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 5

post #81 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Thanks for the offer, btw. You all could eat me too I'm not gluten free, however.
Sorry this just cracked me up.

I became a vegetarian for awhile after reading Bataille's Theory of Religion. I was very moved by the idea that we've gone from religions that took the whole earth into account to religions that made us masters of creation. Eventually free range and organic came along and that fit in with my beliefs so I'm back to being an omnivore. I feel like that by not being an omnivore I'm disrespecting the earth and the diet biologically I'm supposed to be eating. I want to be part of the circle of life. And I want to be mindful of it. I've never thought it wrong to eat an animal just wrong to disrespect it. I think factory farming disrespects animals and veggies and fruits too.

I'm very lucky I live in a state where organic produce is easy to get as well as organic meats. I'll be eating a turkey this Thanksgiving that grew up 2 miles from my house. I will be using every bit of that turkey from initial meal with giblet gravy to stock from it's bones.
post #82 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
I want to be part of the circle of life. And I want to be mindful of it. I've never thought it wrong to eat an animal just wrong to disrespect it. I think factory farming disrespects animals and veggies and fruits too.

I'm very lucky I live in a state where organic produce is easy to get as well as organic meats. I'll be eating a turkey this Thanksgiving that grew up 2 miles from my house. I will be using every bit of that turkey from initial meal with giblet gravy to stock from it's bones.
Very well put. I also think it's being a good steward of the resources available to use every bit available from nose to tail and everything in between so to speak. So that not one bit goes to waste.
post #83 of 248
Following the logic of the steer down the road being on the same level as your child (or any other human); why is it okay for animals in general, or to get more specific, mammals, to kill and eat meat? If they are no different from us in terms of the ability to feel, and maybe think ... if their lives are just as valuable as ours, then shouldn't *all* animals be vegan (for mammals, they'd be vegan once weaned)? Why is it okay for them to kill a prey and partake on the food chain in a natural way, and yet it's not okay for us to take our part (as I see it) on the food chain?
post #84 of 248
No, I wouldn't put the steer down the road above my child. I would be as sad if I knew it as intimately as I knew my daughter. I have spent hours in a field with cows, and their gentle, kind eyes held as much wonder and beauty as any human eye.

That's all.
post #85 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders View Post
Following the logic of the steer down the road being on the same level as your child (or any other human); why is it okay for animals in general, or to get more specific, mammals, to kill and eat meat? If they are no different from us in terms of the ability to feel, and maybe think ... if their lives are just as valuable as ours, then shouldn't *all* animals be vegan (for mammals, they'd be vegan once weaned)? Why is it okay for them to kill a prey and partake on the food chain in a natural way, and yet it's not okay for us to take our part (as I see it) on the food chain?
Isn't the logical conclusion then that there is in fact some difference in the way that humans think, reason, feel than the way that animals do?
post #86 of 248
Aren't most acts of violence supported under the paradigm of difference?

What about the one of sameness? That's the one I'm operating under.
post #87 of 248
So in order to operate in a world of sameness we have to ignore that difference and pretend it doesn't exist? I'm just wondering how you explain the difference...
post #88 of 248
So under the sameness paradigm, would we expect to observe you spending the same amount of time helping the house fly out of the house during the fire as you would the human occupants?
post #89 of 248
Yes I spend as much time as necessary helping all insects out of my home. If my daughter needs my attention during this time, I give it to her and resume when I can.

pampered_mom,

The thing about DIFFERENCE is, it is different, which means, ultimately, unknowable. So you can't know an animal, because you are not one (you know what I mean... yes you are, but not a non-human one). So given that, you do not know their feelings, purpose, etc. In my opinion, that in itself warrants respect.
post #90 of 248
You still didn't answer my question of the issue of veganism and the rest of the animal kingdom, or even within the realm of mammals. Why is okay for *other* animals to be omnis or even carnivores, but not okay for humans?
post #91 of 248
Um..

Okay I'm naking and I had to stop my post.. I'll come back later.
post #92 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiggleBirds View Post
So given that, you do not know their feelings, purpose, etc. In my opinion, that in itself warrants respect.
So eating meat that was raised in an appropriate way for their species and slaughtered/processed in an appropriate way is less respectful than that found in the wild?

What determines the level of respect?
post #93 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiggleBirds View Post
Also, somehow, I can't imagine Jesus going hunting. But, maybe he did. Still, it doesn't fit into my concept of "right". So that's part of why it is as heated as religion. Because to some of us it is.
Well, Jesus lived his life as a Jew. Whether his followers think they're obligated to observe the laws of Torah is a completely separate discussion. Knowing what I know about keeping kosher, it logically follows that Jesus didn't go hunting but did eat kosher meat- from mammals that chew their cud and had split hooves, as well as poultry, and were slaughtered by a shochet (kosher slaughterer). Fish needs to have fins and scales and needs no special preparation. If he was living somewhere without a shochet and he lacked the skills himself, then he would have eaten fish, dairy products, eggs, and vegetation.

My understanding is that mainstream Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- all the religions that hold the Book of Genesis to be a Holy Book, beleive that G-d first told humans to be vegetarian (instructions given to Adam and Eve/Chava) and later told humans to be omnivores (instructions given to Noah.) How can eating meat be "immoral" if G-d gave us instructions on how to eat it? (Of course, this argument only works for Jews, Christians, and Muslims who beleive in the Bible.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gale Force View Post
I you could make Gale Force jerky. You could call it GF jerky because it would also be gluten free.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gale Force View Post
So under the sameness paradigm, would we expect to observe you spending the same amount of time helping the house fly out of the house during the fire as you would the human occupants?
In all fairness, houseflies could fly out of a burning house and wouldn't need assistance in getting out. A better example might be rodents living in the walls. Even then, they might be able to climb out via pathways unavailable to us big bulky humans and probably won't need our help.
post #94 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
In all fairness, houseflies could fly out of a burning house and wouldn't need assistance in getting out. A better example might be rodents living in the walls. Even then, they might be able to climb out via pathways unavailable to us big bulky humans and probably won't need our help.
Good point. Here's a better scenario to help us understand the sameness approach:

You're on you daily walk past a school. It is on fire and there are ten children trapped inside. You see no other adults and there is no other assistance in sight. You know from the news story last that there are also ten pregnant rats in the school as part of an science experiment the children are conducting. Each rat is in a cage and is carrying quintuplets. You know from your fire rescue training that you have time to save ten units -- children and rats are each a unit. You can save any combination of ten units. None of the twenty units can help the other units. Anyone or anything to be saved will be saved by you. You can hope for assistance for the remaining ten units, but it is not guaranteed. Which units do you save first? Rats? Children? Some combination of the two?
post #95 of 248
GF, that is a good scenario. It pinpoints one of the main problems I have with the AR movement. If people and animals are equally valuable, then there is no right choice; someone will suffer. You would be commiting a crime (ethical, to be true, certainly not legal) by leaving the rats to suffer, and one by leaving the children to suffer. If all life is equally valuable, how can you ever choose in such a situation?

If you say, "well, I'd save the children, of course!", then you are, by default, admitting that human life is more valuable than animals. And I think that very few people would go that far. I think the obvious choice that most everyone would make in such a scenario illustrates the fact that deep down, most people do indeed value human life more highly than animal life.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that animals, no matter how intelligent, have the same ability to reason, the same capacity for insight, and the same value as humans (even/especially mentally incapacitated humans). I love animals. They are important, they have value, if for no other reason than God created them. But they do not have the same value as humans. (and, yes, I am coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective.)
post #96 of 248
There are a lot of interesting arguments. I wanted to throw in another one from a "philosophical" perspective. There is a view of animal rights from the "phenomenological" perspective that believes that the approach has to be human-centered. When you fight on the animal's behalf, you're really fighting for yourself, for your own ethical needs. What people are saying about "difference" is a part of it. It would be arrogant to presume to "know" what the animal needs. Whether you are cruel or compassionate to that animal stems from your own constitution. You project the feelings upon the animal.

Ultimately, we have to take personal responsibility for our beliefs. The animal is not going to verify the omni or veg*n side.

Another aspect to this is that we, as humans, cannot shed our skins as the "highest" on the food chain. We are intelligent and capable of vast manipulation of our environment. Even if you wanted, you just cannot change the course of human history. By refraining from meat-eating, a person still participates in human institutions that involve taking land away from animals, and all the other "evils" of humanity. But part of the game is to survive. We're really good at it. I think we definitely need to curb it, but we need to be realistic about the parameters.
post #97 of 248
Thread Starter 
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry guys! I didn't mean to start a stir, but at the same time I'm not a bit surprised!!!

My DH graduated from Institute of Integrative Nutrition in NY and he learned ofmany different ways of eating.
One thing that he learned is that everyone's body/organism is very different and unique. There is no "one size fits all". Some people do great on vegetarian diet/some don't. It has a lot to do with how your body can utilize nutrients from vegetables and even blood type can play a role.

Some people I know for sure just cannot be vegans. They will not thrive and their health will suffer. Some however do great.
I know a friend who was under a lot of pressure to be vegan from her fiancee. She tried, her health suffered. Her immune system weakened, she always felt fatique. And she ate really well - tons of deep green leafy veggies, beans, legumes, grains, supplemented with algaes and sea veggies. Still she was very unhappy. She craved animal products and therefore her health suffer.
You have to be happy with what you eat. You have to enjoy your food. Bless it. Chew well. If you don't enjoy eating what you are eating - rest assured, you will not thrive.

Some people are disgusted with meat - those are the people who are meant to be vegans.
Honestly I think that ethics though play an important part, they are not the main reason to become vegan. YOUR HEALTH is the main reason and if you feel being vegetarian is best for your health, GO FOR IT.
post #98 of 248
Am I the only one totally amused that this thread turned into a heated discussion?!
And I agree with Janelovesmax 100%.
post #99 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobs View Post
Am I the only one totally amused that this thread turned into a heated discussion?!
And I agree with Janelovesmax 100%.
I agree, this is my first post on this thread. Yet, I've followed it since it appeared. I applaud everyone for their passion and well argued logic. I do agree with Janelovesmax though -- to each his own!
post #100 of 248
I don't see why the children couldn't each grab a rat. But if they were on the other side of the school or something, and there was NO one else around to help, then yes, I would save the kids. Just like I would protect my daughter from an animal (though do my best to not hurt it)... just like I would protect her from a crazy man, who, yes, also has the right to life.

Having (circumstancial) preferrence doesn't mean that I don't think a rat/animal's life should be valued. If the issue of meat eating was an either/or event in which every animal killed was done so only in the event that it was attacking a child or some such, well, first I'd lobby to build bigger fences , and then, in that situation, I might think it was understandable that the animal be eaten. But it isn't either/or.
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