ann329851

we dont do it, for the simple reason, that once an animal is murdered
the flesh begins to decompose. i liken it to having a belly like an
animal graveyard..i just cant eat it for that reason alone. nor do my
kids.. ann

Betj

I think about it being a muscle and don't eat it often. As a child I turned down sodas and meats for juice and salads but I do have a major sweet tooth now!
Beth
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "ann329851" <annworsley991@...>

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:57:53
To:[email protected]
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Eating meat


we dont do it, for the simple reason, that once an animal is murdered
the flesh begins to decompose. i liken it to having a belly like an
animal graveyard..i just cant eat it for that reason alone. nor do my
kids.. ann

Melissa Gray

So do plants, right? So it's like eating a compost pile?


Melissa
Mom to Joshua, Breanna, Emily, Rachel, Samuel, Daniel and Avari
Wife to Zane

blog me at
http://startlinglives.blogspot.com/
http://startlinglives365.blogspot.com



On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:57 AM, ann329851 wrote:

> we dont do it, for the simple reason, that once an animal is murdered
> the flesh begins to decompose. i liken it to having a belly like an
> animal graveyard..i just cant eat it for that reason alone. nor do my
> kids.. ann
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ann329851

--- In [email protected], Melissa Gray
<autismhelp@...> wrote:
>
> So do plants, right? So it's like eating a compost pile?
>
>
> Melissa
> Mom to Joshua, Breanna, Emily, Rachel, Samuel, Daniel and Avari
> Wife to Zane
>
> blog me at
> http://startlinglives.blogspot.com/
> http://startlinglives365.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:57 AM, ann329851 wrote:
>
> > we dont do it, for the simple reason, that once an animal is
murdered
> > the flesh begins to decompose. i liken it to having a belly like
an
> > animal graveyard..i just cant eat it for that reason alone. nor
do my
> > kids.. ann
> >
> >
> >
> possibly , but considering that a compost pile doesnt have a cardio
vascular system , or a FACE it doesnt affect me quite so much !!!!!
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

shari bergquist

Yeah I would say sort of. Not really in the same way though (I can't put
meat in my compost). My point is that animals have a spirit and a
personality and I wouldn't eat a person so why would I eat a sweet animal?
This is my opinion and I know a lot of people do
not agree and that's fine. Just stating mine. Shari

On 6/26/08, Melissa Gray <autismhelp@...> wrote:
>
> So do plants, right? So it's like eating a compost pile?
>
> Melissa
> Mom to Joshua, Breanna, Emily, Rachel, Samuel, Daniel and Avari
> Wife to Zane
>
> blog me at
> http://startlinglives.blogspot.com/
> http://startlinglives365.blogspot.com
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:57 AM, ann329851 wrote:
>
> > we dont do it, for the simple reason, that once an animal is murdered
> > the flesh begins to decompose. i liken it to having a belly like an
> > animal graveyard..i just cant eat it for that reason alone. nor do my
> > kids.. ann
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Shari Bergquist
Independent Stampin' Up Demonstrator
www.sharibergquist.stampinup.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ginger and Jeff Sabo

I just went to this film
http://www.foodmatters.tv/trailer.html?gclid=CL-rzLrFkpQCFSUqagodnl83tg and
it is very good. And it is on this very topic.

Melissa, I hope you can forgive those of us who don't wish to put meat in
our bodies. Actually, most vegetation is broken down before it gets to the
full blown rotting stage since our bodies produce enzymes that break it down
quickly. If raw veggies are eaten, then one has the added benefit (and
speed of digestion) of the enzymes in the veggies themselves that help break
it down to liquid form...so we can get the nutrients. However in the 3 days
that meat takes to liquefy, it has produced toxins as well as the nutrients
that we can absorb. Our bodies have to work harder to get the nutrients
(since enzymes are destroyed at 118 degrees) and eliminate the toxins.

It is true, many bodies can handle this. It is also true that many can not.

Mine can not. But it took 35 years for the build-up to cause a major
disease. And only 4 to help heal itself when given everything it needed to
heal.

I've had to go raw because my body was attacking itself...and food was a
burden. It is harder to digest animal products and I couldn't afford to
have my energy placed there when it needed to cleanse out all the stuff that
was being stored in my body.

I had RSD. A nerve disorder. It's no joke. I have managed to 'cure'
myself (I have been pain free since January 16th) by going raw and cleansing
my body. The conventional way of treating RSD is steroids and nerve
blockers. I chose alternative treatments (because I didn't like those
options) and food was one alternative treatment that came up.

I wont go back to eating everything. I may cook more of my food
again...someday.

I also wouldn't expect anyone else to eat the way I do. Just like I wont go
back to eating the way you do simply because you said all food rots. My
physical body says it does matter what I put into it. Your body may not.

Just as an interesting side note. All our body cells are replaced
(everything in our body - bones and all) every 2 or so years. So why do we
have chronic disease or allergies? It would be only part of the equation to
think the environment is the issue. It would also be only part of the
equation to say that genetics is the issue. And it would also be only part
of the equation to say food is the issue.

All this being said...I still have one child who eats a great well balanced
diet and one who eats literally 6 things with little if any meat, much
dairy, no fruit and no vegetables and plenty of starches. Both boys are
growing strong and healthy. Thankfully their bodies aren't mine.

--
In peace and love,
Ginger
Annie(18), Kai(9) and Kade(6)

http://twofreeboysplus3.blogspot.com/

LOVE has impact.

"It's not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize,
accept and celebrate those differences." - Audre Lorde

http://www.savetherain.org/

favorite song...http://www.manitobamusic.com/play.php?vc=9
or is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akevZTqMe-U


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

diana jenner

> My point is that animals have a spirit and a personality and I wouldn't
> eat a person so why would I eat a sweet animal?
>
>
>
>

Anyone else a fan of Douglas Adams? I love, love, love The Restaurant at the
End of the Universe -- there's a scene where the cow comes out to the table,
describing himself as the most delicious dinner they'll ever have. He gives
himself freely, so those there can live.
I *always* thank the spirit of the animal who gave their life for mine; I
think ingratitude causes more cancers than meat (sorry, no studies *YET* to
this effect, just my own inkling ::bg::)
As a believer of reincarnation, I'm also happy to help send a being off to
their next incarnation ;) (If I come back as a cow, I want to be veal or
hindu -- killed quick or worshiped forever!) And I've given my friends and
family full permission to eat me, should it ever come down to that, so that
my death would not be in vain, but would assist them in continuing to live.
Then again, I'm a bit of a freaky chick ::::vbeg::::
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ginger and Jeff Sabo

Dianna wrote: I think ingratitude causes more cancers than meat (sorry, no
studies *YET* to
this effect, just my own inkling ::bg::)
=======

I totally agree with this. There are experiments with sprouts that one
batch was actually talked to and grew really fast and green. Another batch
was bad-mouthed and cursed to and it grew slow and yellow. There is also a
whole book on water that was put under the same tests. Go figure. Our
words and thoughts are incredibly powerful and vital to our body as well.

--
In peace and love,
Ginger
Annie(18), Kai(9) and Kade(6)

http://twofreeboysplus3.blogspot.com/

LOVE has impact.

"It's not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize,
accept and celebrate those differences." - Audre Lorde

http://www.savetherain.org/

favorite song...http://www.manitobamusic.com/play.php?vc=9
or is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akevZTqMe-U


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

swissarmy_wife

So familiar. Didn't they do something like this on an episode of
mythbusters?



> I totally agree with this. There are experiments with sprouts that one
> batch was actually talked to and grew really fast and green.
Another batch
> was bad-mouthed and cursed to and it grew slow and yellow.

Mara

That reminds me that someone told me they did en experiment like this with two bottles of identical milk in the fridge. One was told something nice and the other the opposite. The last soured much faster. If I have the time I'll look for the link - the water book is really cool.
Mara



----- Original Message ----
From: Ginger and Jeff Sabo <thesabofamily@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:29:14 PM
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Eating meat


Dianna wrote: I think ingratitude causes more cancers than meat (sorry, no
studies *YET* to
this effect, just my own inkling ::bg::)
=======

I totally agree with this. There are experiments with sprouts that one
batch was actually talked to and grew really fast and green. Another batch
was bad-mouthed and cursed to and it grew slow and yellow. There is also a
whole book on water that was put under the same tests. Go figure. Our
words and thoughts are incredibly powerful and vital to our body as well.

--
In peace and love,
Ginger
Annie(18), Kai(9) and Kade(6)

http://twofreeboysp lus3.blogspot. com/

LOVE has impact.

"It's not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize,
accept and celebrate those differences. " - Audre Lorde

http://www.savether ain.org/

favorite song...http: //www.manitobamu sic.com/play. php?vc=9
or is it: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=akevZTqMe- U

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ginger and Jeff Sabo

Here is a youtube blip of the water study
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzMybuBMNVM

--
In peace and love,
Ginger
Annie(18), Kai(9) and Kade(6)

http://twofreeboysplus3.blogspot.com/

LOVE has impact.

"It's not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize,
accept and celebrate those differences." - Audre Lorde

http://www.savetherain.org/

favorite song...http://www.manitobamusic.com/play.php?vc=9
or is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akevZTqMe-U


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

k

In a book called Mutant Message Down Under there are lots of interesting
mentions of just this sort of thing. I love the whole book. Pretty cool
stuff.

~Katherine



On 6/26/08, diana jenner <hahamommy@...> wrote:
>
> > My point is that animals have a spirit and a personality and I
> wouldn't
> > eat a person so why would I eat a sweet animal?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Anyone else a fan of Douglas Adams? I love, love, love The Restaurant at
> the
> End of the Universe -- there's a scene where the cow comes out to the
> table,
> describing himself as the most delicious dinner they'll ever have. He gives
> himself freely, so those there can live.
> I *always* thank the spirit of the animal who gave their life for mine; I
> think ingratitude causes more cancers than meat (sorry, no studies *YET* to
> this effect, just my own inkling ::bg::)
> As a believer of reincarnation, I'm also happy to help send a being off to
> their next incarnation ;) (If I come back as a cow, I want to be veal or
> hindu -- killed quick or worshiped forever!) And I've given my friends and
> family full permission to eat me, should it ever come down to that, so that
> my death would not be in vain, but would assist them in continuing to live.
> Then again, I'm a bit of a freaky chick ::::vbeg::::
> --
> ~diana :)
> xoxoxoxo
> hannahbearski.blogspot.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

diana jenner

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Mara <mamadeluz@...> wrote:

> That reminds me that someone told me they did en experiment like this
> with two bottles of identical milk in the fridge. One was told something
> nice and the other the opposite. The last soured much faster.
>
>
>
>


Perfect metaphor for food choices and our relationships with our child... if
a child is told, especially by the humans they trust the most, that their
food choices (inklings of their body) are substandard (or worse, met with
fearmongering), the relationship between them will sour quickly. When told
their choices are valid and they are honored, the relationship will remain
*fresh* :)
THAT is the point of this whole discussion for me :)
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ginger and Jeff Sabo

>
> Perfect metaphor for food choices and our relationships with our child...
>> if
>> a child is told, especially by the humans they trust the most, that their
>> food choices (inklings of their body) are substandard (or worse, met with
>> fearmongering), the relationship between them will sour quickly. When told
>> their choices are valid and they are honored, the relationship will remain
>> *fresh* :)
>> THAT is the point of this whole discussion for me :)
>> --
>> ~diana :)
>> xoxoxoxo
>>
>
Amen!

--
In peace and love,
Ginger
Annie(18), Kai(9) and Kade(6)

http://twofreeboysplus3.blogspot.com/

LOVE has impact.

"It's not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize,
accept and celebrate those differences." - Audre Lorde

http://www.savetherain.org/

favorite song...http://www.manitobamusic.com/play.php?vc=9
or is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akevZTqMe-U


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

kristinmoke

I also cured myself of a chronic illness and this is the nutritional
philosophy I follow:
=========
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity
founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr.
Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples
established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum
characteristics of human diets. Dr. Price's research demonstrated
that humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health
generation after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense
whole foods and the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in
animal fats.

The Foundation is dedicated to restoring nutrient-dense foods to the
human diet through education, research and activism. It supports a
number of movements that contribute to this objective including
accurate nutrition instruction, organic and biodynamic farming,
pasture-feeding of livestock, community-supported farms, honest and
informative labeling, prepared parenting and nurturing therapies.
Specific goals include establishment of universal access to clean,
certified raw milk and a ban on the use of soy formula for infants.

from westonaprice.org
=================

It's not my intention to further fuel the veg/non-veg diet debate so
much, but to show that highly educated people are found on all sides
of debates like this, and I'm grounded in no less informed or
scientific research than anyone else. *And* I understand that others'
paths have lead them elsewhere and are in a place that's right for
them for a variety of reasons.

I used to be a woman of My Beliefs. One byproduct of unschooling for
me has been a release from belief into celebrating the exciting but
uncertain place of I Don't Know...anything really...and certainly not
for anyone else.

I still think the Price philosophy resonates with me the most and
makes the most sense to me intuitively and scientifically- I mean the
man studied tribal populations all over the world and looked at what
was eaten by those who enjoyed vibrant health and literally none of
the chronic disease that afflict the west. And it feels good to me
and my body eating clean, pastured meats and dairy, organic, local
veggies, etc. I can say since eating this way I am healthier in
definite, measurable ways and more energetic now in my 30s than I
recall even as a child or teen.

But while I used to believe it was 100% nutritional therapy that
cured me, I wonder now how much it really came from the empowerment
of saying no to the medical/disease model and believing in the
potential of my body to heal "just" from food. Every day I grow more
convinced of the power of our thoughts to determine our health and,
well, everything in our lives. It's why Joy is now the ultimate
measure of success and effectiveness for everything in my life. Now I
wonder if it's *ever* really about the food. I Don't Know :)

Kristin
Joey (5) Annabelle (3)



--- In [email protected], "Ginger and Jeff Sabo"
<thesabofamily@...> wrote:
>
> I just went to this film
> http://www.foodmatters.tv/trailer.html?gclid=CL-
rzLrFkpQCFSUqagodnl83tg and
> it is very good. And it is on this very topic.
>
> Melissa, I hope you can forgive those of us who don't wish to put
meat in
> our bodies. Actually, most vegetation is broken down before it
gets to the
> full blown rotting stage since our bodies produce enzymes that
break it down
> quickly. If raw veggies are eaten, then one has the added benefit
(and
> speed of digestion) of the enzymes in the veggies themselves that
help break
> it down to liquid form...so we can get the nutrients. However in
the 3 days
> that meat takes to liquefy, it has produced toxins as well as the
nutrients
> that we can absorb. Our bodies have to work harder to get the
nutrients
> (since enzymes are destroyed at 118 degrees) and eliminate the
toxins.
>
> It is true, many bodies can handle this. It is also true that many
can not.
>
> Mine can not. But it took 35 years for the build-up to cause a
major
> disease. And only 4 to help heal itself when given everything it
needed to
> heal.
>
> I've had to go raw because my body was attacking itself...and food
was a
> burden. It is harder to digest animal products and I couldn't
afford to
> have my energy placed there when it needed to cleanse out all the
stuff that
> was being stored in my body.
>
> I had RSD. A nerve disorder. It's no joke. I have managed
to 'cure'
> myself (I have been pain free since January 16th) by going raw and
cleansing
> my body. The conventional way of treating RSD is steroids and nerve
> blockers. I chose alternative treatments (because I didn't like
those
> options) and food was one alternative treatment that came up.
>
> I wont go back to eating everything. I may cook more of my food
> again...someday.
>
> I also wouldn't expect anyone else to eat the way I do. Just like
I wont go
> back to eating the way you do simply because you said all food
rots. My
> physical body says it does matter what I put into it. Your body
may not.
>
> Just as an interesting side note. All our body cells are replaced
> (everything in our body - bones and all) every 2 or so years. So
why do we
> have chronic disease or allergies? It would be only part of the
equation to
> think the environment is the issue. It would also be only part of
the
> equation to say that genetics is the issue. And it would also be
only part
> of the equation to say food is the issue.
>
> All this being said...I still have one child who eats a great well
balanced
> diet and one who eats literally 6 things with little if any meat,
much
> dairy, no fruit and no vegetables and plenty of starches. Both
boys are
> growing strong and healthy. Thankfully their bodies aren't mine.
>
> --
> In peace and love,
> Ginger
> Annie(18), Kai(9) and Kade(6)
>
> http://twofreeboysplus3.blogspot.com/
>
> LOVE has impact.
>
> "It's not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to
recognize,
> accept and celebrate those differences." - Audre Lorde
>
> http://www.savetherain.org/
>
> favorite song...http://www.manitobamusic.com/play.php?vc=9
> or is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akevZTqMe-U
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

ann329851

--- In [email protected], "diana jenner"
<hahamommy@...> wrote:
>
> > My point is that animals have a spirit and a personality and I
wouldn't
> > eat a person so why would I eat a sweet animal?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Anyone else a fan of Douglas Adams? I love, love, love The
Restaurant at the
> End of the Universe -- there's a scene where the cow comes out to
the table,
> describing himself as the most delicious dinner they'll ever have.
He gives
> himself freely, so those there can live.
> I *always* thank the spirit of the animal who gave their life for
mine; I
> think ingratitude causes more cancers than meat (sorry, no studies
*YET* to
> this effect, just my own inkling ::bg::)
> As a believer of reincarnation, I'm also happy to help send a being
off to
> their next incarnation ;) (If I come back as a cow, I want to be
veal or
> hindu -- killed quick or worshiped forever!) And I've given my
friends and
> family full permission to eat me, should it ever come down to that,
so that
> my death would not be in vain, but would assist them in continuing
to live.
> Then again, I'm a bit of a freaky chick ::::vbeg::::
> --
> ~diana :)
> xoxoxoxo
> hannahbearski.blogspot.com
> but sweetie, the cow doesnt give of its body freely. it is hung
upside down, stunned momentarily with an electric prod, and then very
often bled out and skinned whilst still semi conscious. i think it is
terrified for its life as opposed to giving it freely. it has no
choice. ann> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Joyce Fetteroll

> There are experiments with sprouts that one
> batch was actually talked to and grew really fast and green.
> Another batch
> was bad-mouthed and cursed to and it grew slow and yellow. There
> is also a
> whole book on water that was put under the same tests.

Let's not back up sound logic and real results from real kids with
vaguely remembered or poorly done experiments. It tarnishes the
validity of what we're saying. If someone has a scientific finding
that supports what's being said here, please give links to reputable
sources.

There are specific checks and balances that an experiment must adhere
to to minimize outside influences. Experiments need to be repeatable
by others. Peer review is good (though not perfect) to help catch
holes in the technique the experimenter missed.

A brief search of the internet didn't yield anything specific (or
rigorous for that matter) about sprouts but it's easy enough to check
on the water "experiments".

Despite the popularity of his book, despite the "cool" factor,
despite the fact that we'd like it to be true, Masaru Emoto isn't
even pretending to be scientifically rigorous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Here's a bit from that:

> Kristopher Setchfield, (BA, Health Science) from Castleton State
> College (Natural Science Department) in Vermont has made a paper
> called Review and analysis of Dr. Masaru Emoto’s published work on
> the effects of external stimuli on the structural formation of ice
> crystals[11].
>
> (http://www.is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/)
>
>
>
> He concludes the following: " It is this crucial lack of scientific
> foundation that prevents Dr. Emoto’s work from attracting interest
> by widely accepted and respected scientists at long-standing
> research institutions. This is unfortunate for the world if there
> is, after all, truth to his claims--as reproduction of his results
> by any scientist would lend much credence to his work. A little
> change in Emoto’s experimental design would do great things for the
> credibility of his claims. I recommend the following to ground his
> work in sound scientific principle:
>
>
>
> * Eliminate the possibility of the scientist’s bias affecting
> the experiment’s results by implementing double blind procedures.
> * Publish the entire collection of photos for all water sample
> tests that he has performed, not just the ones that support his claim.
> * Minimize the sources of possible error in his procedures, such
> as variation in temperature and humidity between sample.
> * Pay more attention to the time-tested methods of the
> scientific community rather than disregarding them. Emoto’s
> research could go much farther if he could interest scientists
> around the world in testing his hypothesis.
>
> After the lengthy review of Emoto’s research methods and results, I
> have come to believe that Dr. Emoto is offering pseudoscience to
> the masses in the guise of defensible research. Only time and
> review by others will tell if there is any truth at the heart of
> Mr. Emoto’s claims, as Emoto himself thoroughly believes in his
> findings but does not value the scientific method or community.
> What is truly fearsome is the great numbers of people that accept
> his words as proven facts without looking deeper to find out if his
> claims are truly justified. While I respect Dr. Emoto’s desire to
> save the Earth’s water from contamination and pollution, unless he
> can produce a scientific paper and get it published in a scientific
> journal, I believe that he will continue to be ignored by the
> scientific community, and his claims will never be soundly proved
> or disproved"
>

Joyce

k

Ugh. Is this an animal cruelty forum I've stumbled onto or unschooling?

~Katherine




On 6/27/08, ann329851 <annworsley991@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected]<unschoolingbasics%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "diana jenner"
> <hahamommy@...> wrote:
> >
> > > My point is that animals have a spirit and a personality and I
> wouldn't
> > > eat a person so why would I eat a sweet animal?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Anyone else a fan of Douglas Adams? I love, love, love The
> Restaurant at the
> > End of the Universe -- there's a scene where the cow comes out to
> the table,
> > describing himself as the most delicious dinner they'll ever have.
> He gives
> > himself freely, so those there can live.
> > I *always* thank the spirit of the animal who gave their life for
> mine; I
> > think ingratitude causes more cancers than meat (sorry, no studies
> *YET* to
> > this effect, just my own inkling ::bg::)
> > As a believer of reincarnation, I'm also happy to help send a being
> off to
> > their next incarnation ;) (If I come back as a cow, I want to be
> veal or
> > hindu -- killed quick or worshiped forever!) And I've given my
> friends and
> > family full permission to eat me, should it ever come down to that,
> so that
> > my death would not be in vain, but would assist them in continuing
> to live.
> > Then again, I'm a bit of a freaky chick ::::vbeg::::
> > --
> > ~diana :)
> > xoxoxoxo
> > hannahbearski.blogspot.com
> > but sweetie, the cow doesnt give of its body freely. it is hung
> upside down, stunned momentarily with an electric prod, and then very
> often bled out and skinned whilst still semi conscious. i think it is
> terrified for its life as opposed to giving it freely. it has no
> choice. ann> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelli Johnston

I would never shame my child about food! They trust me to fill the house with healthy food and I do that!Kelli______________________



EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD


To: [email protected]: hahamommy@...: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:50:26 -0700Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Eating meat




On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Mara <mamadeluz@...> wrote:> That reminds me that someone told me they did en experiment like this> with two bottles of identical milk in the fridge. One was told something> nice and the other the opposite. The last soured much faster.>>> >Perfect metaphor for food choices and our relationships with our child... ifa child is told, especially by the humans they trust the most, that theirfood choices (inklings of their body) are substandard (or worse, met withfearmongering), the relationship between them will sour quickly. When toldtheir choices are valid and they are honored, the relationship will remain*fresh* :)THAT is the point of this whole discussion for me :)-- ~diana :)xoxoxoxohannahbearski.blogspot.com[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Fetteroll

On Jun 27, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kelli Johnston wrote:

> I would never shame my child about food! They trust me to fill the
> house with healthy food and I do that!

The discussion isn't about you, even if a discussion branches off
from something you've said or the information is in response to a
question you wrote.

All discussions are about the principles and philosophy of radical
unschooling. Discussions are intended to be for whoever wants to
think about these ideas.

Some parents do shame their kids about food without realizing it.
When a parent is focused on the child understanding what the parent
believes, they often don't realize how the words sound to the child.
A child can feel ashamed about wanting what mom says is bad for him
while the mom thinks she's just relaying truth.

If you're not doing that, then you can move onto something that does
apply and will help you.

Most people are used to personal discussions where the everything is
meant specifically for them. The discussions here are different and
take some getting used to.

Joyce

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelli Johnston

My point wasn't that I was taking it personally....my point was that there happen to be people out there that are successfully parenting and unschooling connected children and still live in a diet concious household. It doesn't have to be about shaming....it can all be a positive unschooling experience because our whole family feels the same way about food. There are ways to approach the whole thing respectfully and informationally and I would hope people could feel comfortable sharing how they successfully do that without being told they are "wrong" or their beliefs are "rubbish". I wouldn't condone shaming or manipulating either but eating healthily doesn't always equate to that. Kelli______________________



EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD


To: [email protected]: jfetteroll@...: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:53:06 -0400Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Eating meat




On Jun 27, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Kelli Johnston wrote:> I would never shame my child about food! They trust me to fill the > house with healthy food and I do that!The discussion isn't about you, even if a discussion branches off from something you've said or the information is in response to a question you wrote.All discussions are about the principles and philosophy of radical unschooling. Discussions are intended to be for whoever wants to think about these ideas.Some parents do shame their kids about food without realizing it. When a parent is focused on the child understanding what the parent believes, they often don't realize how the words sound to the child. A child can feel ashamed about wanting what mom says is bad for him while the mom thinks she's just relaying truth.If you're not doing that, then you can move onto something that does apply and will help you.Most people are used to personal discussions where the everything is meant specifically for them. The discussions here are different and take some getting used to.Joyce[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ren Allen

~~
My point wasn't that I was taking it personally....my point was that
there happen to be people out there that are successfully parenting
and unschooling connected children and still live in a diet concious
household. ~~

You're preaching to the choir.
When someone posts about "I wouldn't allow that" or "that food won't
come into my house" that is an indication of control and it will get
discussed here.

MANY of us are very mindful of our food choices (heck, you can read
about my family's journey into suburban homesteading at
teawithren.blogspot.com) yet do not use control as one of our tools.

Dh and I were just having a discussion evolved around my desire to
only buy food from local sources and my family's desire to eat
grapefruit and other items nobody wants to give up. Every one of us
operates under the premise of respecting choices different from our
own....therefore, no one person (or two,or three) decides what food
comes into this home. Doesn't mean there isn't discussions about
making it work, or ideas tossed around. But there is no person
controlling anyone else's choice....even with a food conscious household.

When you say "X,Y,Z will NOT come into my home" that is operating
under a principle of control. Maybe it's not an issue for that family
yet, but by setting up those barriers it limits the possibilities
if/when they DO come up.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com

Debra Rossing

> And I've given my > friends and > > family full permission to eat me,
should it ever come down to that, > so that > my death would not be in
vain, but would assist them in continuing > to live.

Any Heinlein folks out there? Stranger in a Strange Land ends with the
main character (Mike) 'discorporating' (spirit leaving his flesh form)
and the flesh is cooked up into a salty/sweet broth and shared amongst
those close to him. On the one hand, those societally formed parts of me
think Ewww People eating! On the other hand, there's some inkling there
also of the specialness of such a profoundly bonding(with who he was
corporally as well as between those who share in him) and intimate
process rather than simply letting his corpus decay and become bug food.


Deb


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

CNC Software, Inc.
www.mastercam.com
**********************************************************************




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelli Johnston

I agree with your point here Ren. I just don't agree with stocking the house with food that I believe to be unhealthy just so my children have the choice to eat that food (if they never would have known about the food before I brought it into the house). Or if my child says he wants doritos, I might say "would you consider this or this instead" and let him choose without judgement. I would consider this informing instead of manipulating or restricting. I think that a lot of what our children are exposed to is because of us. As they get older they do have the increasing ability to make choices for themselves but initially we are the people exposing them to the possibilities. We can lay the initial groundwork and then they have the freedom to accept or deny. I personally think (and studies support this) that children are more likely to have health problems if the initial environment is unhealthy or the parents model an unhealthy lifestyle. Yet I also think that if you are overly restrictive or shaming in anyway, that it tends to "backfire" too. Kelli______________________



EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD


To: [email protected]: starsuncloud@...: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:48:22 +0000Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Eating meat




~~My point wasn't that I was taking it personally....my point was thatthere happen to be people out there that are successfully parentingand unschooling connected children and still live in a diet concioushousehold. ~~You're preaching to the choir.When someone posts about "I wouldn't allow that" or "that food won'tcome into my house" that is an indication of control and it will getdiscussed here. MANY of us are very mindful of our food choices (heck, you can readabout my family's journey into suburban homesteading atteawithren.blogspot.com) yet do not use control as one of our tools.Dh and I were just having a discussion evolved around my desire toonly buy food from local sources and my family's desire to eatgrapefruit and other items nobody wants to give up. Every one of usoperates under the premise of respecting choices different from ourown....therefore, no one person (or two,or three) decides what foodcomes into this home. Doesn't mean there isn't discussions aboutmaking it work, or ideas tossed around. But there is no personcontrolling anyone else's choice....even with a food conscious household.When you say "X,Y,Z will NOT come into my home" that is operatingunder a principle of control. Maybe it's not an issue for that familyyet, but by setting up those barriers it limits the possibilitiesif/when they DO come up.Renlearninginfreedom.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Fetteroll

On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Kelli Johnston wrote:

> My point wasn't that I was taking it personally....

Which is why people are asked to write clearly. It wastes everyone's
time if points aren't clear. There were 4 personal words in 2 short
sentences. It's difficult to interpret it in a way other than
personal. The discussions should be about ideas.

> my point was that there happen to be people out there that are
> successfully parenting and unschooling connected children and still
> live in a diet concious household.

And some who insist on practicing a particular religion. And some who
enforce chores on the farm the parents wanted for the family.

That's outside the scope of this list.

> It doesn't have to be about shaming....

I would hope no parent here is intentionally shaming their kids. A
*lot* of the discussion is about helping parents see what their
seemingly reasonable actions feel like to their kids. It can often be
shocking how sensible our words feel to us but how totally different
they come across to our kids.

> it can all be a positive unschooling experience because our whole
> family feels the same way about food.

Then what's to discuss if everyone in the family feels the same?

> There are ways to approach the whole thing respectfully and
> informationally and I would hope people could feel comfortable
> sharing how they successfully do that without being told they are
> "wrong" or their beliefs are "rubbish".

If your kids believe as you do, then there's nothing to discuss.

If your kids have beliefs that are different than yours, and you're
asking how to smoothly insure the family adheres to your beliefs,
that's counter to the principles of the list.

If your kids have beliefs that are different than yours, how do you
want them to approach you when they think you're wrong? How far would
you want them to go in insisting that you follow their beliefs and
give up your own?

> I wouldn't condone shaming or manipulating either but eating
> healthily doesn't always equate to that.

If you're offering and the kids are saying "Great!", then what's to
discuss?

How do you handle it when the kids want something other than what you
want them to have?

The answer for this list is to treat their want as seriously as you
treat a want of your own (that doesn't involve imposing on others.)
How do you treat yourself or your husband who wants something? You
help them get it.

What if they want something you feel is dangerous? Let's say a full
size ATV. The answer would be to help them find some way to get the
experience they want. Maybe there's something smaller. Maybe there's
someone who would help them ride. With something that far out of my
experience, I'd ask on the list for ideas!

If my child wanted Oreos, and I was into whole foods, I'd explore the
whole food options. Depending on the child and what she really
wanted, we might do a taste test with brand name Oreos. I'd talk
about the ingredients in an informational way, saying "These are the
ingredients that make me prefer to buy organic," and I'd talk about
why. It would *not* be presented with the idea in the back of my
mind, "And that's why you should make the same choice." It's just
information to help her choose. If the child decided Oreos were what
she wanted, I'd buy Oreos.

I found it very helpful to show my daughter the ingredients on
packages *I* was pondering over rather than on things she wanted. I
pointed out the number of unpronounceable ingredients as the first
step. And we've added to the discussion since; she knows the
difference between unpronounceable vitamins and weird chemicals. ;-)

Kids are pretty savvy! They know the difference between when we're
trying to get them to believe as we do and when we're trusting that
they're intelligent enough to use information to help them make
decisions. They *won't* at the beginning, make the same decisions we
do. The important part isn't to parrot the adults' knowledge and do
what the parent would do. The important part is to think and decide
and reassess. It's a process. A child who knows they're free to have
Oreos in an organic home is much more likely to embrace an organic
lifestyle later in life than one who feels they must not have Oreos
for various dire reasons.

Joyce

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Fetteroll

On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Kelli Johnston wrote:

> I just don't agree with stocking the house with food that I believe
> to be unhealthy just so my children have the choice to eat that
> food (if they never would have known about the food before I
> brought it into the house).

No one has said you should. The food is out in the world. We don't
need to bring it home until kids ask for it.

But it *is* helpful to often examine whether our principles are
limiting our kids.

If the discussion were about not bringing in TV, I'd answer
differently, though. I don't think, in terms of exploring the world,
that there's much difference between meat and non-meat. If I were to
cook vegetarian, I'm not really limiting her if she never has a piece
of meat until she goes to someone's house.

I *would* be limiting her if, when she tasted the meat and asked for
some, after exploring alternatives if the answer were no.

TV is different. It's more akin to a library or the internet. It's a
window onto a world that books are a pale imitation of. (And TV is a
pale imitation of books!) It shrinks the child's world to say "Well,
she can have TV when she's at friends house and we'll discuss it if
she ever asks for it." Just not in the same ballpark.

Joyce

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelli Johnston

Joyce, I feel like this post was very helpful. I agree that it is a process and finding the underlying "need" and focusing on getting that need met is the most important thing. This may not be the same process for everyone across the board in unschooling. I think that every parent has "limits" to ensure safety and we may vary in our agreement on what they should be. Kelli______________________



EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD


To: [email protected]: jfetteroll@...: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:16:40 -0400Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Eating meat




On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Kelli Johnston wrote:> My point wasn't that I was taking it personally....Which is why people are asked to write clearly. It wastes everyone's time if points aren't clear. There were 4 personal words in 2 short sentences. It's difficult to interpret it in a way other than personal. The discussions should be about ideas.> my point was that there happen to be people out there that are > successfully parenting and unschooling connected children and still > live in a diet concious household.And some who insist on practicing a particular religion. And some who enforce chores on the farm the parents wanted for the family.That's outside the scope of this list.> It doesn't have to be about shaming....I would hope no parent here is intentionally shaming their kids. A *lot* of the discussion is about helping parents see what their seemingly reasonable actions feel like to their kids. It can often be shocking how sensible our words feel to us but how totally different they come across to our kids.> it can all be a positive unschooling experience because our whole > family feels the same way about food.Then what's to discuss if everyone in the family feels the same?> There are ways to approach the whole thing respectfully and > informationally and I would hope people could feel comfortable > sharing how they successfully do that without being told they are > "wrong" or their beliefs are "rubbish".If your kids believe as you do, then there's nothing to discuss.If your kids have beliefs that are different than yours, and you're asking how to smoothly insure the family adheres to your beliefs, that's counter to the principles of the list.If your kids have beliefs that are different than yours, how do you want them to approach you when they think you're wrong? How far would you want them to go in insisting that you follow their beliefs and give up your own?> I wouldn't condone shaming or manipulating either but eating > healthily doesn't always equate to that.If you're offering and the kids are saying "Great!", then what's to discuss?How do you handle it when the kids want something other than what you want them to have?The answer for this list is to treat their want as seriously as you treat a want of your own (that doesn't involve imposing on others.) How do you treat yourself or your husband who wants something? You help them get it.What if they want something you feel is dangerous? Let's say a full size ATV. The answer would be to help them find some way to get the experience they want. Maybe there's something smaller. Maybe there's someone who would help them ride. With something that far out of my experience, I'd ask on the list for ideas!If my child wanted Oreos, and I was into whole foods, I'd explore the whole food options. Depending on the child and what she really wanted, we might do a taste test with brand name Oreos. I'd talk about the ingredients in an informational way, saying "These are the ingredients that make me prefer to buy organic," and I'd talk about why. It would *not* be presented with the idea in the back of my mind, "And that's why you should make the same choice." It's just information to help her choose. If the child decided Oreos were what she wanted, I'd buy Oreos.I found it very helpful to show my daughter the ingredients on packages *I* was pondering over rather than on things she wanted. I pointed out the number of unpronounceable ingredients as the first step. And we've added to the discussion since; she knows the difference between unpronounceable vitamins and weird chemicals. ;-)Kids are pretty savvy! They know the difference between when we're trying to get them to believe as we do and when we're trusting that they're intelligent enough to use information to help them make decisions. They *won't* at the beginning, make the same decisions we do. The important part isn't to parrot the adults' knowledge and do what the parent would do. The important part is to think and decide and reassess. It's a process. A child who knows they're free to have Oreos in an organic home is much more likely to embrace an organic lifestyle later in life than one who feels they must not have Oreos for various dire reasons.Joyce [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelli Johnston

I think there were people on this list (I think) that did believe that stocking the house with all food was important which is why I said that. Otherwise, I am on the same page in re: to having an open conversation when the situation comes up and making sure the child's underlying need is met.

It is an interesting point you are making about t.v. What about specific programs on tv? If a 5 year old child asked to watch SAW or a pornographic channel how would that discussion be handled? How would a child even know it exists at that age without the leadership of the parent? I guess it could be another parent or family....Kelli______________________



EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD


To: [email protected]: jfetteroll@...: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:29:13 -0400Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Eating meat




On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Kelli Johnston wrote:> I just don't agree with stocking the house with food that I believe > to be unhealthy just so my children have the choice to eat that > food (if they never would have known about the food before I > brought it into the house).No one has said you should. The food is out in the world. We don't need to bring it home until kids ask for it.But it *is* helpful to often examine whether our principles are limiting our kids.If the discussion were about not bringing in TV, I'd answer differently, though. I don't think, in terms of exploring the world, that there's much difference between meat and non-meat. If I were to cook vegetarian, I'm not really limiting her if she never has a piece of meat until she goes to someone's house.I *would* be limiting her if, when she tasted the meat and asked for some, after exploring alternatives if the answer were no.TV is different. It's more akin to a library or the internet. It's a window onto a world that books are a pale imitation of. (And TV is a pale imitation of books!) It shrinks the child's world to say "Well, she can have TV when she's at friends house and we'll discuss it if she ever asks for it." Just not in the same ballpark.Joyce[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ren Allen

~~
I think there were people on this list (I think) that did believe that
stocking the house with all food was important which is why I said
that. ~~

Find the post and quote that person please.I've never read this as a
recommendation, nor do I know anyone recommending this.

If my child wants the food,I stock it. If anyone in this house wants
the food we get it, but it would be ridiculous to try and stock a
house with a bunch of foods nobody even wanted...though I often bring
things before anyone asks because that's part of the natural flow!

How WOULD a person go about stocking anything and everything just in
case someone eventually wanted it? That isn't even practical.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com

diana jenner

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Kelli Johnston <KelliJohnston@...>
wrote:

> We can lay the initial groundwork and then they have the freedom to
> accept or deny. I personally think (and studies support this) that children
> are more likely to have health problems if the initial environment is
> unhealthy or the parents model an unhealthy lifestyle.
>
>
>


And the *unhealthy* aspects are NOT the foods, it includes the attitude (of
gratitude or ingratitude, of acceptance or shame, of love or fear) that
contributes to the environment and the relationship.
It's not about meat, it's not about Doritos, it's about honor, trust and
respect within one's relationships.
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]