Killing vs. Murder: Hormonal and Behavioral Effects of Eating Animal Flesh

[Guest guest]

Hi Erica,

I largely agree with your sentiment, actually. I use the same

argument on hippies (lots of them at a university)...just because

alcohol is legal doesn't mean we should do other drugs too!

 

But yes, I am trying to get the best (if I can call it that) of both

worlds

 

 

 

Enchalan, I agree with your points as well! But I no longer argue

them as fact because I think they may be more anecdotal or wishful

thinking than fact. There is the argument that these hormones and

such break down very quickly and are no longer `whole` in the meat

when it is consumed. So I am not sure which is right. On the other

hand from experience, I do agree, meat CAN make you feel a little

funny when you eat it after not having had it for a while...similar to

a very small dose of coffee.

 

Vegetarian army! Very funny!!!!

 

Joe

 

 

 

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

>

> Erica,

>

> I see where you are going here. I was thinking you were going to say

" times

> per YEAR " , not per month.

>

> It all comes down to choice: what outcomes does one wish to create

in one's

> life.

>

> One thing overlooked in the present discussion, but about which I've

written

> before, is the transport of hormones from the dead animal into us. The

> animals KNOWS it is about to be killed. The animal is terrified (who

> wouldn't be!) and goes into a fight-or-flight response, releasing the

> adrenal hormone set throughout its system. We eat these, overload on

them,

> and become quite a bit more agitated, even violent, than we would

otherwise

> be. We diminish our intelligence and our vitality, because blood flow is

> redirected AWAY from our forebrain (reason, language, problem solving,

> creativity) and TOWARD our hindbrain (protection), AWAY from our central

> organs and TOWARD our arms and legs (for running and/or fighting).

>

> This, in a nutshell, is why there are no vegetarian armies. The phrase

> itself is an oxymoron.

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

> _____

>

> rawfood [rawfood ] On

Behalf Of

> Erica

> Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:09 PM

> rawfood

> [Raw Food] Re: Eskimo Longevity and Meat Consumption [brief]

>

>

> If you eat raw veggies and fruit the vast majority of the time (which is

> definitely the way to go!), and had a5-ounce organic (cooked) steak

say 2 or

> 3 times a month or something,the ill-health effects of that meat (IF

ANY!)

> will be well under the background noise contribution of industrial

> pollutants we expose ourselves willingly to every single day and night,

> 24/7/365.25. Iknow the China study showed a correlation of disease

to meat

> eating right down to zero meat-eating, but that was with cooked veggies

> which are far inferior to raw ones.

>

> Honestly, this does nothing to prove meat is healthy. Basically,

you are

> saying here that if you minimalize the bad (steak) and up your good food

> (raw vegan foods), you should be able to " get away " with eating the bad

> stuff. Nobody here would ever argue that - of course that makes perfect

> sense. Ditto for drinking aspartame-laced carbonated drinks once once a

> week if you follow a cleansing diet the rest of the month. But...

does that

> mean we SHOULD eat aspartame? even a " good quality " aspartame?

Obviously

> the body can deal with a lot of abuse or few Americans would be

alive right

> now... This is not really an " argument " , nor does it prove

anything. Meat

> is still inhumane and meat is still unhealthy.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma wrote:

>

> Hi Erica,

> I largely agree with your sentiment, actually. I use the same

> argument on hippies (lots of them at a university)...just because

> alcohol is legal doesn't mean we should do other drugs too!

 

Joe - I totally agree with alcohol. It is a shame that if the U.S.

opted to ban it, more people would take to the streets than ever

before, fighting for their right to...to... stupidity, incoherence,

and self-poisoning (for some, to lose their jobs, families, lifes, etc)

 

But take away our almonds, bomb kids in other countries, fail to

enforce humane slaughter laws... and nobody cares at all.

 

Sad. Sad. Sad.

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Erica " <schoolofrawk wrote:

>

> rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Erica,

> > I largely agree with your sentiment, actually. I use the same

> > argument on hippies (lots of them at a university)...just because

> > alcohol is legal doesn't mean we should do other drugs too!

>

> Joe - I totally agree with alcohol. It is a shame that if the U.S.

> opted to ban it, more people would take to the streets than ever

> before, fighting for their right to...to... stupidity, incoherence,

> and self-poisoning (for some, to lose their jobs, families, lifes,

etc)

>

 

And those of us who are freedom-loving, common-sense individuals

would be protesting (as many do with even the current War On Drug

Users) for our right to make that choice for ourselves. Certainly,

jailing someone for imbibing would be no solution at all!

 

I encourage you to read the book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

by the late Peter McWilliams, subtitled The Absurdity of Consensual

Crimes in a Free Society, now freely available online at

 

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/

 

If you prefer hardcopy (it is rather lengthy), you can get it

cheap at Amazon: http://www.zenpawn.com/amazon/?item=192976717X & s

 

> But take away our almonds, bomb kids in other countries, fail to

> enforce humane slaughter laws... and nobody cares at all.

>

> Sad. Sad. Sad.

 

It is. But desiring of legalization (continued or otherwise)

does not make one favor these latter atrocities. In fact, if

your reason for the former is an intellectual bent rather than

a " let's party " attitude, then your more likely to see the bad

in the latter.

 

-Erin

http://www.vegandonelight.com