On Mar 29, 10:30*pm, Priest wrote:
On Mar 29, 6:50*pm, dave wrote:

I'm a vegetarian.

I became a vegetarian 10 years ago for ethical reasons. My decision
did/does have side effects though: *lost 50 lbs., energy level
quadrupled, concentration and memory dramatically improved, taste buds
rejuvenated, diet became much more varied, meals and cooking became
fun, interesting and a time of reflective appreciation. And the
spiritual benefits realized by refusing to participate in and
subsidize the cruel and inhumane meat industry have been positively
awe-inspiring and a very special bond with nature and animals emerged
that is beyond description.

Can't help adding that I find it noteworthy that four of the more
intelligent individuals in this group are all vegetarian. Interesting.

Those were my reasons and results exactly - today I am 50, fit, hike
through the mountains, ride my bike daily and making love is
great! :-) Can't vouch for the intelligence part, though - I became
more of a juvenile delinquent ;-)

On Mar 30, 6:00*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On Mar 29, 6:50 pm, dave wrote:
I'm a vegetarian.
Priest wrote:
I became a vegetarian 10 years ago for ethical reasons. My decision
did/does have side effects though: *lost 50 lbs., energy level
quadrupled, concentration and memory dramatically improved, taste
buds rejuvenated, diet became much more varied,

*much more* varied, just eating veggies and -eliminating- meat, fish and
fowl? Sorry, but that seems contradictory.

meals and cooking became fun,

more fun? Why is it "more fun" to cook one thing than another? Cooking
is cooking, parts is parts.

interesting and a time of reflective appreciation. And the spiritual
benefits realized by refusing to participate in and subsidize the
cruel and inhumane meat industry...

What about that cruel and inhumane treatment of vegetables? You are
killing them (a living thing), boiling them, eating them.

Plants have feelings too, ya know. How would -you- like to be mowed down
in the prime of life?

If you wish to be a vegetarian, so be it. But meat is just another food
group along with fish, fowl and vegetables. Humans have been eating meat
for millenia, *since the first cave man speared a woolly mammoth. Meat
has stood the human race in good stead for tens of thousands of years.
(Everything in moderation, of course. I'm not recommending you slam down
two pounds of bacon in a sitting).

The main problem is not eating meat, although it is part of the
ethical dilemma - the bigger problem is that you cannot feed a planet
of 7 billion meat eaters and still be humane, just and not place a
hideous burden on the environment.

Bruce

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:50 pm, dave wrote:
I'm a vegetarian.

Priest wrote:

I became a vegetarian 10 years ago for ethical reasons. My decision
did/does have side effects though: lost 50 lbs., energy level
quadrupled, concentration and memory dramatically improved, taste buds
rejuvenated, diet became much more varied,

*much more* varied, just eating veggies and -eliminating- meat, fish and
fowl? Sorry, but that seems contradictory.

meals and cooking became fun,

more fun? Why is it "more fun" to cook one thing than another? Cooking
is cooking, parts is parts.

interesting and a time of reflective appreciation. And the spiritual
benefits realized by refusing to participate in and subsidize the
cruel and inhumane meat industry...

What about that cruel and inhumane treatment of vegetables? You are
killing them (a living thing), boiling them, eating them.

Plants have feelings too, ya know. How would -you- like to be mowed down
in the prime of life?

If you wish to be a vegetarian, so be it. But meat is just another food
group along with fish, fowl and vegetables. Humans have been eating meat
for millenia, since the first cave man speared a woolly mammoth. Meat
has stood the human race in good stead for tens of thousands of years.
(Everything in moderation, of course. I'm not recommending you slam down
two pounds of bacon in a sitting).

It is wasteful to grow meat for food. Just "calories in" vs "calories
out" math shows how wasteful. Plus there is a lot of environmental
damage involved. The quickest way to reduce greenhouse gasses would be
for people to reduce their meat consumption. It could have a dramatic
effect in a very short time.

But we lack the courage, as always.

On 3/30/10 08:40 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
Joe from Kokomo wrote:

[...]
Plants have feelings too, ya know. How would -you- like to be mowed
down in the prime of life?
[...]


I know of no credible evidence that plants possess a consciousness.


With all good wishes,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

There were numerous studies released during the 60's and 70's
detailing the experiments where plants were demonstrated to respond
to kind talk, soft music, even specific genre's of music.

This was touted as evidence of consciousness. And some activist
papers were published as a result, as well as the formation of some
activist groups.

And while it may have something to do with simulation of
environmental vibrations in the audio range detectable by the plants
for reproductive purposes, it does not suggest consciousness.

Any more than Air America did.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

[...]
Plants have feelings too, ya know. How would -you- like to be mowed
down in the prime of life?
[...]

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


I know of no credible evidence that plants possess a consciousness.


With all good wishes,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

Well, let's try "tongue in cheek". Sorry you missed it. :-(

Maybe I should have put in a smiley face...

73 es :-)

On 3/30/10 08:40 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
Joe from Kokomo wrote:

[...]
Plants have feelings too, ya know. How would -you- like to be mowed
down in the prime of life?
[...]


I know of no credible evidence that plants possess a consciousness.


With all good wishes,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

There were numerous studies released during the 60's and 70's
detailing the experiments where plants were demonstrated to respond to
kind talk, soft music, even specific genre's of music.

I believe you are referring to the so-called (and yet to be proven)
"Backster Effect".

On 3/30/10 13:13 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 3/30/10 08:40 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
Joe from Kokomo wrote:

[...]
Plants have feelings too, ya know. How would -you- like to be mowed
down in the prime of life?
[...]


I know of no credible evidence that plants possess a consciousness.


With all good wishes,


Kevin, WB4AIO.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

There were numerous studies released during the 60's and 70's
detailing the experiments where plants were demonstrated to respond to
kind talk, soft music, even specific genre's of music.

I believe you are referring to the so-called (and yet to be proven)
"Backster Effect".


In part. Also the work of Jagdish Chandra Bose who proposed the
concept of a plant nervous system, recording spasmodic responses to
shock taxis in plants around 1900.

We did experiments at university with some mimosa-like plants
that responded to the touch by folding their leaves. Loud and shrill
sounds also produced the same response, although not consistently.
And not in all plants under test. We attributed that to the plant's
response mechanism responding to some vibrations, in amplitude and
requency, as touch.

Bose also claimed to have found that plants grew more quickly in
the presence of soft music and more slowly when exposed to harsh
sound. From this, he posited that plants had central nervous systems
that could feel pain, perceive and return affection, and interpret
intents, and respond to them. Bose's research involved
interpretation of changes in cell membranes under various taxes.

These studies, which took place near the turn of the century,
were the bases for many of the studies which surfaced in the 60's
and 70's tha recommended corn be grown under the gentle strains of
Debussey played over huge PA systems in the fields, and the
affection of farmers walking through their fields reciting poetry.

May we live in interesting times.

On 3/30/10 15:11 , m II wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:

It's fun teasing the lazy starving Regressive Leftist envy my filet
mignon.
I'm a vegetarian.
Me too.
As am I.

Good on ya! :-)



So am I and have been for about ten years. It's really controversial,
you know...

GW has said that the French don't even HAVE a word for 'Filet mignon'





Actually, he was correct. The French don't have a word for 'Filet
Mignon' because 'Filet Mignon' is an American recipe, appearing in
the mid 1890's.

The French call their filet of tenderloin 'tournedos', and 'filet
de bœuf.'

Only in the US are these cuts sold as 'filet mignon.'


Similarly, the English have nothing known as an 'English Muffin.'


As the Italians do not have anything known as 'Italian Salad
Dressing.' All salad dressings are French.

On Mar 30, 11:50*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
Joe from Kokomo wrote:

If you wish to be a vegetarian, so be it. But meat is just another food
group along with fish, fowl and vegetables. Humans have been eating meat
for millenia, *since the first cave man speared a woolly mammoth. Meat
has stood the human race in good stead for tens of thousands of years.
(Everything in moderation, of course. I'm not recommending you slam down
two pounds of bacon in a sitting).

Even as being carnivorous got us to the top of the food chain,
it might not sustain but instead be our undoing.

IOW:
Is the human phenomena just a short lived blink in the eons of time?

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

No doubt - as much as the naysayers cry foul, you just *can't* stop
evolution. Even now, Nature is up to her dirty and insidious genetic
tricks...

....as evidenced by many on Usenet ;-D

Bruce

bpnjensen wrote:

It's fun teasing the lazy starving Regressive Leftist envy my filet
mignon.
I'm a vegetarian.
Me too.
As am I.

Good on ya! :-)



So am I and have been for about ten years. It's really controversial,
you know...

GW has said that the French don't even HAVE a word for 'Filet mignon'






mikey larue II