Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At the
end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey dinner
which I want to eat. Don't be mad.

Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
sick eating the turkey at easter?

-Rogue

Rogue wrote:

> Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent,

Why?

> that is 40 days. At the
> end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey dinner
> which I want to eat. Don't be mad.
>
> Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
> is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> sick eating the turkey at easter?

No.

"Rogue" > wrote in message
...
> Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days.

> Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
> is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> sick eating the turkey at easter?
>
No meat for 40 days? I've not had meat for over 8,000 days. Never was
tempted to go back to the turkey. I can't imagine why it would do you any
more harm than it normally would.

Deb

Rogue wrote:
> Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At the
> end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey dinner
> which I want to eat. Don't be mad.

Why give up meat rather than some vice for Lent?

> Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
> is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> sick eating the turkey at easter?

No.

"Rogue" > wrote in message >...
> Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At the
> end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey dinner
> which I want to eat. Don't be mad.
>
> Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
> is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> sick eating the turkey at easter?
>
> -Rogue

Why are you asking a vegetarian/vegan newsgroup if it's OK to eat meat?

"Rogue" > wrote in message
...
> Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At the
> end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey dinner
> which I want to eat. Don't be mad.
>
> Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
> is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> sick eating the turkey at easter?

probably not if you only eat a small amount.


>
> -Rogue
>
>

"MrFalafel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rogue" > wrote in message
>...
> > Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At
the
> > end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey
dinner
> > which I want to eat. Don't be mad.
> >
> > Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my
question
> > is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> > sick eating the turkey at easter?
> >
> > -Rogue
>
> Why are you asking a vegetarian/vegan newsgroup if it's OK to eat meat?

I think Rogue's question was about the physical repercussions (if any) of
going forty days with a vegetarian diet and then eating turkey.

I would think this would be the perfect place to ask such a question. After
all, people who are not vegetarians would have little or no experience with
the scenario Rogue is describing. And on the other hand, people who are veg
are more likely to have at one point eaten meat after following a lengthy
period of eating only a veg diet. Not to say every veg does so, but the
chances of finding someone who's been there, done that are higher in a
vegetarian newsgroup than, for example, a pork newsgroup.

By the way, I don't know about turkey, but I eat smoked salmon about twice a
year when I visit relatives and follow a mostly veg diet the rest of the
year. No sickness to speak of experienced here but I think it would largely
depend on the individual and the diet followed.

-Jay

jay wrote:
>>Why are you asking a vegetarian/vegan newsgroup if it's OK to eat meat?
>
> I think Rogue's question was about the physical repercussions (if any) of
> going forty days with a vegetarian diet and then eating turkey.
>
> I would think this would be the perfect place to ask such a question.

Yeah, you would think so before you encountered a post from an
insufferably daft ex-patriated American like the OP ("Mr Falafel").

> After
> all, people who are not vegetarians would have little or no experience with
> the scenario Rogue is describing. And on the other hand, people who are veg
> are more likely to have at one point eaten meat after following a lengthy
> period of eating only a veg diet.

Very good point, Jay. It is one which the OP hasn't considered since
he's probably too busy trying to come up with a faux accent to match his
British (mis)spelling.

> Not to say every veg does so, but the
> chances of finding someone who's been there, done that are higher in a
> vegetarian newsgroup than, for example, a pork newsgroup.

Hmmm, are there any pork ngs?

> By the way, I don't know about turkey, but I eat smoked salmon about twice a
> year when I visit relatives and follow a mostly veg diet the rest of the
> year. No sickness to speak of experienced here but I think it would largely
> depend on the individual and the diet followed.

It will only depend on (a) food safety and (b) amount eaten, and
possibly (c) hypersensitive conscience of a weak person. Even advanced
yogis eat meat under certain circumstances. It only seems to bother
people who are very mentally weak, if not mentally ill.

I have even a better idea.

When Easter rolls around fill up your plate with dressing, mashed potatoes,
sweat potatoes, and a little of EVERYTHING else and you won't even miss the
turkey, and nobody else will notice that you aren't eating any!

SD

Shashay Doofray wrote:

> I have even a better idea.
>
> When Easter rolls around fill up your plate with ...sweat potatoes...

Ugh. No thanks.

Why just lent?

I'm currently a fish eating mostly vegetarian and vegan seems to be the
ultimate evolution in health and good thinking.

Thoughts?
"jay" > wrote in message
news:iUATb.385492$X%5.255467@pd7tw2no...
>
> "MrFalafel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Rogue" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At
> the
> > > end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey
> dinner
> > > which I want to eat. Don't be mad.
> > >
> > > Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my
> question
> > > is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I
get
> > > sick eating the turkey at easter?
> > >
> > > -Rogue
> >
> > Why are you asking a vegetarian/vegan newsgroup if it's OK to eat meat?
>
> I think Rogue's question was about the physical repercussions (if any) of
> going forty days with a vegetarian diet and then eating turkey.
>
> I would think this would be the perfect place to ask such a question.
After
> all, people who are not vegetarians would have little or no experience
with
> the scenario Rogue is describing. And on the other hand, people who are
veg
> are more likely to have at one point eaten meat after following a lengthy
> period of eating only a veg diet. Not to say every veg does so, but the
> chances of finding someone who's been there, done that are higher in a
> vegetarian newsgroup than, for example, a pork newsgroup.
>
> By the way, I don't know about turkey, but I eat smoked salmon about twice
a
> year when I visit relatives and follow a mostly veg diet the rest of the
> year. No sickness to speak of experienced here but I think it would
largely
> depend on the individual and the diet followed.
>
> -Jay
>
>
>
>

jRb top-posted:
> Why just lent?
>
> I'm currently a fish eating mostly vegetarian and vegan seems to be the
> ultimate evolution in health and good thinking.

Why is it "good thinking"? I think it's silly thinking. It's a
*devolution*, a regression. The consumption of meat and fats is what led
to evolution of our brains and cognitive abilities.

> Thoughts?

Maybe you're devolving into an earlier undeveloped hominid. Better stay
out of the gene pool.

<snip>

"Rogue" > wrote in message
...
> Hi. I am thinking of becoming vegetarian for lent, that is 40 days. At the
> end of this on Easter, my grandmother will make a delicious turkey dinner
> which I want to eat. Don't be mad.
>
> Anyway, basically I am doing this for lent to test myself but my question
> is, because I will go 40 days without meat (still dairy tho), will I get
> sick eating the turkey at easter?
>
> -Rogue

The only physical reason you might get sick from eating turkey is if it
wasn't prepared right.

IMO, it's a myth that vegetarians get sick from eating meat. I've been
vegetarian before, twice, and gone off of it
twice. I didn't get sick. One time I had been vegetarian for several months,
and my dad wanted me to eat some barbecue with him
that he'd made for a holiday. I ate a lot of meat that day, and it was
pretty good too.

I think if someone works themselves up about meat being filthy, disgusting,
rotting, and disease
ridden, then they may have quite a lot of psychosomatic effects if they eat
it again. Even a strong moral inhibition might
make them feel guilty and that could manifest itself as stress headaches or
something. So if you convince yourself that if you eat
meat, it will make you feel sick, you probably will be.

Otherwise, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

-Rubystars

I don't agree with that assumption. It's wrong to enslave and kill animals
for food especialy since it's not necessary.

I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive abilities.

I don't plan to reproduce regardless of your rude statement simply because
there are too many children in the world at this point in time. I believe
we need to take care of the orphans of present, and take a step back to
solve the problems of hunger, healthcare, and over population instead of
letting everyone just reproduce selfishly without giving thought to the long
term consequences.

Thoughts?

P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting. She
did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here that
only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other ideas.
I hope she was wrong.


"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> jRb top-posted:
> > Why just lent?
> >
> > I'm currently a fish eating mostly vegetarian and vegan seems to be the
> > ultimate evolution in health and good thinking.
>
> Why is it "good thinking"? I think it's silly thinking. It's a
> *devolution*, a regression. The consumption of meat and fats is what led
> to evolution of our brains and cognitive abilities.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> Maybe you're devolving into an earlier undeveloped hominid. Better stay
> out of the gene pool.
>
> <snip>
>
>

jRb wrote:

> I don't agree with that assumption. It's wrong to enslave

The animals are not enslaved.

> and kill animals
> for food especialy since it's not necessary.

Prove it.

>
> I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive abilities.
>
> I don't plan to reproduce regardless of your rude statement simply because
> there are too many children in the world at this point in time. I believe
> we need to take care of the orphans of present, and take a step back to
> solve the problems of hunger, healthcare, and over population instead of
> letting everyone just reproduce selfishly without giving thought to the long
> term consequences.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting. She
> did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here that
> only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other ideas.
> I hope she was wrong.
>
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jRb top-posted:
>>
>>>Why just lent?
>>>
>>>I'm currently a fish eating mostly vegetarian and vegan seems to be the
>>>ultimate evolution in health and good thinking.
>>
>>Why is it "good thinking"? I think it's silly thinking. It's a
>>*devolution*, a regression. The consumption of meat and fats is what led
>>to evolution of our brains and cognitive abilities.
>>
>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Maybe you're devolving into an earlier undeveloped hominid. Better stay
>>out of the gene pool.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>
>

"jRb" > wrote in message
. com...
> I don't agree with that assumption.

I don't agree with top-posting, this is an example why, *which assumption*?

> It's wrong to enslave

Slaves are unpaid, forced labourers, livestock aren't required to do any
work.

> and kill animals
> for food especialy since it's not necessary.

Are you sure it's not necessary to kill animals for food? I agree it's not
necessary to *eat* dead animals, but it seems necessary to kill them to
produce food, lots and lots of them.

> I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive
abilities.

Eating meat, specifically shellfish, gave homo sapiens an advantage over all
the other hominids. Don't see many neanderthals around do you? (Derek Nash
is an exception)


>
> I don't plan to reproduce regardless of your rude statement simply because
> there are too many children in the world at this point in time. I believe
> we need to take care of the orphans of present, and take a step back to
> solve the problems of hunger, healthcare, and over population instead of
> letting everyone just reproduce selfishly without giving thought to the
long
> term consequences.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting. She
> did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here that
> only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other
ideas.
> I hope she was wrong.
>
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > jRb top-posted:
> > > Why just lent?
> > >
> > > I'm currently a fish eating mostly vegetarian and vegan seems to be
the
> > > ultimate evolution in health and good thinking.
> >
> > Why is it "good thinking"? I think it's silly thinking. It's a
> > *devolution*, a regression. The consumption of meat and fats is what led
> > to evolution of our brains and cognitive abilities.
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Maybe you're devolving into an earlier undeveloped hominid. Better stay
> > out of the gene pool.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
>
>

In article > ,
says...
> P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting. She
> did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here that
> only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other ideas.
> I hope she was wrong.
>

Killfiles are your friend.

Woof

"Woof Ridge" > wrote in message
news:MPG.1a96c233d3e8f2d3989749@localhost...
> In article > ,
> says...
> > P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting.
She
> > did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here
that
> > only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other
ideas.
> > I hope she was wrong.
> >
>
> Killfiles are your friend.
======================
Yep, a friend to the terminally ignorant that wish to never hear the truth
of their false religion, veganism.


>
> Woof

"jRb" > wrote in message
. com...
> I don't agree with that assumption. It's wrong to enslave and kill
animals
> for food especialy since it's not necessary.
=================================
So I guess you food is all manna that falls from heaven spontaneously, eh?



>
> I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive
abilities.
=====================
Not 'enslaved'. But yes, it was meat eating that started us down that path.
Too bad there are some here that wish to regress.

>
> I don't plan to reproduce regardless of your rude statement simply because
> there are too many children in the world at this point in time.
=====================
Good idea, stupidity is genetic, your ignorance could be cured, but you
prefer the alternative, right/


I believe
> we need to take care of the orphans of present, and take a step back to
> solve the problems of hunger, healthcare, and over population instead of
> letting everyone just reproduce selfishly without giving thought to the
long
> term consequences.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting. She
> did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here that
> only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other
ideas.
> I hope she was wrong.
=======================
Yes, she is. How does anyone on usenet 'shut down' anothers ideas? We
discuss the ignorance and falsness behind veganism. It's nothing but a
simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. that in and of itself does
nothing to 'save' animals from death and suffering. And, since vegans have
never given thier diet even a casual look of concern, and focused instead on
what they think others are doing, they have no idea if they have done
'better' or worse than tghey were before their religious conversion to
veganism.


>
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > jRb top-posted:
> > > Why just lent?
> > >
> > > I'm currently a fish eating mostly vegetarian and vegan seems to be
the
> > > ultimate evolution in health and good thinking.
> >
> > Why is it "good thinking"? I think it's silly thinking. It's a
> > *devolution*, a regression. The consumption of meat and fats is what led
> > to evolution of our brains and cognitive abilities.
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Maybe you're devolving into an earlier undeveloped hominid. Better stay
> > out of the gene pool.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
>
>

"jRb" > wrote in message
. com...
> I don't agree with that assumption. It's wrong to enslave and kill
animals
> for food especialy since it's not necessary.
>
> I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive
abilities.

You're right, it was the prehuman ancestors that used their brains to get
better and better at the hunting/gathering
lifestyle. It helped them a lot to be able to tell the difference between
seasons, know when particular plants were
fruiting, know the timings of prey herd migrations, etc.

They created tools to help cut meat and kill it. They made fires to cook and
dry it.

By the time our ancestors could be considered Homo sapiens sapiens, they'd
been eating meat for many generations.

Part of what contributed to the rise in brain size was the intelligence
needed to hunt, make better and better tools, recognize
patterns, etc.

However, this doesn't mean that not eating meat is "devolution." There's no
such thing as devolution because evolution is
not a ladder, but a tree. Modern chimpanzees and gorillas are just as highly
evolved as modern humans. For that matter, so
are modern fish and other species.

Being vegetarian won't cause brain size to decrease, and even if it did
cause that in individuals, it wouldn't mean that people's kids
would have that problem. Traits acquired during your lifetime can't be
passed on.

-Rubystars

jRb wrote:

Stop top-posting in this group.

> I don't agree with that assumption.

So?

> It's wrong to enslave and kill animals
> for food especialy since it's not necessary.

Care to support this hypothesis?

> I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive abilities.

There is no such thing as "slaved meat."

> I don't plan to reproduce

TG.

> regardless of your rude statement

It wasn't rude. It was true. The truth may hurt, but lies hurt more.

> simply because
> there are too many children in the world at this point in time.

Too many children for what?

> I believe
> we need to take care of the orphans of present,

Adopt one.

> and take a step back to solve the problems of hunger,

What does hunger have to do with veganism?

> healthcare, and over population instead of
> letting everyone just reproduce selfishly without giving thought to the long
> term consequences.

What consequences? If you can afford children and like them, have some.
If you can't afford them or don't like them, then don't.

> Thoughts?

Many, and probably ALL contrary to yours.

> P.S. A friend told me about this newgroup and it sounded interesting.

It can be.

> She
> did warn me however that there are some rather rude individuals here that
> only wish to speak what's in the mind and quickly shut down to other ideas.

I guess your friend doesn't like reason or facts, either, then.

> I hope she was wrong.

She probably is, but not in the ways you realize.

Rubystars wrote:
>>I don't agree with that assumption. It's wrong to enslave and kill
> animals
>>for food especialy since it's not necessary.
>>
>>I highly doubt eating slaved meat is what gave us our congnitive
> abilities.
>
> You're right, it was the prehuman ancestors that used their brains to get
> better and better at the hunting/gathering
> lifestyle. It helped them a lot to be able to tell the difference between
> seasons, know when particular plants were
> fruiting, know the timings of prey herd migrations, etc.
>
> They created tools to help cut meat and kill it. They made fires to cook and
> dry it.
>
> By the time our ancestors could be considered Homo sapiens sapiens, they'd
> been eating meat for many generations.
>
> Part of what contributed to the rise in brain size was the intelligence
> needed to hunt, make better and better tools, recognize
> patterns, etc.

The nutrients in animal flesh, too, played a large role.

> However, this doesn't mean that not eating meat is "devolution."

In a sense, it is. Have you seen what imbeciles some veg-ns become due
to their lack of nourishment?

> There's no
> such thing as devolution because evolution is
> not a ladder, but a tree.

Devolution is a valid term -- and concept -- to explain negative changes
in a species "fitness function."

> Modern chimpanzees and gorillas are just as highly
> evolved as modern humans. For that matter, so
> are modern fish and other species.
>
> Being vegetarian won't cause brain size to decrease,

Ipse dixit. Brain function can become impaired because of diet.

> and even if it did
> cause that in individuals, it wouldn't mean that people's kids
> would have that problem.

Changes could and would occur over succeeding generations, but only if
there were enough vegetarians to influence the gene pool. In terms of
biological (d)evolution, the presence or lack of certain enzymes used in
digesting food (flesh vs vegetable) could be reflected in the aggregate
gene pool. Other changes could also be noted over time, including
diminished cognitive abilities.

> Traits acquired during your lifetime can't be passed on.

Ipse dixit. Study genetic assimilation yet? There are more dynamics than
strict biological evolution at work in our species.

There is a particularly interesting branch of evolutionary
theory called Baldwinian evolution, after the American
psychologist James Mark Baldwin. Baldwin argued that social
changes in, for example, technology could create changes in the
genome. For example, as long as humans were in Africa as
hunter-gatherers, if adults could not digest milk, that was a
valuable trait. It may have protected against illness or death
from stale or diseased milk. It certainly left more milk for the
infants who needed it. As a result, people who had lactose
intolerance would have more surviving offspring than people who
didn't. Their genes would predominate. But, when people moved
into Europe and began to cultivate herds of cattle, lactose
intolerance would be a negative trait. People who could survive
a famine on milk would have more offspring than people who could
not tolerate lactose. Over time, people with lactose intolerance
would be represented less and less in the gene population and
ultimately they would be almost gone from the genome itself. And
it happened. European populations generally tolerate lactose and
African populations generally do not. In effect, a cultural
change led to a genetic change, over a relatively fewer number
of generations than biological evolution requires. A cultural
change had effect of a Lamarckian evolution without the false
genetic mechanisms Lamarck posited. Indeed, Baldwinian evolution
proceeds without any genetic mechanisms, only a cultural
differentiation in number of surviving carriers of one’s genes.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/journal...1/hollan03.htm

Most theories about the prevalence of lactose intolerance and many other
digestive disorders in isolated populations are Baldwinian in nature.
Dairy is just one food. The addition or deletion of another (i.e., meat)
could lead to similar issues in successive generations. Now, would you
consider lactose intolerance evolution or devolution -- even if you
reject that term?