From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 21:43:43 MST
[Mermaid 1*]
[Hermit 2] La, la Mermaid, such emotionalism. You are quite devoid of meat
to beat..
[Mermaid 2]Just for the record...I would like to point out that the above
statement is a 'bait'. But what else can be expected out of you? Will you
invite me to your birthday bash...you know..when you turn 5?
[Hermit 2] Given your lack of an attention span, should I expect to be on
ignore already? Nah, see below. If I am, you will miss the clue that the
only thing you appear to be beating is about the bush (with which, you seem
to have been so [b]thickly[/b] endowed). Natural, I guess, given the fact
that your “arguments” (to dignify them beyond reason – which they
undoubtedly are) are completely without meat (or bones). Knowing how much
you enjoy sarcasm, I have added an extra helping. It's your party - you
don't need an invitation - and can cry if you want to.
[Mermaid 2]I see that you are upto mischief again. Purposefully distorting
and quoting out of context by lumping my 'pet peeves' with my stance on
consuming meat. Maybe I should ignore you, but I am going to play this until
you bore me.
[Hermit 2] Doll, nobody could possibly do a better job distorting your
claimed meaning than you so frequently appear to do to yourself. Your
“peevishness” being renowned, you cannot really blame anybody who develops a
desire to fuck with your foibles. But I draw the line at toying with your
used tampons - and didn’t. So I don’t know what you think you have to
complain about - unless it is the fact that I frequently prefer my meat
without sauce. As to the rest, as people don’t often change (especially
after reaching your "venerable age"), I’m guessing that you will play along
for so long as it takes to repeatedly make a fool of yourself. But seeing as
you object to being “quoted out of context” [supra] despite the fact that I
notice that I did not bother overmuch with quoting your unmemorable
outpourings last time around, I’m hoping to determine if you get really
pissy if I insert a few quotes from your previous opus in order to provide a
“context” - at least in so far as I am capable of creating one from your
meanderings. Carefully note the [Mermaid 1] insertions below... Like this:
[Mermaid 1] ...Some commerical eggs are products of their own species. Thats
like chicken cannibalism. No species of animals eat their own. Its
obscene...
[Hermit 1] So few facts. And the few “facts” presented are wrong.
Cannibalism is very common in animals. It is a good source of cheap protein,
although it carries rather nasty risks of infection (see BSD/CJS etc.).
[Hermit 1] Do you know why piglets need to have their teeth cut? If it is
not done, they bite their mother’s nipples and then the other pigs will
cannibalize them - usually while alive. The pigs don’t mind the smell of
blood. They like it, because they recognize what you apparently do not. That
it is not the “stench of death”, it is the smell of life. Carefully refined
from plants at great cost (it takes upwards of 7 Joules of plant energy to
produce 1 Joule of protein energy).
[Hermit 1] Next, chickens. Aside from doves, chickens are probably the most
vicious birds - and the most cannibalistic. Any poultry farmer will tell you
that most roosters will break any eggs that were not fertilized by him, or
that contain another rooster - or will kill any chicks unless kept carefully
separately. And all of the chickens that can get to the remains will eat the
contents of the eggs or the bodies of the chicks.
[Hermit 2] Feeling skewered by your stupidity yet?
[Mermaid 2]So do felines for that matter. wrt their newborn when their
hunting instincts smother their maternal instincts. Its a common phenomena.
But no cat or pig or rooster attacks anything bigger than a newborn of its
own species for its daily sustenance.
[Hermit 2] Hermit notes that a pair of roosters will fight to the death and
the victor - if there is one, will scavenge from the dying bird. Then too,
adult pigs will attack and kill one another if one is bleeding - and will
eat each other alive. And stopping that means that the farmers have to keep
a close eye on their sties - and cattle prods close to hand. Yet it still
gets bloody dangerous when pigs get into a feeding frenzy and start eating
one another. Pigs will eat anything. And don't particularly care if it is
alive or dead. Pig farming is not a job for the squeamish or delusional.
Then again, as Mr. Dahlmer demonstrated, the taste for “long pig” is not
completely bred out of humans either, so we should not be too critical.
[Mermaid 2]As usual..more irrelevant noise from you.
[Hermit 2] It is only irrelevant to you, ducky. Everyone else could see that
your previous assertion about “No species of animals eat their own. Its
obscene” was demonstrated for what it is – the same substance as is found in
abundance on most dairy farms. BZZZzzzt! No, the answer is not milk. It is
bullshit. As, it seems to me, and I will attempt to demonstrate, are many of
your statements this time around.
[Hermit 1] Most animals, don’t even have to think about the implications of
cannibalism, they realize that meat is just meat; quite a sensible attitude
if you think about it. Visualize eating your mother. Shades of Monty Python.
[Mermaid 2]I think they do. It's called 'survival instinct'. If a species
start to devour its own kind, they will cease to exist. Conflicting survival
instinct results when an animal's hunting instinct kicks in to feed itself
while attacking its own kind.
[Hermit 2] Right. The way that humans did... Many of the archeological digs
we have done have shown that our ancestors liked human meat (or perhaps it
was just more accessible), particularly marrow, just about as much as pigs
enjoy pig meat – if not more. Yet there seem to be quite a number of people
around today. Does this mean that another Mermaid assertion bites the dust?
Are you finding this frustrating yet?
[Hermit 1] Now let’s deal with the rest of your “lesson” in animal
husbandry.
[Hermit 1] Do you know how organic pork is grown? “Organic” pigs are
distributed in small high-density groups, and are not given antibiotics or
high-protein feed. Which means that they live much less comfortable lives
than those in the industrialized farms. Then, should a pig become sick, the
entire barn is put onto antibiotics - and that entire batch is sent down the
“non-organic” processing track as fast as possible. When they don't get
sick, they go down the "organic" track.
[Mermaid 2]There ya go! Another reason why people should shun pork.
[Hermit 2] Nope. Pork is excellent meat with a wonderful flavor when cooked
(or smoked) appropriately. The argument is really that “organic farming” is
often far worse than ordinary commercial farming for the animals. The
farmer’s first task is to maximize his profits (when he makes any profit at
all), and we know how to more or less achieve this desirable state humanely
- in conventional farming. Organic farming, being based on a narrow range of
highly inefficient constraints tends to be much more brutal on all
concerned. Particularly on staff and stock. If you can't face the idea,
certainly, don't eat meat. It seems that you can hardly become very much
more scatterbrained than you already appear to be. Just don't try to tell
others what they should or should not do or the others might disagree. Gee.
Is that exactly what is happening here?
[Hermit 2] The large cattle raising operations are doing the same. Keeping
them “organic” and off antibiotics until they develop a disease (often
mastitis) and then you butcher them and push the next batch through. Which
results in more diseased animals, and lower production. But while there are
nuts prepared to pay a couple of dollars a pound more for "organic meat" –
and milk - the policy returns handsome dividends (about $800 to $1000 more
per head) and on your figures, better than double the return on milk.
[Mermaid 2]ok..ok..I get it...these are actually reasons why people should
turn 'veggie'.
[Hermit 2] The context is above... do you need to be reminded that you
recently wrote, "I see that you are upto mischief again. Purposefully
distorting and quoting out of context." Perhaps you should try meat for a
while. If you can't bear the thought of eating “Babe”, try a holy cow
instead (if you can find any meat on one).
[Hermit 1] Do I approve? Only partially. I wish that we reserved our most
effective antibiotics for humans, for it sometimes seems to me that we are
creating a Darwinian environment which ensures that only the most lethal
bacteria survive. But animals - and humans - in high-density conditions
require careful management to prevent the spread of disease. And antibiotics
are one of the cheapest management practices.
[Mermaid 2]I agree? Assuming that you are expressing the same sentiment that
I have attempted to convey below.
[Hermit 2] You convey so much, in such a blathering style, that it is
difficult to comprehend what your conditional implies. So not knowing, I'll
play it safe by suggesting that I probably would disagree if I could fathom
out what you are attempting to get at.
[Mermaid 2]I believe that there is too much consumption amongst the
meat-eating population that seriously compromises the quality of the goods
that come out. It seems especially incongrous to hear arguments from people
like DrSebby who believe in small populations to create better quality of
life in our world. While, human beings are much more precious and pay back
in full and more of what is invested to maintain them..animals for
consumption offer little back in terms of health advantages because of the
sheer number of animals reared for eating at
breakfast/lunch/dinner/snacktime. Keep in mind that meat costs less than
fresh produce in this country. A slightly steeper price for the meat
products will present double rewards - better quality and price control
which in turn will regulate the amount of meat consumed. One hopes that
people will still eat the required amounts of meat which is of a better
quality. Because there is no rush to produce animals to be frozen for
beating the market competition, hopefully the animals would be treated
better and have better care per head.
[Hermit 2] We can see you are not a meat eater. A pocket of potatoes or
onions, several heads of cabbage or lettuce, a box of fruits, a bucket of
ice-cream, a few pounds of cheese or a heap of what McDonald’s imagines are
“hamburgers,” can all be purchased for less than the cost of a decent
steak... Yet people still like steaks, because we are at the top of the food
chain - and other animals are historical protein source. Sometimes better
tasting than at other times (if Americans could experience South African
“Burgers” (thinking of the Spur and Steers chains for the South Africans on
the list) they would never have the nerve to refer to what they are sold by
the same appellation). The argument you claim to have missed above is that
the mentally deficient “organic” enthusiasts, paying higher prices for meat
products raised under poor conditions, are (as is often the case when people
make a noise about areas where their knowledge is limited) causing much more
harm than good. This time the harm is to the animals, which so many of them
claim to care about. For myself, I like venison - which I shoot and butcher
myself (but having owned farms, I've slaughtered, butchered and enjoyed
eating all the animals mentioned here - except cats. Perhaps I should try
that. I did know somebody who bred them for fur, but he fed the meat back to
the next generation - who did not have any qualms about eating and thriving
on it. Hmmm, I notice that this tends to contradict your claims about
felines too). Given that cars in Iowa kill some 85,000 plus deer every year,
I don’t think that I am likely to run out of targets any time soon (and
giving your willingness to play the role of a target, I guess that I can
keep my hand in, during off season).
[Hermit 1] Given how much people do not wish to pay for food, I don’t blame
the agricultural industry for trying to find the most bang-for-the-buck - or
the pharmaceutical industry for supplying their largest clients - who buy
antibiotics by the ton, rather than the pill.
[Mermaid 2]I'd blame them and I'd blame the general populace too. Stupidity
and mindless gluttony has to be mocked whenever and wherever possible.
[Hermit 2] But I have to wonder who decides on what classes as “stupidity” -
and however much intelligence it takes to make that decision, it seems that
it is a bar, which will always remain above your reach. Does being a glutton
for punishment count towards “gluttony”? If it does, I know of nobody more
gluttonous than you. As for “mockery” somebody who can't see when they are
being mocked seldom makes for an effective “mocker”. I suggest that you give
it up. It will be less painful to those watching you hitting your head
against the wall...
[Hermit 1] Which is why the better antibiotics tend to hit the farms at
about the same time as they hit the hospitals.
[Hermit 1] Now to milk.
[Hermit 2] The context of the next was:
[Mermaid 1] If you love your dairy, try organic. The chances that the cow
has been literally milked upto its last drop of blood are very slim.
[Hermit 2] Notice that I didn’t make fun of your exsanguinated cows, but it
is difficult to comprehend why the abattoirs don’t use milking machines,
rather than slitting their throats, if they are really as effective as you
claim.
[Hermit 1] Extolling the virtues of “organic milk” drunk warm from the cow
is completely unrealistic. Imagining that “organic” implies a bucolic heaven
where cows are carefully milked by caring cowmen, who call them by name, is
a fantasy. The cost of hand-milking would lead to a price in excess of $5
per gallon, and the bacteria counts would go through the roof... along with
far more bovine mastitis - which is a major reason why farmers use milking
machines even where labor is cheaper - it cuts down on bovine disease and
cross-infection.
[Mermaid 2]Random organic milk search:http://www.horizonorganic.com/
[Hermit 2] <snip of much cut & paste waffling about the mercies practiced on
bovines by very economically sane nutcases who rely on idiots to pay
excessive prices for the cost of a little BS. A vast amount of which is
present on any dairy farm. They just spread it more thickly and in somewhat
unusual places. And the idiots lap it all up. Yech.>
[Mermaid 2] My milk carton says "The Organic Cow of Vermont" It costs me
$3.69/half gallon. That lasts for more than a week and its better tasting
than the 'regular' whole milk. Dont diss it before you try it.
[Hermit 2] I buy 4 gallons of milk for the same price as your half gallon.
And if you multiply it by two, it figures out at $7.38. Which is way above
$5 per gallon. Which is what I pointed out initially... So what exactly was
your point? Do you know?
[Hermit 1] As for the ridiculous idea of selling whole-fat milk straight
from the cow, I doubt many consumers would know what to do with it or how to
handle it. The human stomach cannot handle whole milk except in miniscule
quantities (which won’t provide you enough calcium to avoid osteoporosis).
[Mermaid 2] Mine can. I need dairy and I am *very* lactose tolerant except
with some of those interesting cheeses. I am more dependent on buttermilk
than I am on whole milk. Considering I used to make my own cream, ghee
<Indian clarified butter>, buttermilk and curds from our cows milk, I know
for a fact that cows milk is much more creamier than the 'whole milk'
available in the dairy aisles. The 'whole milk' that I consume now is milk
which little or no cream.
[Hermit 2] Duh. Context doll. Previously you said:
[Mermaid 1] I grew up on fresh milk straight from the udder...
[Hermit 2] If you could manage more than a glass of that without throwing
up, you must have had an iron cast constitution, and in any case, you didn’t
get much benefit from it. There is no way that you could digest those fats
in quantity. The human stomach is not designed to digest those fats in any
volume. Or why we scoop the cream off the milk. Or were your cows so
malnourished that they produced no cream?
[Mermaid 2]I said nothing about 'selling whole-fat milk straight from the
cow'. I said that personally, I believe that whole milk rocks and is way
better tasting than 'fat free' milk.
[Hermit 2] But you did say:
[Mermaid 1] fuck 'fat free' milk...its not milk unless its whole milk WITH
cream
[Hermit 2] Wonders how Mermaid expects people to drink it unless it is sold?
[Hermit 1] Traditionally milk would have been chilled (while breeding
bacteria) and separated before being used. And if not pasteurized and
homogenized, milk sours in a day (or why ghee is popular in a certain warm
country lacking in refrigeration facilities and having a vast excess of
cows) - which would greatly increase consumption, and lead to more cows
being required. A lot more cows. Which would need more feed. A lot more
feed. Which would take more water. A lot more water. And land. A lot more
land. And fuel, fertilizer, pesticide, etc. All of which are expensive and
not particularly good for the environment. Which is why we don't do it that
way any more.
[Mermaid 2]Milkman milks the cow. The milk is boiled. Milk is chilled. The
cream is removed and usually stored in the refridgerator
[Hermit 2] Hermit notes that if you boil milk that you change both the
constituents and the taste. And that after you have done the above, it is
hardly “straight from the udder.” Hardly worth buying organic milk if you
intend to torture it like that. Pasteurization is much more effective as it
preserves the nutrient values.
[Mermaid 2] <India has fridges too..duh..when do you think GE came out with
an ice box in the US? lets see if you can come up with the year, Chuckles
and I will tell you when India sold its first fridge.>
[Hermit 2] GE was late into the game (noting that iceboxes were in use
hundreds of years before mechanical refrigeration). You should read up on
refrigeration history. Try
[url]http://www.achrnews.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,1338,24844,00.html[/url]
and realize that even before independence, most upper class houses in the US
had an icebox in the kitchen and ice cellars where they stored winter ice
for use throughout the year. This was pretty common practice throughout
Europe who no doubt got it from the Persians by a traceable line of
technology. Zimri-Laden, ruler of Mari (Northern Iraq) boasted of having
built a [i]bit shuripin[/i] or “ice house” near his palace “which never
before has any king built on the banks of the Euphrates”. As this was
written around 1700 BCE and implies that “ice houses” had been built
elsewhere, the use of refrigeration technology is ancient indeed. The Greeks
used ice in double walled pottery urns (designed to cool by evaporation as
well as through the addition of ice) by the 6th century BCE. The Chinese
spoke of the rituals of maintaining the icehouses as an “ancient ritual”
during the Tang Dynasty (906-618 BCE). The Romans in Pompeii (hotter than
most of India) were using ice harvested on Vesuvius and stored in cellars
not just for food preservation but also for air-conditioning at least 200
years before 79AD (when it was buried during an eruption) as Seneca
complained of this effete Greek habit - and saw it as proof positive of the
decline of Roman morality. Pliny the younger complained of the cost of ice
too. Elagabius used to have “mountains of snow” trucked in on donkey chains
and piled in the palace gardens to cool not just the palace but also the
environment (218-222 CE) and a few centuries later, the Marmelukes used the
same system in Eygypt. Where did India get the idea? I'd suggest that
unless you can find an earlier Indian reference, that Alexander the Great
(336-323 BCE) introduced it to them. Certainly, he built great ice pits to
provide ice for his drinks in Macedonia (before venturing to India) and
Athenaeus (a famous Greek food critic) wrote that during his North India
campaign, Alexander "dug thirty refrigerating pits which he filled with snow
and covered with oak boughs. In this way ... snow will last a long time." Of
course, you may have been thinking of evaporative cooling – which was used
in India in the 4th Century, but then, that technique had been used in Egypt
by the 2nd Century BCE too (courtesy again of the usually reliable works of
Atheneus*. Primary source
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345401026/qid=1014687682/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_3_1/002-0216729-9496833]"Ancient
Inventions", Peter James and Nick Thorpe, Michael O'Mara Books, 1995[/url]
Secondary source, “Deipnosophistai” [Hermit: Learned Banquet], Atheneus, Ed.
Meineke - Lipsiae, Ed. Georgiades – Athens 1858-59.
[Mermaid 2] Indian mothers and wives have been making milk, butter and
buttermilk for centuries.
[Hermit 2] I’d suggest that the evidence leads us to understand that the
Middle East and the West has been doing so for millennia.
[Mermaid 2] A couple of hundred years ago, the cream would have been kept in
an earthern pot and it would be floating on water in a cool corner of the
house or hung from the <very high> ceiling of the house.
[Hermit 2] Ice works better.
[Mermaid 2] The cream is churned to make butter.
[Hermit 2] Amazing! Did you learn that on the net?
[Mermaid 2] The butter is melted to make ghee. Warmth has nothing to do with
why people make ghee.<sheesh!...you really dont know as much as you think
you do>. The warm climate actually makes it impossible to keep the cream for
more than a week or so which means fresh ghee every week!
[Hermit 2] Actually, how do you prevent butter from melting and going rancid
in a warm environment? Try to do it as an experiment. In the cool air of the
mountains of the Western Cape (Mediterranean climate), even using insulated
containers packed with ice-bricks it would go rancid within 3 days. BTDTBP.
Ghee, on the other hand will last a week if stored in a pot in a stream.
Done that too. I’m not sure who is a know nothing here, but I suspect that
even an idiot would, by this time have an inkling of a notion.
[Mermaid 2] However, its because of the warm climate <snip, yada, yada,
yada> Little is consumed. Little is wasted and every form of milk imaginable
is created.
[Hermit 2] Of course, if little “is consumed” and “little is wasted” we
should wonder what the rest is used for? Ayur Vedic milk enemas? This was
one of those things which helped to convince me that the authors of the
Vedas didn’t know their mouths from their asses.
[Mermaid 2]BTW...The comment about the whole milk< as well as the comment
about undercooked meat that ben bought up were my personal preferences and i
did say 'pet peeve' didnt I?> has nothing to do with the my views on the
indiscriminate stuffing of food by certain food lovers at the risk of dying
early of heart disease, cholestrol or some such malaise.not to mention the
nonsense about 'animals dont feel pain' and 'i am proud of my place in the
food hierarchy'. Dont both of you have anything else to do other than to
criticise my personal preferences and irrationally lump it up with certain
other valid disagreements I have with meat eaters?
[Hermit 2] If you will parade your preferences ("Well..I'd suggest that meat
should be given up completely") all mixed up with a used sanitary towel on
top of it (shades of Mr. Creosote), is it a wonder we were confused?
[Hermit 1] In addition to bacterial risks, about 60% of the US (and Northern
European) population is not very good at handling saturated fats.
[Mermaid 2]It seems that they are not good at handling a lot of things.
[Hermit 2] Actuarial evidence is that they live longer than Indians, while
genetic engineering tells us that no matter how poor their genes are at
disposing them to deal with cholesterol, they are in a better condition than
most Brahmins, not having lumbered themselves with a selective breeding
program practically guaranteed to cause inbreeding and associated genetic
defects.
[Mermaid 2]I dont recall saying, 'drink more milk'. I said that if you are
going to drink milk...drink less, but drink the best tasting, wholesome milk
available even if its a tad more expensive. Maybe I was hoping that cost
will be deterring factor when people choose to fill their stomachs with
hormone laden blood stained milk. In fact, I was very clear about that.
[Hermit 2] Difficult to figure out what you meant to say from what you
didn’t say... so if you still assert that you said the above, kindly quote
yourself, so that we too can appreciate your wit and wisdom as much as you
yourself so evidently do.
[Hermit 1] Which, in those who appear to be as uneducated as you in these
matters, would lead to obesity and cholesterol problems. Put them on
anything more than 4% milk, and you would probably reduce their lives by 20%
or more. Not a particularly “nice” kind of an idea.
[Mermaid 2]You are right despite the bitchy tone you took.
[Hermit 2] /me bows. Perhaps it is catching.
[Mermaid 2] I guess my genetic composition makes me more tolerant to most
food groups.
[Hermit 2] Or perhaps you don’t know the first thing of what you are talking
about. If I were foolish enough to take bets on this, and if I were to lay
odds at 5:1 against your proposal, do you think the queue of takers would
stretch from here to Maine?
[Hermit 1] These are the reasons, not really based on human health (except
in so far as it modifies buying habits), but economics and a desire not to
cause uneccessary harm (which come into most farming decisions), which have
lead to industrialized agriculture becoming dominant.
[Mermaid 2]The above sentence doesnt make any sense to me.
[Hermit 2] That is because it doesn't make sense and is not a sentence,
having been an accidental paste, in the wrong place, of the text before a
rewrite to correct it and containing spelling almost as original as yours to
boot! How about if it had read, "Economics and a desire not to cause
unnecessary harm (which comes into most farming decisions), not really human
health (except in so far as it modifies buying habits), are the reasons that
have lead to industrialized agriculture becoming dominant. However, whatever
supplies an abundance of food at low prices is, by definition, not bad for
people.
[Hermit 2] The result is that more humans live a better and longer life than
ever before - and there are more cows (and pigs, and chickens) alive than
ever before too. And these are all healthier than ever before (except in
southern Asia perhaps), as well. You could say that they have done as well
for themselves as a prey species can.
[Mermaid 2]Really? Do more humans live a better and longer life than ever
before because of increased meat consumption? Or were you saying something
else?
[Hermit 2] Improved nutrition and untainted food is a very large part of the
complex of reasons, which have lead to that result. It also means that we
keep more domesticated animals using fewer resources than at any previous
time in history. Which has a lot to do with the above. For many centuries,
unsalted meat was a luxury that most people, even the very wealthy, could
not attain.
[Mermaid 2]I do not believe that there is a necessity for an increased
population of cows, pigs and chicken. I dont think it is necessary for
humans to keep eating meat just because it is available. This trend amongst
the 'rich' nations is unfortunately not very dissimilar to the behaviour
patterns of the 'nouveau riche'. "It's there...so lets eat it."..."I can
freeze more dead cows, so lets make and kill more cows." This is a dangerous
trend and one that has contributed to the curse of obesity and unhealthy
food habits of at least one nation.
[Hermit 2] Here you go again. This is your opinion. As usual, without any
support whatsoever for your premise. Which is why it is so tempting to cut
it off at the knees. And possibly an added incentive to make fun of you when
you attempt to heap scorn on others who dare to disagree with your
preconceptions, without recognizing upon what very shaky foundations you are
standing. Consider for a moment the implications of a [i]lot[/i] more
people… and a constant supply of meat. Now consider that modern
refrigeration means that it does not usually putrefy before it is eaten. Do
some arithmetic. Feel free to take off your shoes. Will a declining
population of animal foods stocks suffice to provide more people an
opportunity to have access to affordable meat? Hint, think John Maynard
Keynes.
[Hermit 1] PS, the reason that at least some meat is essential to a healthy
diet is that there are essential acids (and minerals) that we cannot absorb
except in the presence of animal protein. Taking supplements is generally
speaking a futile exercise as we tend to shit/piss most of it straight out
again - as we have spent millennia developing a digestive system capable of
extracting what we need from plants and animal tissue. When we take it in
the form of a supplement, our body doesn’t recognize it – unless in the
presence of material which would normally supply us with those particular
substances anyway. The end result is that long-term “vegan vegetarians” tend
to live shorter lives (actuarial studies), become scatterbrained as they age
(known factor in geriatric medicine) and often develop very bad tempers
(personal and shared observation). These consequences can be staved off, but
apparently not evaded, by taking supplements at the same time as eating
appropriate high protein plant material (beans and nuts). Of course, the
last is not a particularly healthy dietary regime… and the fact that humans
are relatively long lived, but with great variance in life expectancy,
disguises how very unhealthy a vegetarian lifestyle really is.
[Mermaid 2]I have never advocated a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle over a
nonvegetarian diet. I only have trouble with the excesses of the meat-eating
population along with the callousness of their disregard for life and rights
of animals.
[Hermit 2] You should hide your opinions better, because they so often lead
to your contradicting yourself... I remind you again:
[Mermaid 1] Well..I'd suggest that meat should be given up completely
[Hermit 2] You sound just like St. Paul suggesting that it is “better to
marry than to burn” - and I regret, just as irrational. Perhaps you should
eat more meat. And I think you are going to have to explain the rights of
animals again? Think about the problem of how a cultivated resource obtains
“rights.” When did they demand them, who did they demand them from, what
exactly were these alleged “rights,” and who granted them?
Hermit
PS You did mention, “However, I know non-vegetarians who are good friends
and acquiantances.” I would suggest that you don’t need to worry about it
too much. With you, it appears that friendship is such a purely temporary
and disposable phenomenon that you will shortly be able to persuade yourself
that they don’t love you and that you can safely cast them aside <grin>.
*Who was a hoot. Atheneus suggested that the best symposia** (a kind of
drinking party described by Xenophon as being composed of “three equal parts
of drinking, discussion and fucking”) were those where most of the guests
“fell into a drunken fuck-fatigued sleep, before the night came to an end.”
**And now you know why academics and scientists are keen on attending
symposia. It is quite safe to cite the above as having come from a learned
source.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT