

dont know why you are going on so much about free will, but even our cows today have free will, such as it is for their intellect... they choose where to chew grass in whatever field they are in, where to lie down, when to moo, when to not moo.... Ok, ok, ok, so they don't get to choose not to go to the slaughterhouse, but up to that point, they are free-willing all over the place...

as for my logic, my original point was that you are worried about the ethics of killing animals that would not even exist if it were not for our intent to kill and consume them. To my thinking, the gapping flaw in logic is yours, not mine...

In your version of a human utopia, humans would never have eaten meat, cows would have remained whatever they were, and would possibly be extinct or would exist in small numbers. Perhaps that would be a better world, who am I to say?

[mrfreddy]

cows would exist just like other animals do. go to india - you might see cows treated differently.

cows just would not be raised for food. so the population would be less (i chose 1%), but they would still exist, just like the many other animals that humans do not raise for food.


that's an interesting point, how do cows survive in Inda? Do the Indian people feed them? Do they manage on their own, without human assistance? Do Indians take care of sick and injured cows? I haven't got a clue...

do you mean 1% of their current population? that's probably about right, although I would guess even fewer.

[mrfreddy]

cows would exist just like other animals do. go to india - you might see cows treated differently.

cows just would not be raised for food. so the population would be less (i chose 1%), but they would still exist, just like the many other animals that humans do not raise for food.

actually, if this is true, it sounds like they get a better deal outside of India:

Holy Cow!
Maseeh Rahman from New Delhi reports that the international animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has exposed horrendous cruelty to Indian cows as they are transported, illegally, to slaughterhouses. Many arrive dead or badly injured after long and torturous journeys in trains and trucks or on foot. "It is Dante's Inferno for cows and bullocks," says PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. India's livestock population, estimated at more than 500 million, is the world's largest, with 26 acknowledged breeds of cattle and six breeds of buffalos. The unproductive animals are sent to slaughterhouses. Although, there are 2,682 recognized slaughterhouses throughout Bharat (the Indian Union), cow slaughter is permitted in just two States, the communist-ruled states of West Bengal in the east and Kerala in the south. Corrupt officials look the other way and allow illegal packing of the cows into rail cars or trucks headed for West Bengal and Kerala. The animals frequently gore one another or break their pelvises when forced to jump from the trucks. Some suffocate inside boxcars. Thousands of others are surreptitiously herded overland without food or water. If they collapse from exhaustion, herders break their tails or throw chili pepper and tobacco in their eyes to make them walk again.

[gymeejet]

hi freddy,
thanks for the info. i guess you will always find people who will look the other way, when their pockets are filled. sorta reminds me of how i feel about studies.

[gymeejet]

freddy,

it does appear that the cow is no longer treated with the same respect by the current indian population, as in the past generations.

http://www.judypat.com/india/cow.htm


but some are still trying.

http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandoraV15/output/606DD38A-CF8E-4CCC-B8E9-509FC8337C1D.asp

[shortstuff]

MrFreddy - please don't buy into ANYTHING that PETA says. A spokesperson for Peta once stated, during a national broadcast, "in a perfect world there would be no cats or dogs." (Heard this with my own two ears.) Now, tell me, how ethical is that? I know this is not a thread about PETA, but please don't buy into their bs.

BTW, I find the rest of the thread somewhat amusing. (The originator of this thread is from Seattle, WA which is an ecologically sustainable city.) As a "greenie" I have also read all of the information about how much water, grain, electricity, etc. it takes to produce 1 pound of beef. I don't have to buy into THAT either. (A simple cup of coffee is much more wasteful of natural resources than a pound of beef.) People can skue "facts" any direction they wish to and them present them as truth.

Stand back and pass me the rare prime rib!

Shortstuff

[Lisa N]

Food for thought....

http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/ethicsmeat.html

[Frederick]

Hm, reading this thread, I've come to a realization. Even if eating meat (any kind of animal really) is philosophically and morally repugnant, ruins the environment, bad for my health, or whatever other doomsday scenario resulting from meat eating, I'd still eat it.

Why?

Because for me, animal flesh tastes better to my palate than anything else. I can never understand the rational of, "how can you justify the slaughtering of an animal for mere palate preference?" Ah, I'm equally perplexed and ask in return, "how can what I eat NOT be guided by my palate preferences?"

So, I'll go on eating meat, chocolates, sugary cakes, and other foods which one clique or another will swear it's bad for my health. Is it only me whose barbaric enough to feel that my liking for meat supercedes any empathy or sympathy I might have for animal life? I'm not into hunting or causing cruetly to any living thing (except for mosquitoes and cockroaches whom I'll kill gleefully on site) but when I'm hungry, send that cow to the slaughtering house for my juicy rare Porterhouse cut--some plant foods, protein powder, or whatever else stuff from the dirt aint gonna cut it.

To me, that is reason enough. I eat animal flesh because I like the taste. Do I care for their suffering and pain? Sure, a little; but, not enough to sacrifice my "palate preference."

No doubt, one day we'll live in a Utopian type society where humans have ascended to a higher level of being--that total enlightenment thing. Then, surely, my views will be as outdated as some archaic antideluvian rags; but, for now, thankfully it's still ok to eat meat just cuz we like the taste of it.

Personally, I'm relieved that I'll not be around for that Utopian world of higher consciousness.

Frederick

[jedswife]

dear got beer:

you are too cool!!!!

sorry but the vegans logic is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. i think the vegan brains are having trouble due to low iron and low protein.

sorry guys but after looking up the word "sentient" (just to be sure, before i am attacked) i do not think the animals in question are sentient. if they are, who says they are sentient and how do they know? did the cows tell them? just how can a cow have perceptions and what does it perceive?

having instincts (flight or fight) does not necessarily constitute perception. just because an animal instintively runs in order to survive does not mean that it perceives he is about to eaten and should head for the hills. thus in my opinion these are not sentient beings. does a cow know that it is going die? i think not. there is a big difference between instincts/survival and having a conscious knowledge that your life will end. having that knowledge from early on - that we will eventually die - is something that only HUMANS have achieved or evolved to- and that is exactly what separates us from all other animals - PERCEPTION.

a cow is not born knowing nor does it learn at a later date that it is doing to die. Come on! it has no concept of living or dying - no sense of time - a cow does not worry about what it will eat tomorrow. the cow doesnt care about tomorrow or yesterday because it has no reason to nor does it have even have the intelligence to begin to understand any of these things. it is a cow.

if you think about it - are there really any sentient beings on this planet other than HUMANS? If so what are they? do they know they are going to die? It is living with that knowledge from early on that makes people - people. For instance it is believed that monkeys can communicate - ok - but does that make them sentient - not in my opinion - because they have no idea of their own mortality. Consciously knowing that you were born and that no matter what you do you will eventually die forces us to perceive life in a way that no other animal can - no other animal on this planet has the same ability. therefore all assumptions about what an animal feels etc. (whether or not it feels pain) is nothing more than pure guess work. how do we know that an animal feels pain - does it feel pain the same way we do - who says? did the monkey say his pain feels just like ours. simply because they have pain responses or responses we assume are interpreted as pain does not mean it hurts the same. after all pain is simply an electric signal sent to the brain as a warning - "Stop That" if you interrupt the signal is there any pain? - NO.

Vegans Please Note: This is only a forum and in no way should you take any of my "purely in fun" comments personally (lighten up already). I would however, like to invite you to my home state of "Texas" for the best beef barbecue in the world.

[jesslive]

Lisa N- That was a great article. The writer pretty much articulated exactly how I feel about this discussion.

I also wanted to add a link to article posted months ago in another forum. This article presented some interesting ideas that made me think.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=123138


-Jess

[steveed]

...Welcome to real life where things eat other things.

The biggest problems I have with vegetarian moralists is their denial of death. Hello out there! All of us have a death sentence, tomorrow I will eat a cow and the very next day the earth/God/whatever shall eat me. If we stop eating other things, where will all those animals go? Will we open up a game reserve for cattle and chickens? Maybe we can hire the Vegans to house and feed them!

Either open both your eyes and accept this fact or join a religious/ascetic order.

In the mean time evolution says: 1) you have opposable thumbs for grabbing and holding on to your prey. 2) You have the tooth structure of an omnivore...I recognize this and eat accordingly.

I do not deny that animals can feel fear and pain, just ask an elephant on it's way from an elephant graveyard. If I could hunt my own prey and had the time and wherewithal I would do so, but it wouldn't work in this society so I have to depend on getting my meat from mostly unknown sources, I have to take what I get at the local market at face value. I live in denial of how the animal was made dead for my plate. But I mostly have no choice in this decision other than to buy grass fed beef or wild game when I can get a hold of it!

The fact remains, we are made to eat omnivorously and abusing ourselves will not buy us a place in heaven nor buy immortality for any of earths creatures including us.

Steve

[gymeejet]

well at least frederick does not rationalize. like i have said many times, meat-eaters eat meat mainly because they like the taste. and then most make all sorts of silly rationalizations.

it is not our right to take the life of another. there is no argument against this.

i would truly like to see the scenario that i have mentioned before. that is that some more powerful entity chose to eat those humans who engage in the process of eating meat, giving them the same silly rationalizations that today's meat-eaters give. they would begin to believe very differently. like the old saying goes about there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole. sometimes we just need to be forced into a situation before we are able to become enlightened enough to make the correct choices.

meat is not necessary for life. i have not eaten for over 25 years, and am tremendously healthy.

[Kestrel]

There is the right to take a life; its called a food chain. Its part of nature and the world. Like other carnivores - or omnivores, man exists usually at the top of the chain. Unless, of course, he meets another, more capable apex predator under the wrong conditions. So man sometimes becomes dinner. Seems pretty natural to me.

[Kestrel]

Got interrupted trying to finish the previous post:

As to food chain, I think thats where someone penned the phrase: sometimes you get the bear, sometimes it gets you...

Anyway, as long as people are free to eat the way they wish, without demanding adherance by others, then choose your poison.

[guitarguy]

Whenever we eat, something has to die.

I live in a very rural part of the country, Middleofnowhere, VT. My wife and I have always tried to be as self sufficient as possible. We raise a huge garden, 50 chickens, (one per week, sorta) and two pigs per year. This year we are raising 10 turkeys as well. A friend raises beef for us. Our feeling is that if we are going to eat meat, we want to know where it comes from. I feel that eating meat is necessary for our health, so I try to eat the best meat I can. I also wanted my children to know that meat doesn't just come from the grocery store. We do butcher our own meat, and why is that yucky? We live in a culture wher people our happy to eat what they eat, but don't really want to know where it comes from. Just look at the way meat is packaged. No blood is visible, because consumers don't want that. Special sponges are placed in each package so that we have no evidence that it was once a living thing. My thought is that if you are going to eat meat, know where it came from. Humans started as hunter-gatherers. We didn't eat meat all the time, but when an animal was killed it's all the tribe ate for as long as it lasted. Then they "grazed" until the next kill came along. This is the way we have survived for most of the time humans have been on earth. In the grand scheme of things, we haven't been eating processed foods and sugars for very much of the time we have been on earth. The human body, in my opinion, has not evolved far enough to eat all this junk, in my opinion. Our bodies are designed to eat pure meat, veggies, and animal fat. I'm sorry, but humans are the ones designated to be on the top of the food chain, and the other animals and plants are here, so we eat them. There is no other reason for all these creatures to be here. We do what we do. If nobody ate animals, where would we be? Overun! Just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

[komireds]

Ok, I know this post has been lying dormant for a while, but I've been reading it over after the fact and I feel compelled to comment.

I can't help but wonder why there is so much hostility between the meat eating and vegetarian camps. I know it's an intense topic for some, but why the insults? As a former vegetarian who switched to meat for health reasons, I look forward to open, intelligent debate about the moral and ethical implications of meat eating. Instead, certain meat eaters call vegetatians "fruit cakes" and claim that their children should be taken away! And the veggies get so bent out of shape that they seem to be closing their minds to any meat eating :roll: :roll: arguments. It makes me think that both camps are puposfully trying to be obtuse.

And once someone posts a website that justifies meat eating through biblical passages, I am just so done! C'mon folks! Give me something better than that!

[gotbeer]

Thanks for the chance to renew this thread, komireds.

I myself despair of "intelligent" debate regarding morals and ethics, because I think that morals and ethics are ultimately based on emotions rather than intellect, despite all efforts to show the contrary. Hence, all debate on ethics becomes emotional because it has to: there is no real objective reason at the core of ethics, just disgust at "evil" things and delight at "good" things. It is thus no wonder that people flail about wishing for some other more respectable foundation for their ethics, grasping at ideas from nature, or religious scripture, or science, or notions of divine authority, or culture, or whatever. Innate or inculcated human disgust/delight is a much better explanation of the origin of ethical precepts than any of those.

How does the name calling start? Quite naturally and normally: rhazz claimed repeatedly that her vegginess was about avoiding cruelty, period - meaning that she was calling meat-eating and meat-eaters cruel and immoral, both literally and by implication. I noted that her stance on intestinal length, etc., mimicked word-for-word that of a particular religious group that she (not I) called a "fruity cult", making me a name-caller by her proxy. Others may have noted that meat is essential - not optional, ESSENTIAL - for brain development, and that some versions of vegetarianism have been linked to childhood disease, starvation, and death - hence, the dual implications 1) that vegetarians are mentally off, and 2) that their children would be better off elsewhere. The legitimate issues of this debate - cruelty, religious rationalizations, mental development, childhood nutrition, etc, are so incendiary that any mention of them in an open forum, on an emotional issue, MUST lead to name-calling because they ARE name-calling.

Both camps do seem to be obtuse, but that is because they are both wrestling with a horrible conundrum: to justify logically their own emotionally-driven eating behavior. (It's called "being human".) Just as religion is the human attempt to abide with the painful awareness that one day we will die, so is this eat-ligion debate a human attempt to abide with the knowledge that what we must eat causes harm to other living things (plant or animal) that we hold in awe and respect.

In the context of this anguish, the anger and name-calling are not surprising - only the lack of them would be.

The only real question is this: does the veal taste better than the guilt feels? Depends on one's tastes and feelings, I guess.

[Nibby]

I was cruising through the threads and found this intresting one and wanted to comment.....

I grew up on a farm and we raised chickens for the eggs, a few cows a year for our beef and lots of pigs which we sold and slaughtered. Honestly we had the slaughtering done for us because we didn't have the facilities for it. I was quit young at the time and there came a point where I realized where our meat was coming from.
Everyone around us also hunted deer and I was always ready to jump on my soapbox and preach how bad hunting deer was but as I got older the reality of natural predators killing deer for food was no more. Maybe a handful at the most left to cull the herds. Hunting is a necessity to keep the deer population from starving in the harsh winters. I don't know ANYONE stupid enough to run into a deer with thier car or truck so they can get free meat! Someone had used that as an example and that would be silly. I don't doubt someone has put thier life and limb in danger plus the cost of trashing thier truck or car to smash a deer but if someone is that stupid to kill themselves doing that well........it bolsters up the gene pool right?:-)
Right now in our area we have CWD (cronic wasting disease) in the deer population and they are encouraging hunting to keep the CWD from speading.
I'm against any fur trapping and think its sickening and also wearing fur, raising an animal for someones vanity.
In a cow for example its all utilized, leather, meat, bones, hooves, ears etc etc and there really isn't much waste. I have a problem with some of the butching practices..........wow I'm just torn on some points of the animal issue.
Honestly I enjoy eating meat, my cholesterol etc has actually gone way down since LCing and as for the constipation issue some people have ,EAT YOUR VEGGIES! There are lots of veggies so high in fiber they have little effect on your carb count and *ahem* keep the plumbing moving.
Spinich is a prime example!
I don't care if someone is a vegan etc BUT I have a problem with a child being restricted of meat eating against thier wishes even if the parents don't eat meat. I also have a problem with people not allowing thier pets or companion animals to not eat food with meat products in it.
I think you can be pro animal and still eat meat. If you are against animal experimentation, fur trapping and fur farms, animal exploitation,
volunteer at the ASPCA and treat your pets like your kids but you still eat meat daily and your husband and son hunt deer are you "bad" and anti-animal?
In the same token the person that doesn't eat meat, are they "freaky" and "weird" because they choose not to eat it?
I don't have enough time in my life to worry about if other people do or don't but its an intresting topic. Eat your veggies, drink lots of water and and for the rest fill in the blanks with the foods you like.
Nuff of my prattling on here......
Nibby