From: ldh@svl.cdc.com (Lawrence D. Hare)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegetarians or not vegetarians?
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:44:37 GMT
Organization: Control Data Systems
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A75B501816040456@ethelred.svl.cdc.com>
X-XXDate: Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:42:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.193545.3801@i88.isc.com> Claudia Kale,
claudiak@i88.isc.com writes:
>Again, I ask: exactly how does it "help" to know whether a poster
>is vegetarian or not? Is a vegetarian biochemist a better biochemist
>than an omnivorous one? I may be a victim of a limited imagination,
>but I can only see that sort of information as prejudicial. 

But do we not formulate our biases based on the words we read? Thus we
may become prejudicial without knowing anything about the personality of
the author. I certainly know which postings I want to read simply by
knowing the name of the poster, I know no more about them than that and
yet I form an opinion that is clearly prejudicial.

The point I wish to make is that each of us send a little of ourselves
along with any message we may write. These postings are NOT impersonal, I
find a wealth of humanity here, yet I do not know race or colour or creed
or hat size ;-), but that does NOT say that I want it to stay that way,
indeed I do not. There are people who post on r.f.v that I would like to
meet and get to know better, even though that is often unlikely. Knowing
certain inclinations and preferences of an author can improve the
understanding of a posting significantly and allow us to have a far more
meaningful dialogue.

It is not that a "vegetarian biochemist a better biochemist than an
omnivorous one", but perhaps this biochemist has a greater understanding
of animals as he or she does not eat them. Please note that this is an
example only. This biochemist brings a different perspective to the job
EXACTLY because he or she is a vegetarian. It need not necessarily be
better, but IT IS different, and is some circumstances that can be
better, and in some, perhaps not.

I do not know how many people will understand what I am about to say, but
I shall say it anyway. I have always been an animal lover, yet I would
sit down and eat a chicken. Something in me has objected to this for
decades, but mildly, or I did not listen. When I became vegetarian
earlier this year, and then vegan, it took about a month for something to
happen the result of which has surprised me immensely, I look at an
animal and I see what I can only describe as a person. I notice an
intelligence, an awareness, a sentience, that before was closed to me.
There is something in the eyes that I have not seen before. I like it. I
cannot even conceive of eating meat, repugnance is too light a word. I
think this happened as a result of the "commitment" to veganism, this was
the key action.

I do not understand this, I am not particularly trying to. Where it will
take me, if anywhere, is immaterial, but interesting. I WILL say that it
is very nice and makes me feel extremely good.

I have written, but never posted, a rather personal account of what has
happened to me as a result of this commitment. I have discussed these
finding with my doctor who knows of others with similar stories. It is
quite clear to me that, as a society, we eat FAR too much meat. Sickness
and ill health abounds because of it, the environment is being badly
damaged as a result of the need to supply the meat industry, and the
source of the food, the animals, have become a base object without regard
for feeling. We are ALL animals of one form or another, and the lesser
species must be treated with the same respect and dignity as we treat the
greater (actually - treated better judging by the way we treat each other
:-( ).

Boy did I run away with that! Anyway, before I change my mind I am
sending it out. After Christmas I shall revert to my old introspective
ways.

Happy Holidays and let the turkey eat the left overs.

Lawrence
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg