Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 zenbob said: >Before screaming that you would never consider such a meal, or such a grim >arrangement, you might consider the testimony of real people who have faced >starvation and certain death, who have in fact admitted to eating the flesh >of their dead companions. dear zenbob, i'm not much into screaming or "flaming", i'd rather have quiet logical debate. perhaps, if i was in such a drastic situation, i might eat an already dead human. i guess it would depend on how badly i wanted to survive, and if i could manage the actual process of eating someone all uncooked and bloody. i wouldn't think someone who ate a dead person in such circumstances was "bad", it would just be a bit gross to me. in my opinion though, there is a difference between eating someone's body who has already died naturally by freezing to death, and killing someone so that you can eat them. what would you think if i adopted a baby boy and kept him locked in an room in my house, fed him and fattened him up until he was an adult, and then killed him quickly and mercifully, and then ate him? what about if i partook of his flesh with love and respect, would it make a difference that i took his life? can i ask you a question? why is it that you eat meat? actually, a better question would be, why do you kill animals?, but the answer i guess might be "so i can eat them." but still, if you could explain why you eat meat/why you kill animals, that would be much appreciated. i don't wish to condem or judge you for what you do, just to understand why you do what you do. with love and respect, but not planning on killing and eating you, matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 In a message dated 11/30/99 4:13:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, janb writes: << What a pity... From a "health" perspective, cancerous tissue is the "better" alternative, since its protein content is higher than in ordinary meat and the fat content is less. In principle, large scale cultivation of cancerous tissue from cell cultures could be the "solution" for "a daily steak for everyone" without killing animals. Of course it would be called something like "bio-engineered health meat" so it could be eaten with love >> Dear Jan: A very fine modest proposal! As you may be aware, all laboratory cancer cells grown "in vitro" that are viable for research are descendants of cells taken from a lady in Alabama, of African American heritage. Such cultivation of cancer cells as health food makes a great deal of sense, because it would also put more people in touch with their long lost heritage's from the Mother Continent and "Lucy" the African "mother" of the human race. Then, we would not have the scourge of inflicting death upon other helpless animals, but could happily dine upon the endless bounty of our own cellular bounty. Who knows? It might impart some great degree of cancer resistance after several generations. Let's toast the new "Light white meat!" Blessings Love, Zenbob PS, please do keep in mind, for those not familiar with the essay "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift, that I too, have tongue firmly planted in cheek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 1999 Report Share Posted December 6, 1999 > On 11/30/99 at 11:29 AM Antoine wrote: > > [...] > >I must admit Matt that i am not evolved enough as an organism to find > >cancer cells as tasty as fresh meat. There is still a limit to the > >deepness of my love, there lies my life i guess. > > > >Antoine > > What a pity... From a "health" perspective, cancerous tissue is the > "better" alternative, since its protein content is higher than in ordinary > meat and the fat content is less. In principle, large scale cultivation of > cancerous tissue from cell cultures could be the "solution" for "a daily > steak for everyone" without killing animals. Of course it would be called > something like "bio-engineered health meat" so it could be eaten with love > > > Jan > Hello Jan, It is hard and a lesson for me to stay "objective" in this discussion, since my aunt died of cancer yesterday morning. But when i look at her body it does not shine health, and in some way it does not seem as tasty as a young and healthy flesh or plant. Any information on this cancer tissue alternative will be appreciated. Thank you in advance, always open to taste new things, Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 1999 Report Share Posted December 6, 1999 ZEN2WRK wrote: > > ZEN2WRK > > In a message dated 11/30/99 4:13:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > janb writes: > > << What a pity... From a "health" perspective, cancerous tissue is the > "better" alternative, since its protein content is higher than in ordinary > meat and the fat content is less. In principle, large scale cultivation of > cancerous tissue from cell cultures could be the "solution" for "a daily > steak for everyone" without killing animals. Of course it would be called > something like "bio-engineered health meat" so it could be eaten with love > It might impart some great degree of cancer resistance > after several generations. > > Let's toast the new "Light white meat!" > > Blessings > Love, This is interesting, will it bring cancer resistance, or help us live with cancer? Taking my aunt for instance, she only found out at 75, tree weeks ago, that she had cancer, going at the hospital with a small problem with her lungs. She came out knowing she only had at most tree weeks to live. The cancer was living in all her flesh, from her toes, to the brain to the lungs, etc... More than 50% of her tissue was of cancer cells. She had been an healthy lady up to that day, and died fast. Something in her had found the way to live with cancer over all those years, for such invasion of cancer does take years. The cancer cell also have a life to respect, I love what i eat and i eat what i love, In this way i may say i love you, Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 1999 Report Share Posted December 6, 1999 On 12/6/99 at 10:43 AM Antoine wrote: [...] >Hello Jan, > >It is hard and a lesson for me to stay "objective" in this discussion, >since my aunt died of cancer yesterday morning. But when i look at her >body it does not shine health, and in some way it does not seem as tasty >as a young and healthy flesh or plant. Any information on this cancer >tissue alternative will be appreciated. > >Thank you in advance, always open to taste new things, > >Antoine Sorry to hear your aunt has died - 75 is relatively young... One might wonder if there is such a thing as a borderline between subjective and objective. By observing that all types of meat are globally consumed, it will be clear the choice of food is highly subjective although with the proper herbs, anything can be made tasty. But there is the apparent difficulty to kill a dear one, just for the sake consumption. Dear ones and non-dear ones is another distinction based on subjectivity and what seems a non-dear one today could be a dear one tomorrow. When all distinctions have vanished, either one can consume whatever pleases one, or one sticks to "what worked 'before'", so it is said. But it is overlooked that when all distinctions have vanished, so has the notion of dear and non-dear, and "whatever pleases one" no longer applies. Experience is the best teacher, so it is said. But there is evidence that the habit of eating human brains in some primitive cultures did cause Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease; the natives themselves never found out. Tigers don't die from mad tiger disease, no matter how many brains they consume... The tenacious denial by nature to equip homo sapiens with the enzyme uricase, despite millennia of meat consumption, is for some indicative enough. AFAIC this is my last remark *ever* on the food-issue; experience is the best teacher and eternity offers enough opportunity for that. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 1999 Report Share Posted December 6, 1999 Jan Barendrecht wrote: > Dear ones and non-dear ones is another distinction based on > subjectivity and what seems a non-dear one today could be a > dear one tomorrow. Distinctions may vanish or not, but you are a dear one Jan, I might eat your dead body if I was starving, and it would be with the deepest gratitude and fondness. love, andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 1999 Report Share Posted December 6, 1999 Dear Antoine, > ---------- > Antoine[sMTP:carrea] > Monday, December 06, 1999 11:03 PM > > Re: eat your aunt > > Antoine <carrea > > I love what i eat and i eat what i love, > > In this way i may say i love you, > If i eat you first, can u eat me? If i love you first, i'm sure you can love me :-) But, is it true eating = loving? if it is, eat me then. Eating you, Nasir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 1999 Report Share Posted December 7, 1999 In a message dated 12/6/99 6:10:10 PM Mountain Standard Time, kvy9 writes: << One might wonder if there is such a thing as a borderline between subjective and objective. >> Not only are you right about this, it seems to me this area is the main playground of the spiritual path. What you are pointing out is the movement where the whole universe becomes subject. Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 1999 Report Share Posted December 7, 1999 On 12/7/99 at 11:00 AM Hbarrett47 wrote: ¤Hbarrett47 ¤ ¤In a message dated 12/6/99 6:10:10 PM Mountain Standard Time, ¤kvy9 writes: ¤ ¤<< One might wonder if there is such a thing as a borderline ¤ between subjective and objective. >> ¤ ¤Not only are you right about this, it seems to me this area is the main ¤playground of the spiritual path. What you are pointing out is the movement ¤where the whole universe becomes subject. Holly ¤ Excellent! Now you may ponder on "what's in store" if the last bit of "objective" starts to disappear, when the subject will be without object so to speak. Hint: isn't the subject defined by the presence of an object? Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.