Non-omniverous people

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Anybody who would turn down food on religious/cultural/abstract grounds deserves to starve to death, IMO. Also, could it be that certain religions get more than their share of persecution and denigration because of their insistence on ridiculous dietary laws?

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Re 'food intolerances', since I believe that most 'sickness' = 'juvenile neurosis', those would be covered too!

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

another dave scortcher.

― jess, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

How many religions are there that actually have ridiculous dietary laws? Vegetarianism and veganism are common and understandable. Not eating pork is something, that although a little odd, given that of all the things to give up it seems a fairly arbitary choice, (but then I do not know the reasons behind it) but is not exactly problematic. I can only think of Jehovah's Witnesses really (but that's not refusing food, is it, more refusing other people's blood and organs, which on some levels I can see why. Your body is your body, etc, etc.), and I would agree with you on that point, in that it is foolish to die when you could be saved, but to deserve death is a bit harsh.

― alix, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I am omnivorous. I want to eat Dave Q. As I finish off Raost Leg of Dave Q I wonder if he thinks that omnivorous people aren't always classick.

― Pete, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

'Starve to death' - only if non-approved food is on offer and they refuse to eat it

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

When my Jewish relatives are offered ham sandwiches at Xmas they always accept. Not that starvation is a likely alternative in our house at Xmas. Maybe they only eat them in order to avoid extra helpings of persecution.

― Emma, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why don't you eat humans, anyway, Dave? Some kind of crazy reglious/cultural/abstract thing?

― N., Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't challenge him!

― DG, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

how d'you know he doesn't? of course brit meat = uneatable because of how poorly we all look after ourselves

― mark s, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

He wouldn't, would he?

― N., Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

'Uneatable' = coolest word ever!

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

*phew* luckily i refuse to eat certain foods for non-abstract, perfectly concrete reasons, otherwise i might think Dave Q hates me and then i would have to cwy and shake in my boots...

... hang on, i am a woman and i have a job. dave q hates me anyway BOO HOO!!!!

― katie, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Should someone start the 'Would you eat human flesh thread?'

― a, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i think someone already did, or at least it's been discussed. Pete would!

BUT PETE: would you eat human SPAM????

― katie, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's 80% meat!

― N., Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't know whether this is the case with other religions but in Islam it's considered acceptable to eat non-approved food if the alternative is starvation.

― neil, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Islam's kind of like that, though, isn't it? Practically anything is allowed 'under certain circumstances'. Just like other religions, really, except some have more stupid rules than others. 'If alternative is starvation', that just proves that the only point behind these rules is an arbitrary mark of membership of 'special' group, and the desire of humans to prove their own collective specialness is what causes most shit in the first place.

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think it's collective special ness, more a desire to control people. Islam seems quite tolerant about food, to be honest. Like Ramadan, frin, you can eat if fasting would harm you. Strikes me that this is a wonderful way to go about things. Suffering for your beliefs and personal spiritual development is often a great way to learn, but not always. There are other ways. I reckon you have to look at what works for each individual.

― alix, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

...whereas Dave Q is in his own very special select collective of ONE.

― katie, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

My favourite is the Urban Cookie Collective. I'm going now, to get some breakfast.

― alix, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I chew my nails and surrounding skin so of course I have eaten humang flesh on many an occasion.

― Sarah, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, look, I can't believe how *d'oh* people are being about dietary laws in Islam and Judaism. The main reason for No Pork in either religion is because before science identified trichinosis, the disease that infests bad or undercooked pork kept in too-hot climes, the Abrahamic religions kind of had this hunch that pork = throwing a bad sickie, hence prohibition on 'unclean'/religious grounds. Because pig meat really was unclean. Same goes for milk and meat mixing as part of Kosher. Now, one might as well do away with the restriction because of hygiene advances but the tradition sticks.

― suzy, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Tradition sticks" - more fuel to Dave Q's fire, I feel.

― N., Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What about eggs and chickens and milk though? Those fell more people than pigmeat! Also, bread with ergot on it caused all kinds of weird incidents and nobody ever banned that. Although I wish they had, I hate bread.

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why eating pork is wrong - according to the website "Ask the Imam" (http://islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php)

There is a saying in English that "a man becomes what he eats." According to physicians and medical experts, pork is a harmful diet. Consumption of swine-flesh creates lowliness in character and destroys moral and spiritual faculties in a man.

The life of a man is a compound of body and soul. Anything, which is harmful for the body, hurts the soul as well. Consumption of swine- flesh reduces the feeling of shame and as such the standard of modesty. Those nations, which consume pork habitually, have a low standard of morality with the result that virginity, chastity and bashfulness are becoming a thing of the past in Europe today. The number of unwed mothers is on the increase despite the use of pills and other contraceptives.

According to a report, 60 to 70% girls in Sweden become mothers before marriage. The formula of "skin to skin is no sin" is having its toll but there is hardly and feeling of shame and remorse over the end-result. Since the European nations have become addicted to wine and pork, sexual freedom with all its attendant evils has got ingrained in their culture. Consequently, homosexuality has been legalized by the British Parliament.

― neil, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, there you have it. A 'scientific' explanation that includes the word 'soul'. Enuff said.

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh dear.

― DG, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(That was to Neil's and not Dave Q's post)

― DG, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Might as well face it, you're addicted to wine and pork"

― N., Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Vegetarianism and veganism are common

I'd go along with that.

― Sam, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

One man's food is another man's pet.

― Dare, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

HOW CAN YOU SUGGEST PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH YOU INSENSITIVE CUNT FUCK YOU CUNT FUCK YOU CUNT FUCK YOU CUNT FUCK YOU INFINITY.

― ethan, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

... and Sam becomes the next recipient of a stomping from my kickass Vegan boots the next time i see him :)

― katie, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I was under the impression that famine is caused more often by poverty, climate, and geography. But I guess saying "religon is bad" is more controversial.

― bnw, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

That a large population of well-off people don't eat pork is fine with me; it helps keep the price down.

Also, could it be that certain religions get more than their share of persecution and denigration because of their insistence on ridiculous dietary laws?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Who is persecuted because of dietary laws? Hindus don't eat cows, Christians worship Jesus. Both traditions are rooted in conditions that no longer exist. What's the difference? Religions aren't logical to begin with.

― Kris, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Kris - I meant, people getting peeved by other people's 'exclusive' tastes. Like the stereotype American tourist who complains about the food everywhere, sort of, except like REALLY uptight about it.

― dave q, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If anyone could use ridiculous dietary laws, it's the fat Americans.

― Kris, Thursday, 21 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Non-omniverous people - dud or dud?