We also eat lots of olive oil and organic butter for fat. Yum.

FunkMistress said:

That line gives me the image of you all just sitting around a vat of the stuff

noonblueapples said:

Have you been spying on us?

FunkMistress said:

Ghee is great!!

You have 2 daughters! How wonderful for you.

sag10 said:

It really is.

You're so sweet.

irresistibleb1tch said:

FunkMistress said:

you rock the shit, miss lady.

Anxiety said:

only if your perpective is so fucked up you think animals are people.

http://dictionary.reference.com
[Edited 2/23/05 19:07pm]

bkw said:

or if your perspective of life is balanced to an extent that you believe pain is pain and death is death.

i understand the "it's not murder, it's slaughter" perspective. i happen not to agree.

to me, the only thing "fucked up" is not allowing someone else at least respect enough to maintain a particular perspective if they're able to commit to it, and if that's what they really believe.

Cheers
Besides , it also means ; To kill brutally or inhumanly

http://dictionary.reference.com

Anxiety said:

I'll just put away the dictionary then. You can call it whatever you like I guess, even if you're wrong.

Dewrede said:

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

Straight from your site.

scroll down !

I'm hungrey!

EvilNatisse said:

Dewrede said:

They are the verb extentions not the definition as such.

In any event, animals are not killed brutally or inhumanely the vast majority of the time. A bolt to the head is fast and painless.

How they live before the killing on the other hand..... (I agree with you all on this point, hence I always purchase free range where possible).

bkw said:

Not to get all Rainbow Children on everyone's ass, but are semantics more important than life?

irresistibleb1tch said:

PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) is an animal-rights group that tries to pass itself off as an unbiased source of medical advice. If you look at their IRS Form 990's (which are public information and, among other things, show how a nonprofit organization gets their money and how they're spending it), you'll find that PCRM's #1 source of income is the PETA Foundation.

Some people have alleged that PCRM is nothing more than a PETA front group. Based upon the information I've read, I'm not willing to go that far. However, I can't help but remember the advice of the Watergate informant "Deep Throat": follow the money.

The American Medical Association has denounced PCRM. The president of PCRM, Dr. Neal Barnard, is a psychiatrist by training. To the best of my knowledge, he's never claimed to have any nutrition credentials. Why not? Probably because he doesn't have any.

To their credit, PCRM has done a very good job at duping major media outlets into believing that PCRM is a reliable source of objective medical advice. Sometimes the animal-rights connection is mentioned, but it seems that most of the time, it isn't.

If one wants to explore the ethics of eating animal products, sure, go ahead and consider what PETA et al. have to say. But if one wants to explore the science involved, go elsewhere. For example, Dr. Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of nutrition who has both an M.D. and a Ph.D., has done some research that would be useful for someone trying to make the health argument for vegetarianism.

Even though i don't eat very much red meat at allz, i kinda feel dat in my own opinion, dat a child should be fed everything from all da healthy food groupz...when they wanna make da decision for da kinda diet they should have, is when da whole being a vegan or vegetarian or meat-eater thing should become an issue.

I know i'll end up not eating any meat at all-or still have a similar kinda eating habit as i have now (vert little red meat- more vegetable/rice/pasta- mostly chicken and some fish)- but i was brought up with all da food groupz- i was fussy...but i still ate whatever my parentz or grandparentz could manage to stuff down my mouth when i allowed them to

I dunno if a child's eating habit should be cultivated to such a point- unless it is part of their culture or reasoned towardz a physical condition. I dunno. IT'z very much a subject of debate, but i still think a balance in a growing body is the best thing- AND THEN (once they've grown) can decide more about their own diets and hopefully choose something dat works well for them (and their health).

I'd never feed my child meat
It's just gross
Meat is murder !

I think I'd give my children a balanced diet and just try to ensure that it's healthy. I think it's a bit much to basically force your children to eat the way u do. Being healthy is the main thing, and who can argue that a balanced diet isn't healthy? For some they choose not to eat meat, for many reasons, but there's no doubting that a little meat, lots of fruit & veg and a balance of things is a healthy diet for a growing child. Not that I don't think vegetarian or vegan diets can be healthy for children. I just don't want to be an overbearing, controlling parent (ie. to that degree, since we still make choices such as not giving too much chocolate and trying to make them eat fruit etc.)

I guess when you're passionate about something u sometimes try to impose your will on others. Completely denying children any particular food (other than great quantities of obviously unhealthy things) when they're so young amounts to this IMHO.

Irresistibleb1tch said:

Source, please.

If this is true, it is likely because of fast food, not meat itself.

Dewrede said:

Ok, you've said that about a bazillion times on this thread already. We get it.

Oh, and I just have to say something about PETA: seriously, people, find something IMPORTANT to worry about, OK? Why the fuck are we focusing so much on the animals when there are millions of PEOPLE we should be helping first? "A society is defined by how it treats its animals." NO, SORRY, a society is defined by how it treats its CITIZENS.

VoicesCarry said:

Excellent suggestion. The focus should first be on helping/caring for people.
[Edited 2/27/05 22:43pm]

There'll always be people starving of hunger , aids or whatever
There's nothing we could possibly do about that !
[Edited 2/27/05 22:56pm]

Dewrede said:

That's the spirit, genius.

Eternaldragon said:

it's always interesting to me how, to many people, caring for people and caring for animals are mutually exclusive. when you practice compassion in your daily life, how can you limit that to only one group? THAT'S what is warped in our thinking.

most of the people i've met from and through PETA also work for human causes.

limiting one's compassion, or not seeing how the lives of humans and animals are inextricably connected, only leads to more suffering.