Anna,
We, humans, do have what are called canine teeth but they don't look much like the teeth dogs and cats have in the approximate same places in their mouths....I guess that could be due to evolution. I do have the blood type that the web site mentioned suggests should eat meat. But it wouldn't be right for me because the possible health benefits would be over shadowed by the damage to my soul. No pontificating intended, that's just the way it is. If I say I "love animals", how could I eat one?

JonO,
I have read that "man" pre-dating "Lucy" (if one agrees with evolution) have been recently discovered with the first of the kinds of primitive tools needed to kill animals. So, maybe we were created one way, herbivores, and then discovered it was easier to be hunter/gatherers than just gatherers, hence becoming omnivores? That would indicate a decision rather than natural instinct or physical design.....?

Bala,
Diet and tradition is an interesting topic in itself. Have read that when people move to a different culture and eat according to that culture, forsaking what has been their tradition in diet, they become ill with diseases that are not common for their people but are common in the new culture. I'm wondering if the Indians you cite would be genetically, after so many generations of not eating meat, engineered to handle the processing of meat without difficulty. Also wonder, if there is any truth to the "blood-type should eat" theory, are there significant blood-type differences in people of different races or countries of origin.....for instance is there a prevalence of "A" blood types in India? Don't know if non-human animals have a variety of different blood types within each species or one blood type per species. I don't think they "blood-type" when transfusing cat to cat, for instance. Probably diet tradition is due to local availability.....?

Kaylene,
"When one practices alternative lifestyles, there are always little jokes we like to share amoungst (sic) each other. I meant no offense......." of course you did and that is the very thing, "little jokes", that have hurt many people of "different" race, creed or color for years. It is the very thing most vegans refuse to partake in....they have an acute respect for the value of all life, not just that which is the same as they in thought, looks and deeds. It is called reverence for life and it includes harmlessness to all of this world......trees, air, animals, earth and people. Cruel "little jokes" are never harmless because the thought had to exist in order to make the joke.

I can actually comment on this subject because I didn't eat red meat for about 1 1/2 years and chicken makes me feel empty. After dabbling in vegetarianism I read the ER4YT book and started to eat meat, even though I actually didn't care for it. Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything wrong with meat eaters, I just can't seem to stomach it.

I also hated meat when I was a child. The only part of meat I like was the fat. If I could have eaten only the fat or grizzle it would have suited me just fine. My child was most likely healthier than my adulthood also and I have always felt that if I could get back to my child I would be much healthier.

Through my journey to get healthy, I discovered that the ER4YT diet was not compatible with homeopathy while being treated at least. Because of Geir, I felt he gave me the go ahead to eat anything I wanted to. I believe this was important so he was able to see what my cravings were in order to treat me as a whole person.

I also beleive that by restricting my diet it hurt me and drove my illness in the wrong direction. Yes, my arthritis was better and my stomach was not hurting, but I became more and more depressed as time went on. Am I making sense? I hope so. This way I was also allowed to discover my likes and dislikes and what was most likely the WAY I needed to eat. I can imagine a day when meat did taste good--the days before antibiotics and growth hormones, and canablism. Today you would have to raise them yourself to even know the truth about what you are eating.

Also, I can hardly beleive that we started out meat eaters. I am a true believer in the bible and God. And, the first humans were Adam and Eve--they weren't meat eaters....THEY LIVED IN A BEATIFUL GARDEN....ADAM NAMED ALL THE ANIMALS BUT HE DIDN'T EAT THEM. According to the bible meat eating came later. I believe, especially now that if we didn't kill animals for food we would be overun by them--not enough room for everyone is there and if we kill people why not the animals. It's called population control. I think God is much wiser than man, therefore, he made provisions for meat--he knew man's future. We have not that much control over it. Man is injurous to man and I believe this wholeheartedly. My views are religious in nature so I hope no one minds.

About Animal Rights Activists...Many of them are extremeists. I rarely here of Human Rights Activists. Damn, there were laws prohibiting the abuse of animals long before there were laws pertaining to child abuse and wife abuse ha ha ha not until recently and then I have to wonder. BAD, BAD, BADNESS.

EXTREMISTS + PASSION = EXTREME PASSION AND EXTREME PASSION KILLS

Hope I didn't rattle on too much.

Susan

Just started reading this thread, and my only comment is : Canine teeth & long digestive tract = Sounds like an omnivore to me...

Balance is a good thing!

RF

"Vegetarianism is about choosing what one eats...either on 'moral' grounds or 'dietary' grounds, both of which are based on few facts and a lot of personal preference."

Hillabee, That is what I said, above...I don't think, nor did I say it is only about diet....

From what you posted - it seems like you take a more balanced view - and that is a healthy approach, IMO, as it would be self-limiting to refuse a remedy (if it was indicated) merely based on a moral choice.

Also, I did not suggest that your beliefs are 'tenuously' based...you misquoted me - I said:
"Of course, no one is obliged to take any particular remedy but surely they risk limiting the effectiveness of their treatment. To do this on tenuous grounds would appear foolish."

This is not to say that one's beliefs are tenous. Merely that one would be limiting their treatment based on morals rather than facts. The reasoning is tenous. The deduction is 'pathological and extreme'. That is what was meant.

And gpm - your reasoning is faulty:
"I don't think anything we do should be isolated from moral issues, idealistically.
Nature may or may not have morals, I certainly am not the authority there,
(however I would tend to doubt it because there are "laws" of nature) but people
most definitely do have morals, what ever they may be and people are the prescribers of the practice called homeopathy. Therefore, homeopathy can be respectfully applied within the moral boundaries of the prescriber and the patient. As simple as that."

Homeopathy does not negotiate...it is not a thinking entity... Of course, the people prescribing are thinking beings..and they have morals too. THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES! Again, one cannot alter the tenets of homeopathy and practise effectively at the same time! That is called bastardisation! To quote Frank: "Whether you eat meat or not has no bearing on the practice of homeopathy. Your remedy is your remedy - it's that simple."

I have no beef (pun intended ) with anyone who chooses to not eat meat - whether it is motivated by diet or morals.

If one feels they must never take anything that has an animal product - then that is their choice. But it would limit their treatment if they really needed the remedy that happened to be derived from an animal source...simply put.



[This message has been edited by Lisa007 (edited 06 July 2000).]

Hi again.

Sorry to misquote you, Lisa -- a mistake. I might have been a bit defensive, there. I am not trying to be, nor am I trying to get anyone's back up, myself!

Susan -- as I mentioned above, veganism incorporates non-harm to all beings, both human and non-human animals. While I agree some animal rights activists are extremely militant, this is not the case with the majority of vegans I know. I don't put animals above humans, I merely want to do my part to reduce suffering to *all* beings, as much as I can. I know you weren't meaning to imply that I or any vegan/vegetarian approve of domestic violence -- nothing could be further from the truth.

Thanks again to everyone!

hillabee

Susan -- that last bit of my previous message sounds a bit harsh, now that I look at it. What I meant was, I don't think that domestic violence is in any way less important an issue than animal rights.

Sorry for that.

hillabee

Vegans aren't usually militant because they don't have the energy..They are usually missing significant items in their diets....B-12 for one...and they are usually enormous sugar consumers trying to get any energy at all..even if its in the form of putting ketchup on everything. I'm not in a good mood so please don't anyone answer this post.

Sorry to hear you are in a bad mood, but I'm going to answer anyway.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am much healthier now than I was 5 years ago, before I became a vegetarian (I've been vegan for 2 years). I don't eat tons of sugar (but I haven't completely eliminated it, either) and my B12 levels are fine, thank you (tested by a doctor -- I am concerned enough about my health to have had a thorough checkup twice since I became a vegan).

I am energetic enough to be a lot more physically active than most of my friends, veggie or not. I bike, hike, and work with weights. I'm not Ms Olympia or anything, but I am physically fit, have healthy hair, a glowing complexion (finally!), and probably a little bit extra meat (hee hee) on my bones. I am not wasting away, by any stretch of the imagination.

Vegans *do* have to know about nutrition, and be aware of vegetable sources of a number of nutrients -- B12 in particular, and also calcium, zinc, iron.... Many meat-eaters do not consume adequate levels of these nutrients as well (although B12 certainly isn't a problem for them, unlike vegans). However, with a little study before adopting the diet part of veganism, it is fairly easy to get all the necessary nutrients required to remain healthy and active. I researched nutrition for several months before eliminating dairy and eggs from my vegetarian diet.

Not all vegans are healthy and fit. Neither are all meat-eaters. Each diet provides a multitude of choices -- believe it or not, vegans have choices -- and your health depends, in a large part, on those choices.

As I said earlier, I am not trying to change anyone's mind and "convert" them to vegetarianism -- I couldn't do that if I tried. Everybody should do what makes them feel good. If that means eating meat, fine. To adapt that old cliche, *all* of my best friends are meat eaters.

Just curious (I am not trying to be sarcastic at all) -- why post if you don't want anyone to respond?

Sorry this is so long, and this thread is now getting off-topic -- sorry about that, too. Thanks again!

hillabee

Hi hillabee,

Don't worry...I never took offence from you, at all! promise

Also, I NEVER got the impression you would try to convert everyone to being a vegan or vegetarian! I only got that vibe from another who posted.

and carolorr....I love you you always reply with pithy and wise remarks...that also have an element of humour...hope your day is better!
Lisa