Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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? |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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 > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
Shashay Doofray wrote:
> I have even a better idea. > > When Easter rolls around fill up your plate with ...sweat potatoes... Ugh. No thanks. |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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 > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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> |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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> > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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> >> >> > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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> > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
|
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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> > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Odd Question.
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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cognac question- US location question- | Wine | |||
Niagara Question / Vidal Blanc Question | Winemaking | |||
Please Answer My Serious Question [was Question about Wine, Bacteria, and Stench] | Winemaking | |||
Please Answer My Serious Question [was Question about Wine, Bacteria, and Stench] | Wine | |||
Chili question (Or maybe it should be chile question) | General Cooking |