Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 11 - Violence

Meat-eating contributes to the fear in the world by putting us in a
position in which there is not enough to go around. But that's not
all. Meat-eaters ingest residues of the animal's biochemical response
to the horrors of the slaughterhouse. Programmed to fight or flee
when in danger for their lives, the animals react to the
slaughterhouse in sheer terror. Powerful biochemical agents are
secreted that pump through their bloodstreams and onto their flesh,
energizing them to fight or flee for their lives.

Like screaming air rain sirens, these chemical agents produce
instinctual panic. Today's slaughterhouses virtually guarantee that
the animals will die in terror.

The Maoris would eat the flesh of a slaughtered enemy in order to
possess the enemy's courage and strength. The people of the lower
Nubia, likewise, would eat the fox, believing that by so doing, they
would be possessed of his cunning. In upper Egypt, the heart of the
hoopoe bird was eaten in order to acquire the ability to become a
clever scribe. The bird would be caught and its heart would be torn
out and eaten while it was still alive. On the other hand, certain
Native American tribes would not eat the flesh of an animal who died
in fear, because they did not want to take into themselves the terror
of such an animal.

When we eat animals who have died violent deaths we literally eat
their fear. We take in biochemical agents designed by nature to tell
an animal that its life is in the gravest danger, and it must either
fight or flee for its life. And then, in our wars and our daily
lives, we give expression to the panic in which the animals we have
eater died.

"Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them. We
live by the death of others. We are burial places! I have since an
early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men
will look upon the murder of animals as they look upon the murder of
man." - Leonardo da Vinci

courtesy of http://www.all-creatures.org/article...-polveg11.html

/' /)
,/¯ /
/ /
/´¯/' '/´¯¯·¸
/'/ / / /¨¨/¯\
('( ´ ´ ¯&;/' ')
\ ' /
'\' \ _.·´
\ (
\ \

I second the motion!



"Ol' Hippie" olhippieATcharterDOTnet wrote in message
...
/' /)
,/¯ /
/ /
/´¯/' '/´¯¯·¸
/'/ / / /¨¨/¯\
('( ´ ´ ¯&;/' ')
\ ' /
'\' \ _.·´
\ (
\ \

you moron veg heads need to make a stand. preferably in deer country while
in deer season, wear some deer camouflage and hang out with the deer....
"Ol' Herpes" wrote in message
om...
Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 11 - Violence

Meat-eating contributes to the fear in the world by putting us in a
position in which there is not enough to go around. But that's not
all. Meat-eaters ingest residues of the animal's biochemical response
to the horrors of the slaughterhouse. Programmed to fight or flee
when in danger for their lives, the animals react to the
slaughterhouse in sheer terror. Powerful biochemical agents are
secreted that pump through their bloodstreams and onto their flesh,
energizing them to fight or flee for their lives.

Like screaming air rain sirens, these chemical agents produce
instinctual panic. Today's slaughterhouses virtually guarantee that
the animals will die in terror.

The Maoris would eat the flesh of a slaughtered enemy in order to
possess the enemy's courage and strength. The people of the lower
Nubia, likewise, would eat the fox, believing that by so doing, they
would be possessed of his cunning. In upper Egypt, the heart of the
hoopoe bird was eaten in order to acquire the ability to become a
clever scribe. The bird would be caught and its heart would be torn
out and eaten while it was still alive. On the other hand, certain
Native American tribes would not eat the flesh of an animal who died
in fear, because they did not want to take into themselves the terror
of such an animal.

When we eat animals who have died violent deaths we literally eat
their fear. We take in biochemical agents designed by nature to tell
an animal that its life is in the gravest danger, and it must either
fight or flee for its life. And then, in our wars and our daily
lives, we give expression to the panic in which the animals we have
eater died.

"Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them. We
live by the death of others. We are burial places! I have since an
early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men
will look upon the murder of animals as they look upon the murder of
man." - Leonardo da Vinci

courtesy of http://www.all-creatures.org/article...-polveg11.html

From: (Ol' Herpes)

Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 11 - Violence

If you're really interested in promoting the Veggie Way, I humbly suggest you
stop wasting a lot of time & energy writing silly letters to people that eat
barbecue, and instead go out and actually grow a garden.

Actually plant some real vegatables, and in the future, whenever you get the
urge to write a silly letter to alt.food.barbecue, go out and plant a sweet
potato instead.
Think of it as Spud Therapy.

Think of yourself as a little Johnny Potato Seed spreading the peace & joy of
potatoes throughout the land.

Maybe then the people at alt.food.barbecue would at least have some respect for
you. And they could enjoy a nice baked potato with their barbecue.

Sincerely (and with a little sour cream),

Ron@CafeMojo

"The only reason vegetarians exist is because they can't hear the carrots
screaming." - Merlotte

Subject: Violence
From: meat_is_murder

Ya bloody carrot killer!!!!
Spud whacker!!!
Celery hacker!!!
Keep lauching yer wicked war-tide
of mass Potato Genicide!!!

One day, the ghosts of all those cabbages you slawtered ( get it, slaw-tered
;-) ) will come raging back to claim their revenge on your bloody wicked soul.

You hate the carnivores yet you turn a deaf ear to the sound of flowers crying
in the rain now don't you!

Instant Karma's gonna getcha!

capnron@cafemojo

Q: What does a baby potato say to it's mother?
A: "Mommy, I'm afraid the humans are going to peel my skin off alive, boil me
in scalding water and then mash me into a gooey mesh. Why can't they just leave
us alone peacefully here in the dirt where we can grow a green leaves that put
oxygen in the air? Why mommy? Why?
Why must they kill us?"
Mother: "Because we taste good snuggems, now be quite and go to sleep."

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Kevin S. Wilson wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?


.... or the moron who feels compelled to flame the moron of the second
part, who's responded indignantly to moron #1, who's basically
trespassing his prejudices where they're not welcome.

Pot, kettle, ...?

On 3 Mar 2004 14:26:32 -0800, (Scarlet
Pimpernel) wrote:

Kevin S. Wilson wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?

... or the moron who feels compelled to flame the moron of the second
part, who's responded indignantly to moron #1, who's basically
trespassing his prejudices where they're not welcome.

The person to whom Moron #2 is responding most likely doesn't read
follow-ups. If he does, he certainly doesn't care. My follow-up to
Moron #2 is much more likely to be read by Moron #2, who may therefore
reconsider the wisdom of responding to obvious flame-bait. In other
words, there's a point to my post, and a logical reason for it, unlike
the posts from either Moron #1 or Moron #2.

Pot, kettle, ...?

If you say so. Of course, by your logic, you just became Moron #4.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

In article ,
(Scarlet Pimpernel) wrote:

Kevin S. Wilson wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?


... or the moron who feels compelled to flame the moron of the second
part, who's responded indignantly to moron #1, who's basically
trespassing his prejudices where they're not welcome.

Pot, kettle, ...?

TakeAWhiz out morons all other morons. He wins just by showin up and
eatin boogers and droolin.

monroe(all hail the whiz! zip whip drizzle shakeshakeshake tuck zzzip)

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2004 14:26:32 -0800, (Scarlet
Pimpernel) wrote:

Kevin S. Wilson wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?

... or the moron who feels compelled to flame the moron of the second
part, who's responded indignantly to moron #1, who's basically
trespassing his prejudices where they're not welcome.

The person to whom Moron #2 is responding most likely doesn't read
follow-ups. If he does, he certainly doesn't care. My follow-up to
Moron #2 is much more likely to be read by Moron #2, who may therefore
reconsider the wisdom of responding to obvious flame-bait. In other
words, there's a point to my post, and a logical reason for it, unlike
the posts from either Moron #1 or Moron #2.

Pot, kettle, ...?

If you say so. Of course, by your logic, you just became Moron #4.

Quite. But in my case its for entirely sporting reasons ;-)

the one who responds with only a question.
"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

monroe, the dumbshit fat ass redneck! greetings from Earth!
"Monroe, of course..." wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Scarlet Pimpernel) wrote:

Kevin S. Wilson wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:53:14 -0600, "tecwhiz"
wrote:

you moron veg heads need to make a stand.

Who's the bigger moron? The moron posting obvious flame-bait, or the
moron who allows himself to get manipulated into responding to obvious
flame-bait?


... or the moron who feels compelled to flame the moron of the second
part, who's responded indignantly to moron #1, who's basically
trespassing his prejudices where they're not welcome.

Pot, kettle, ...?

TakeAWhiz out morons all other morons. He wins just by showin up and
eatin boogers and droolin.

monroe(all hail the whiz! zip whip drizzle shakeshakeshake tuck zzzip)