04-04-2012, 02:17 PM
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote:Bring4th_Monica Wrote:You will save $$ on your grocery bill, and maybe even on healthcare costs long-term.
I did not. On contrary, it was more expensive for me.
I'm having a difficult time comprehending that. Meat is more expensive than eggs, rice, beans, tofu, etc. The fruits and veggies expenditure would be the same. How is it possible that you spent more?
The only way, would be if you were relying on packaged, specialty foods. Tofu might not be available everywhere, but it isn't necessary anyway. I don't know of any place in the world where eggs, rice and beans cost more than meat.
I am genuinely curious. Would you like to share how a vegetarian diet was more expensive for you?
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote: It was true for me. I was vegetarian for many years. I started to be a vegatarian in my teens, and even thought that the ultimate thing would be to not to eat anything that is living in the nature, but what nature has to offer, such as fruits, some seeds, nuts etc.
Ah! So you were a raw vegan? If so, that would explain it. Most definitely, being raw vegan does require more education and, initially, time for food prep.
When I said "vegetarian diet is cheaper" I was referring to lacto-ovo, not raw vegan. That might explain it.
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote: When I got pregnant, I had to start to eat the meat again.
If you were trying to do raw vegan, then I can understand that. Pregnant women do pull it off, but it is more challenging. Personally I wouldn't attempt raw vegan when pregnant, simply because nutritional and caloric needs are greatly increased, and because I'm not willing to be a pioneer in that respect. After more women have successfully done it, I'd be open to doing it (if I were still having babies, which I'm not of course!).
But plenty of vegan women have had healthy pregnancies and beautiful, healthy babies. That is common knowledge now, but when I was pregnant many years ago, I didn't have enough knowledge about being a vegan when pregnant. So I decided to err on the side of caution and started eating eggs and cheese again, temporarily. I also drank raw goat's milk.
I can understand that you did what you had to do at the time, based on the level of knowledge and support you had at the time. I had a friend who insisted on being raw vegan when pregnant, despite feeling hungry all the time. I strongly advised her against it, even though I was moving in the direction of raw vegan myself. I told her it wasn't worth potentially harming her baby! She didn't listen to me and both her babies had problems.
To me, this was the height of irresponsibility. Even if she had followed Tenet's philosophy of "listening to your body" she would have known that her body needed something! Quite simply, if the body is being nourished, it wouldn't be hungry all the time!
This was 20 years ago, when there was very little knowledge about the raw vegan diet while pregnant. Even now, some of the raw vegan gurus say, do not attempt while pregnant! It's just too new, and it's irresponsible to risk the baby's health with a new diet that hasn't been proven to be adequate for pregnant women.
To be clear, I am referring to raw vegan, NOT vegan or lacto-ovo vegetarian, both of which have been proven quite adequate for pregnant and lactating women.
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote: You can speak for yourself, but not for other people.
I'm not speaking for anyone. Um...did you miss the part about me never assessing anyone else's diet?
I made a general statement. In my experience, meat costs more than eggs, cheese, rice and beans, so logically that means a veg diet is less expensive. Or, at the very least, certainly not more expensive!
As to 'more difficult' I just started a new thread, outlining how easy it is to go veg.
If you disagree with my assessment, the only explanation I can think of would be that eggs, rice and beans cost more than meat in your area. If you tell me that, then I will stand corrected.
But I will be very surprised, since, historically, rice and beans were considered 'peasant food' while meat was more readily available to the wealthy. I learned that in history class in junior high school. Still, maybe times have changed and costs are different where you live. So I am interested in your response.
How is that speaking for anyone else?
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote: Perhaps this is what causing friction, harshness, and rough and tough tone in this thread? I am not talking about you specifically, because as Tenet pointed out, this is a group energy.
Maybe not, but the implication from you and the other meat-eaters is that the vegetarians are the ones with the 'harsh tone' even though we've all been stepping on eggshells this whole time, while the meat-eaters have generally been the ones calling us names (like zealot, fanatic, etc.) yet they are the ones complaining about us.
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote: What I can say is that no matter how much encouragement and messages of self respect I may try to bring, if other selves would rather believe in messages of guilt, disempowerment and disencouragement - then it is their difficult lessons that they are very hard trying to learn, Monica. Their choices will not stop me though from trying to bring these messages over and over again. Words have power, and we can either use them to create walls, or bridges. Some services/words that we bring to others are disempowering and discouraging, and not seeing the human behind the message they are written to, but are addressed to invisible readers; and some services/words are empowering that human being they are written to, and encouriging him/her.
We're not posting any messages of guilt or disempowerment. We're simply stating facts, and backing them up with documentation. Those slaughterhouse videos I posted? Those are factual. Those things really did happen, and really do happen on a daily basis.
It would be the same if I posted a video about starving children. Would say I was "imposing guilt" and "disempowering them" if I did that?
(04-04-2012, 05:42 AM)Ankh Wrote: I would rather not give *any* messages *at all* that would bring people guilt, as I believe it to be a negative catalyst, that is already provided in abundance upon this planet.
So, are you saying that if you knew about some horrible injustice, you wouldn't tell anyone? Let's say, for example, you knew for a fact that a neighbor was running a human trafficking operation. He was kidnapping children and selling them into prostitution. You even had photos of those children being tortured.
But telling the authorities would upset your other neighbors, because the perpetrator was well-regarded in the community.
Would you not tell the authorities anyway? Or would you keep your mouth shut, because the news was "disempowering" and "negative" and might produce "feelings of guilt" in the neighbors who had been looking the other way?
Note: Before anyone jumps on me for this analogy, let me be clear that I am NOT comparing eating animals to a child trafficking ring!!!! So please don't even go there. I am simply illustrating an example of something that most people would care about.