or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion - Page 6

post #101 of 248
Having spent 20 odd years as a vocal obnoxious veg*n, I tend to keep quiet about the nutritional side of things these days. Unless I get asked that is.

I can see the difference in my child who was brought up vege & my trad foods babies. It makes me very leery of getting too vocal as I was so sure I was right all those years.

I am still quite a rabid animal rights advocate so I do still get in ppl's faces about things like battery chickens & sow crate pigs. We don't have feed lot cows & sheep here. But living out in the boonies, I can attest to the fact that even if an animal is "free range" & "grass fed", even "organic", it can still be neglected.
post #102 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanMomma View Post
I can see the difference in my child who was brought up vege & my trad foods babies. It makes me very leery of getting too vocal as I was so sure I was right all those years.
Would you mind sharing the differences? I'm searching for answers for my own toddler right now and I'd love to hear what you know.
post #103 of 248
I don't really know how we can find common ground, but I so want to do it. I don't think I can participate in this thread anymore because I am feeling like I am being seen as an attacker, while that is not how I feel about myself. I also don't feel I can understand how a person can justify taking a life when it is not necessary. As to whether or not it is necessary to some people's health, I grant that is a possibility and I have sympathy and empathy for those who are put in that position while also loving animals. You are now exempt from my militant judgement

Okay, and I also realize that while I say I am not trying to be judgemental, my having decided that meat is murder is in itself a judgement, so I am a hypocrite. Anyway, I don't really have bad feelings about any of the people here I've discussed things with. Really my feelings are mostly centred around the animals on this one.

Thank you all for the discussion and the food for thought. Agree to disagree, I guess. I'm going to post this on the other thread too.
post #104 of 248
I thought from the start that this was a pretty funny thread actually. This is one of the forums I read quite a lot but I see very little controversy.

Well, I don't read the NT and Veg forums, and stick to the main Nutrition and Good eating and Meal Planning forums, could that be why?

I also don't read most "how bad is milk" threads that regularly come up...

I guess selective reading has drama-proofed me!
post #105 of 248
Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.
post #106 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto View Post
Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.
Fair enough, but if the offer were to kill the bunny quickly and eat it with the green beans that would be my choice. So I guess it would depend what time it was.
post #107 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Fair enough, but if the offer were to kill the bunny quickly and eat it with the green beans that would be my choice. So I guess it would depend what time it was.
Ok, so I never considered THAT option.
post #108 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto View Post
Hmm.. haven't weighed in until now.

I just don't see the analogy of the rats in the fire vs human children as a good one.

Better, I think, is this one -

A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?

DH is a prof who delves into ethics now and then. He asked his students this dilemma (probably explained better than I have) and NONE of them would eat their regular, omni meal. They see it as a no-brainer. Who wouldn't eat beans and save the rabbit?

This, I guess, is more how I think of it.
That seems to be a false choice. Is it the rabbit that's for the omni dinner? If not, of course everyone would pick beans and rice no need to make an animal suffer needlessly. Seems more like a PETA tactic meant to evoke emotion rather than actually thinking about things from an ethical or philosophical viewpoint.

If yes, I'd prefer a quicker method of killing but frankly I make the choice to smash the rabbit to smithereens every night. I'd prefer it was a rabbit rather than a bunny as there's more meat on a fully grown rabbit. Although my freezer is full of free range organic meats grown just up the road that were killed a little more humanely. As my husband says cute animals are tasty.

I do think there are lots of people who eat meat who don't think about where it comes from. I have a pet peeve about people who only eat boneless skinless chicken breasts. Where is your connection to the animal you're eating, where are you even acknowledging you're eating an animal by only eating that? But that's another rant. It does seem on this board that there are a lot of mommas and papas who do know exactly where their meat has come from, maybe even met it and who would chose the rabbit every time.
post #109 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto View Post
A happy little bunny running through your yard. Someone grabs the bunny, holds it up with a sledge hammer, ready to smash bunny to smithereens. First, though, they give you this choice - all you have to do is eat beans and rice for dinner that night (instead of your usual, omni meal), and the rabbit will be set free. Choose to eat your regular meal? Bye-bye bunny.

Which would you choose?
First of all, why is this guy threatening to kill this bunny with a sledge hammer? Is it so that he (or she) can eat it for dinner tonight? Is it to make a point? If so, what's the point? An animal rights activist that goes around killing cute bunnies? This sounds like a mentally unstable individual!

Honestly, if somebody presented that choice to me in my backyard I'd call 911!!! What's this person going to do to make sure I eat my rice and beans after promising to? What will happen to ME if I promise to eat rice and beans but then opt for a balogna sandwich? Screw the rabbit, I'm calling the cops!!
post #110 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiggleBirds View Post
Having (circumstancial) preferrence doesn't mean that I don't think a rat/animal's life should be valued.
Very good. I have a circumstantial preference not to eat a human. Therefore, I do not support canabolism.


pixiexto -- your analogy does not test GiggleBird's view of "sameness," that's what my analogy is designed to do. But I'll answer anyway. If this is a groundhog day sort of analogy where I wake up every morning and have to decide whether to eat Peter Cottontail, I would. But I'd ask my dad to do it. He's a good shot. If it's just an issue of dinner tonight, I'd probably just eat the rice and beans. If your husband added an element to the analogy like "your child is B-12 deficient and is ready for dinner," that would be a more realistic angle for a lot of us here.
post #111 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
First of all, why is this guy threatening to kill this bunny with a sledge hammer? Is it so that he (or she) can eat it for dinner tonight? Is it to make a point? If so, what's the point? An animal rights activist that goes around killing cute bunnies? This sounds like a mentally unstable individual!

Honestly, if somebody presented that choice to me in my backyard I'd call 911!!! What's this person going to do to make sure I eat my rice and beans after promising to? What will happen to ME if I promise to eat rice and beans but then opt for a balogna sandwich? Screw the rabbit, I'm calling the cops!!

Ok, it is a made up, ridiculous story. The basic idea is when you can choose to preserve life, I choose to preserve life. There is no loss to me, no loss to my children.

Ok, I'm going to make muffins. 'nuff time spent on these discussions.
post #112 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gale Force View Post
If your husband added an element to the analogy like "your child is B-12 deficient and is ready for dinner," that would be a more realistic angle for a lot of us here.
post #113 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto
There is no loss to me, no loss to my children.
I think the point, though, to some of us is that there is a loss for us and our families if we do not eat that bunny in the yard (ie: eat meat). I feel I would be missing key nutrition as a veg*n; I would not be healthy physically nor mentally/emotionally. I can all but guarantee the same for my dh and my children. We (at least I know I do and am pretty sure dh does too; the boys are still too young for the conceptual stuff) see it as that animal layign its life down for us. I'm not thrilled about the thought of killing another living thing so that I may live; but it's a choice I make - to put my health and the health of my family above the animal's life, because to me, there is a distinct difference. So, to me (and I'm thinking the omni's here, though that's an assumption), there is a loss if we choose not to partake of the bunny/meat.
post #114 of 248
See, the health side of it always perplexes me. A year or so ago, I saw an interview with a Nutritionist representing Health Canada. She said that, apart from ensuring adequate Omega 3 intake, perhaps the most significant thing someone could do to maximize their health would be to become a Vegetarian (or as close of an approximation as possible).

This is a pretty bold statement to make from someone who is speaking on behalf of Health Canada, isn't it?
post #115 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders View Post
I think the point, though, to some of us is that there is a loss for us and our families if we do not eat that bunny in the yard (ie: eat meat). I feel I would be missing key nutrition as a veg*n; I would not be healthy physically nor mentally/emotionally.
Aha! Finally we come back around to the topic of the thread, which is nutrition!

I am not sure that either vegans or pro-meatists (pro-omnivores???) have succeeded in proving (at least, to me) that they have a superior nutritional program. I don't buy a lot of the evidence I get from the WAPF people. Their research is old, I'm very suspicious of Price's main premises, and it weirds me out that nearly every other nutritional advocate is opposed to their conclusions. I just find it suspicious.

I don't see why one group's set of research premises is supposed to be so much stronger than another's. I look at accounts of longitudinal studies, like the Framingham Heart Study, the Harvard Nurses Study, or the China Study. Researchers all seem to take away different conclusions about dietary recommendations from these. Is it really that nuts have a protective effect (for example) or that the people who ate nuts also ate a diet that was overall high in fiber and low in fat? Or high in fat but low in fried food? Or high in everything but a lot of exercise?

Don't you all remember the studies that showed that people who ate ice cream, or breakfast cereal, were healthier than people who didn't? But the science or health section of the newspaper never mentions "oh yeah, and these were also people who exercised" or "these were also young people" or whatever other factors might come into play.

All things being equal, I'm going to keep eating so I don't die.
post #116 of 248
I think different diets are healthy for different people. A lot of the difficulty here I believe comes from people taking our individual experiences with a particular diet (as healthy/not healthy) and assuming everyone else will have the same experience.
post #117 of 248
I wanted to add, I totally respect your rationale - if you believe an omni diet is more healthful than a veg*n diet, I completely understand and respect your choices.

Likewise, I believe (beyond ethics) that a veg*n diet is more healthful and thus my choices are affected.
post #118 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto View Post
She said that, apart from ensuring adequate Omega 3 intake, perhaps the most significant thing someone could do to maximize their health would be to become a Vegetarian (or as close of an approximation as possible).
I think it's a really good question whether we need meat. I eat organ meat because it does give me a boost, but whether that's a need that could be met with a lot of eggs is a good question.

But in terms of the nutritionist's comment, most omnis on this board would not (or try not) to eat grain fed animals. That's a whole different food than wild game or the steer grazing down the road. Most nutritionists are talking about the regular supermarket meat when they talk about meat.

Perhaps the solution to the bunny analogy is to milk the bunny and make a cream sauce for the rice and beans.
post #119 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gale Force View Post
Perhaps the solution to the bunny analogy is to milk the bunny and make a cream sauce for the rice and beans.


What would milking one lactating rabbit get you? 1 oz of rabbit milk?
post #120 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiexto View Post
I wanted to add, I totally respect your rationale - if you believe an omni diet is more healthful than a veg*n diet, I completely understand and respect your choices.

Likewise, I believe (beyond ethics) that a veg*n diet is more healthful and thus my choices are affected.
ITA with you pixie. I would expect any veg*n to see his or her diet as more healthful. If we give it any thought at all, we are making choices we think are more healthful.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Nutrition and Good Eating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion