Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!jgb
From: jgb@linus.UUCP (Jonathan G. Bressel)
Newsgroups: net.veg
Subject: Re: Vegetable Morality and Request for Recipes
Message-ID: <589@linus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 08:39:39 EST
Article-I.D.: linus.589
Posted: Thu Jan  5 08:39:39 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 02:03:36 EST
References: <130@hou2f.UUCP>
Organization: MITRE Corp., Bedford MA
Lines: 99

I apologize for being so vocal in defending vegetarianism.  I am not trying
to convince anyone about vegetarianism.  I just want the record straight.
When things quiet down a bit, I hope to get started discussing the PRACTICAL
matters of vegetarianism.

A. Schwarz's original is indented.  My comments are justified at the
left-most margin.

     The only justifiable reasons for not eating meat are religious and
     personal preference. This bit about being not nice to kill animals is
     pure poop (like that word??). This mentality, I believe, stems from
     people who let their social conditioning spill over into areas where it
     does not apply.  Or maybe they mentally put themselves in the same
     position as the animal and get emotionally hung-up. I often wonder how
     these people feel when a bobcat catches and kills a rabbit on some TV
     wildlife show. Maybe they don't watch these shows. Maybe they feel
     nature should get an *R* rating. I guess veggies are OK to pick and cut
     up because although they are alive, they don't move around and make
     noise like we do. So they are looked upon as inanimate objects.

I wonder what A. Schwarz's definition of justifiable is.  Also, I've never
been quite sure what social conditioning is.  Perhaps A. Schwarz could
explain it better, but it seems it's being used here to describe the cause
of anyone's thinking patterns which differ from Schwarz's.  For me, although
I'm sure there are others for whom this is not true, being nice to animals
is related to religion.  Furthermore, putting religion aside, what's wrong
with being nice to an animal?  Are humans the only life form capable of
appreciating kindness?  Haven't you ever seen a dog, cat, or other pet
actively ENJOY being treated with kindness?  Furthermore, what's wrong with
imagining oneself in the position of the victim?  Perhaps if we were to all
do this more often in our daily affairs, we might treat each other better,
let alone the animals.

I don't particularly enjoy seeing a bobcat kill a rabbit, but I understand
that it is the way of nature.  Peter Singer, in the much acclaimed book
Animal Liberation, makes an excellent argument as to why it might be okay to
kill vegetables, but not okay to kill animals.  Briefly, aside from using a
sophisticated language, animals exhibit all of the characteristics of
anguish and suffering that humans do: they cry, the wince, they try to avoid
the pain, etc.  Plants, show none of these characteristics.  Animals have a
well developed, central nervous system for transmitting pain signals.  As
far as we know, plants do not.  In short, animals clearly suffer.  Only
someone who had a vested interest in proving a point (like Descartes), could
believe otherwise.

I don't look upon plants as inanimate objects.

     Getting back to religious reasons for not eating meat, I can't see that
     being much of a reason in this part of the world. While not being an
     expert in the area of theology, I never heard of any restriction
     against all animal killing in the Christian or Jewish faiths, which are
     the predominant religions here.

A. Schwarz shows a gross ignorance of Judaism.  One of the dominant set of
laws in Judaism are those of Kashrut.  Only a small subset of animals may be
killed for food, and then, only under strict supervision by a slaughterer
trained to inflict the minimum possible pain and anguish while killing.
There are strict laws in Judaism against cruelty to animals (references
available).  On the Sabbath, when man is enjoined to rest, he must give a
day of rest to his animals as well.  If a Jew sees an animal suffering in
the road, he must aid it, even if it is owned by his enemy.  An ox,
threshing grain, may not be muzzled; rather it must be allowed to sample
from the food ( which it loves so much).  Animals of different species may
not be used together to pull a load, since one animal will be stronger and
cause the other stress.  One may not steal a bird's eggs in view of the
mother, for it will cause her anguish.  One may not steal a calf from its
mother, until it has reached a certain age, so as not to cause the mother
anguish.  I can go on forever.  I can't speak for Christianity.


     Now there is some argument as far as dietary amounts or the quality of
     the meat. Meat today isn't the same as meat of days gone by. The
     percentage of fat (marbling) is much higher today, in beef especially.
     Prepared meats (corned beef, etc.) are even higher, so discretion and
     moderation must be used. The leaner meats (fish and poultry) are of
     course the wise choices. The bottom line is that we need meat,veggies
     and fruit, grain and dairy products (the four basic food groups) to
     maintain health. This is the only sensible diet, the rest in my opinion
     are fads.

A. Schwarz's arguments about needing meat are completely unsupported, and
seem to come from simple ignorance.  Read one of the many good texts on
vegetarian nutrition, and then see what you think.


     Now let me use this newsgroup as I think it was intended to be used:

     Two of my all-time favorite veggies are asparagus and broccoli. I'm
     sure there are others who share my love for these two. I'm looking for
     interesting ways to prepare them.  Please post any recipes to the
     group. Also, all flames to the above statements heartily accepted.

I will gladly mail descriptions of my adventures with asparagus and broccoli
as they occur.

					Jonathan G. Bressel
--
ARPA:	linus!jgb@mitre-bedford
UUCP:	...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!jgb