An examination of the term "fluffy bunny"

[Wolfpoet]

As previously suggested, how about we sit down a wee bit and discuss the term "fluffy bunny" and why it is applied in the way it is.

To me it's a discription of a certain personality/mentality prevalent in , but not exclusive to, modern pagan ideology. Allow me to break down a few of the more well known "fluffy bunny" traits.

Idealistic vegetarianism.

Contrary to belief I have no problem with vegetarians per se. A person who does not eat meat because they object to eating other animals for moral or personal reasons is NOT a fluffy bunny, they are exercising a personal choice based on their own ethics.

However refusing to eat meat because they are "one with nature" to add a religous or spiritual motivation to justify what is a personal choice is an act of a "fluffy bunny". Furthermore, a "fluffy bunny" is in the habit of taking a moraly superior tone, setting him/herself up as a more enlightened being and inherently superior to other "carnivores".

see the diffeence?

Historical revision

One of my personal hates in regards to "fluffy bunnies", they are in the habit of revising history to justify themselves and let them take a moral highground. They seize on obscure facts, mis-interpret historical events and generaly twist history to suit their own personal interpretation, sort of like a Hollywood movie. The whole point is to make their own personal view seem the only correct and moraly superior one.

Ideological purity

Another common "fluffy bunny" trait is to constantly try to reinforce the beilef that their own interpretation is the "right" one, they often inflict their own personal views into other paths. A common example is trying to link all the other pagan paths to their own chosen path and imply that their way is the logical and true progression and that they are obviously better than anybody else.

Claiming to be one with nature while actualy doing the opposite

Another nasty trait, I've already touched on the vegetarian thing, but it goes much deeper. A common example is a pacifistic view being upheld as an example of being one with nature while ignoring the many examples of violence and brutality in the natural world.

Martyr complex

This is another annoying one, the whole "persecution" thing. "fluffy bunnies" like to make out they are persecuted and hated, that they are somehow moraly superior because they are the most persecuted, they often refer to the "burning times".

Moral superiority

The worst aspect of the "fluffy bunny", they always imply ot outright state they are moraly and ethicaly superior, that their ways and interpretations are better than anybody elses. It's this sense of constant superiority that annoys most people.

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a consistent theme with the "fluffy bunny", a common example is when they whine about intolerance and how they are persecuted while attacking other religions, Christianity tends to get the most of this irational hatred.

[David19]

I agree with your post especially the parts about Hypocrisy and Martyr complex, it seems many fluff bunnies always go on about how 'evil' the Christians or Christianity is, and whine about how 'persecuted' they are (yet they know nothing of true persecution - what's happening in Darfur is true persecution, the Holocaust was persecution, not being able to wear an pentacle = not persecution, etc).

[Rudas Starblaze]

ROTFLMFAO!!

that is the total truth right there! awesome post!

ETA: you should have mentioned something about their ideals on witchcraft too! :lol:

[cheddarsox]

another trait...

I prefer

basically, the fluffy bunny ignores What Is, in favor of what they prefer. They don't care how faiths deal with their deities, or the history, or traditions or meanings...all that matters is what they prefer. They don't care to deal with life, only with what they wish life were. And when the shit hits the fan...because they refused to deal with reality...they cry persecution! As if the universe is at fault for not playing "let's pretend" along with them.

cheddar

[~Elise~]

another trait...

I prefer

basically, the fluffy bunny ignores What Is, in favor of what they prefer. They don't care how faiths deal with their deities, or the history, or traditions or meanings...all that matters is what they prefer. They don't care to deal with life, only with what they wish life were. And when the shit hits the fan...because they refused to deal with reality...they cry persecution! As if the universe is at fault for not playing "let's pretend" along with them.

cheddar


OMG--this is SOOOOOOOOOOOO true. I call this the "don't confuse me with the facts-my mind's made up" syndrome. They ALWAYS know it all and when you try to insert a bit of reality--the head goes right into the sand--"That's not the way it's supposed to be" is uttered right as the head hits the sand.


How about all the light and goodness people--there is NO evil, no darkness, no chaos. It's all light, airy and fluffy.
These people use Angel Boards (instead of realizing that it's just as dangerous as a Ouija board) It's an Angel board--nothing bad can come through. I won't hear any bad things. (I've actually heard those words uttered)

Ugh!

Elise

[noxtwice]

i've always seen fluffy bunnies as the fake, pretensious holier than thou but empty types... like women who are more concerned with the color of their nails and where they shop rather than being capable of real conversation. most fluffy bunnies have this eery vacant stare when you attempt to hold an intelligent convo with them. as if you are somehow infringing on their right to be hollow.

well that's JMO.

[Xirian]

Personally I don't like the term fluffy bunny, but that is just my personal preference and I wrote a long post in the other thread about why.

My post (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=2569640&postcount=99)

I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt that they can actually learn something. When I find out that they are unable to learn (which is rare), then I ignore them. I find that many of the people that fit into catagory are not new pagans, but older pagans who are so set in their beliefs that they won't see that they might be wrong about some things. You know, someone who is unable to adjust to the changes going on around them. That is my main beef and a portion of the complaints above. But I hardly see them as fluffy or bunny like. More like they are rigid to a fault.

I'll quit here.

[noxtwice]

so does fluffy bunny extend beyond pagans? for me it does.

[Freyaschild]

In my community the term "fluffy bunny" is used as a derogatory jab at people who are new and exploring the pagan paths, and have not devoted themselves to a 'tradition'. Not having earned their stripes, so to speak. Usually used by people who think they are superior and have the need to look down their nose at those with less experience.

[noxtwice]

In my community the term "fluffy bunny" is used as a derogatory jab at people who are new and exploring the pagan paths, and have not devoted themselves to a 'tradition'. Not having earned their stripes, so to speak. Usually used by people who think they are superior and have the need to look down their nose at those with less experience.

ah i see... i've used the term before, but as i stated in my above posts. to me fluff bunny is the same as artificial barbie doll

different world, different views i suppose

[Darklord_Kodiak]

:thumbsup:
Very nice

[Penthesilea]

How about all the light and goodness people--there is NO evil, no darkness, no chaos. It's all light, airy and fluffy.
These people use Angel Boards (instead of realizing that it's just as dangerous as a Ouija board) It's an Angel board--nothing bad can come through. I won't hear any bad things. (I've actually heard those words uttered)

Ugh!

EliseMaybe we should call those New Age fluffy bunnies "fluffy star bunnies." :lol: For these folks not only is there no evil in the world but "everything happens for a reason" with the implication being that whatever has happened is for the best no matter how tragic it is. This is very hard to swallow when someone has been raped -- especially a child -- or someone sets fire to a house with a sleeping family inside. I can see their reasoning, however. If evil does not exist they don't have to think about it or, Gods forbid, actually do something about it. The dirty work of making a difference might endanger their spiritual purity and make them mere mortals like the rest of us.

[cheddarsox]

so does fluffy bunny extend beyond pagans? for me it does.

I think it does. There are these types in all "groups". Even in rabbit breeding, a community of which I was a part for many years. Not restricted to religion only.

[Vinny Mirabella]

I find that many of the people that fit into catagory are not new pagans, but older pagans who are so set in their beliefs that they won't see that they might be wrong about some things.

Every generation has this situation. The older generation sees the younger as disrespectful and disinterested in traditions. The younger sees the older as out of touch with the times and stuck in their ways. Personally I'd like to see when the "new pagans" become the "older pagans" how they'll handle the complaints about them when the new batch of new pagans takes hold.

[Xirian]

Every generation has this situation. The older generation sees the younger as disrespectful and disinterested in traditions. The younger sees the older as out of touch with the times and stuck in their ways. Personally I'd like to see when the "new pagans" become the "older pagans" how they'll handle the complaints about them when the new batch of new pagans takes hold.
That is an interesting way to look at it and I believe you are very right in your assessment about it being generational. I will probably be one of those old women who is not open to new ideas and will be bitching about the younger folk. I actually look forward to it as a rite of passage. :D

[LostSheep]

As previously suggested, how about we sit down a wee bit and discuss the term "fluffy bunny" and why it is applied in the way it is.

To me it's a discription of a certain personality/mentality prevalent in , but not exclusive to, modern pagan ideology. Allow me to break down a few of the more well known "fluffy bunny" traits.

Idealistic vegetarianism.

Contrary to belief I have no problem with vegetarians per se. A person who does not eat meat because they object to eating other animals for moral or personal reasons is NOT a fluffy bunny, they are exercising a personal choice based on their own ethics.

However refusing to eat meat because they are "one with nature" to add a religous or spiritual motivation to justify what is a personal choice is an act of a "fluffy bunny". Furthermore, a "fluffy bunny" is in the habit of taking a moraly superior tone, setting him/herself up as a more enlightened being and inherently superior to other "carnivores".

see the diffeence?

Historical revision

One of my personal hates in regards to "fluffy bunnies", they are in the habit of revising history to justify themselves and let them take a moral highground. They seize on obscure facts, mis-interpret historical events and generaly twist history to suit their own personal interpretation, sort of like a Hollywood movie. The whole point is to make their own personal view seem the only correct and moraly superior one.

Ideological purity

Another common "fluffy bunny" trait is to constantly try to reinforce the beilef that their own interpretation is the "right" one, they often inflict their own personal views into other paths. A common example is trying to link all the other pagan paths to their own chosen path and imply that their way is the logical and true progression and that they are obviously better than anybody else.

Claiming to be one with nature while actualy doing the opposite

Another nasty trait, I've already touched on the vegetarian thing, but it goes much deeper. A common example is a pacifistic view being upheld as an example of being one with nature while ignoring the many examples of violence and brutality in the natural world.

Martyr complex

This is another annoying one, the whole "persecution" thing. "fluffy bunnies" like to make out they are persecuted and hated, that they are somehow moraly superior because they are the most persecuted, they often refer to the "burning times".

Moral superiority

The worst aspect of the "fluffy bunny", they always imply ot outright state they are moraly and ethicaly superior, that their ways and interpretations are better than anybody elses. It's this sense of constant superiority that annoys most people.

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a consistent theme with the "fluffy bunny", a common example is when they whine about intolerance and how they are persecuted while attacking other religions, Christianity tends to get the most of this irational hatred.

Applause all round generally, i think. Being a sheep, obviously I'd be in favour of vegetarianism. _inabox_

Historical revision: you could add to that insistence on some hypothetical, and probably mythical, golden matriarchal era of peace and harmony ... women make just as good warriors as men, in my experience. _inabox_

[Morgandria]

Mine is rather more simple: fluffy bunny = willfully ignorant, and proud of it.

[Greyharp]

I find that many of the people that fit into catagory are not new pagans, but older pagans who are so set in their beliefs that they won't see that they might be wrong about some things.

In my experience, this is definitely true. As keeps coming up in these threads, it is so easy for people to equate newbie with fluffy bunny. But the truth is some of the worst offenders and the fluffiest of them all, are people who have 20 plus years of experience as Pagans.

[MankyCat]

most fluffy bunnies have this eery vacant stare when you attempt to hold an intelligent convo with them. as if you are somehow infringing on their right to be hollow.


I've used that stare when I was younger... just to see how long people will go on explaining. Usually was more in reaction to silly stuff though, and not intellectual conversations.

I should try that again. I had it to a science.

[Garnet Heart]

Idealistic vegetarianism.

Contrary to belief I have no problem with vegetarians per se. A person who does not eat meat because they object to eating other animals for moral or personal reasons is NOT a fluffy bunny, they are exercising a personal choice based on their own ethics.

However refusing to eat meat because they are "one with nature" to add a religous or spiritual motivation to justify what is a personal choice is an act of a "fluffy bunny". Furthermore, a "fluffy bunny" is in the habit of taking a moraly superior tone, setting him/herself up as a more enlightened being and inherently superior to other "carnivores".

see the diffeence?


Here's my question: how do you divorce moral motivation from spiritual motivation? In pretty much all religions, aren't morals tied in with faith? I'm a long time vegetarian (raised as such), and some of my reasons for continuing the diet are rational, while others I really would describe as spiritual. I do feel like being vegetarian helps me be "closer to nature," but not closer to nature than you or than that guy over there or than anyone else, you know? Just closer than I would be if I ate commercially produced meat products. But really, my motivation for being a veggie head is pretty complicated. I don't like arguing with people about it. But I am an admitted herbivore sypathizer... Maybe of the bunny variety _inabox_



Claiming to be one with nature while actualy doing the opposite

Another nasty trait, I've already touched on the vegetarian thing, but it goes much deeper. A common example is a pacifistic view being upheld as an example of being one with nature while ignoring the many examples of violence and brutality in the natural world.

I guess I'm a bit confused with this. Not saying I disagree...pacifism isn't exactly a principle modeled in nature. But...I still think one can be pacifist/gentle without being a fool. Goodness knows cruelty exists in nature (I've seen that video of the Orcas playing "baseball" with the live baby seal...). But I still think a person can take a stand against propigating or condoning said cruelty without being a head in the clouds delusional. I dunno, I guess I'm still kind of negotiating my path. I think just personally, I'm more prone to fluffiness than most just 'cause I'm a sentimental type, but I don't think that makes me a bad person or worthy of namecalling (not that anyone here has).

I can understand the rest poifectly well though. No one likes hypocrits, self-made martyrs or moral supremacists in any walk of life.

[AussiePagan]

Playing the bad guy here:

However refusing to eat meat because they are "one with nature" to add a religous or spiritual motivation to justify what is a personal choice is an act of a "fluffy bunny".

There are some people who refuse to eat particular foods or drink on religious grounds. The Jews for example don't eat pork, and the Mormons don't drink coffee or alcohol. So why should refraining from eating meat make one a fluff ?

[LostSheep]

ah, interesting question... those rules are part of the religion, aren't they, if you're an orthodox Jew or Moslem or whatever you're expected not to eat or drink whatever it specifies, but i don't so far as i know think any (mainstream) pagan path says that you shouldn't eat meat, so it's a personal choice.

but here's the question; is making a personal choice not to eat meat necessarily fluffy? Are all vegetarians "fluffy", or just if you decide to be because you think it fits your chosen path, whether it says you must or not?

hmmmm. *chinstroke*

[MankyCat]

the Mormons don't drink coffee or alcohol. So why should refraining from eating meat make one a fluff ?


Mormons are supposed to not drink those things... part of why I lost interest in continuing down that path... On a group outting, the kids were talking about these things, which was all new to me even though I was brought up Mormon. (My parents both coming from Salt Lake and it being the religion of my main family for generations.) We were more down to earth, so I honestly wouldn't have had a problem with other Mormons drink the stuff until the kids mentioned that they were taught to just not let people outside of their religion to see them partake of these things. Like not going to R rated movies for fear that others may see them, but it was perfectly okay to rent them or watch them on tv. If you want coffee, then go ahead... as long as no one that knows you are Mormon sees you sipping on it.

Mind you, some groups of Mormonism is more devout than others, like most religions... but that helped me lose some of my faith. Not in the religion, per se... but in the people.

These were the same people I used to respect highly for how devoted and disciplined they were... and the same people that made my family out to be odd because we figured if we were breaking the rules, then it didn't matter if people saw us or not.

[MankyCat]

but here's the question; is making a personal choice not to eat meat necessarily fluffy? Are all vegetarians "fluffy", or just if you decide to be because you think it fits your chosen path, whether it says you must or not?


I don't believe religious tenets are what was being questioned. To me, the key part of the statement AussiePagan quoted is the idea that being vegetarian makes a person "one with nature". There are a number of vegetarians (especially pagans) that say it's more natural for us to not eat meat. A lot of these people are also the ones that makes grandiose statements that there is no brutality in nature, that animals kills out of need only and not want, and so on.

As Wolf Poet says further in his original post:

Another nasty trait, I've already touched on the vegetarian thing, but it goes much deeper. A common example is a pacifistic view being upheld as an example of being one with nature while ignoring the many examples of violence and brutality in the natural world.

The question is not if it's right or wrong to be vegetarian. People have their reasons for what they choose. But the original post does direct the attention to a specific group of vegetarians that behave a certain way, claim certain things... Making themselves seem superior to people who do eat meat (which is, btw, also at "one with nature") and also making themselves seem ignorant by making claims that have no true basis in reality.

[Myrr]

not being able to wear an pentacle = not persecution, etc).

I can't think of any place that it is illegal to wear a pentacle. Yes, your local baptist might not like seeing a pentacle, but your not going to face real persecution because of it.

[LostSheep]

I can't think of any place that it is illegal to wear a pentacle. Yes, your local baptist might not like seeing a pentacle, but your not going to face real persecution because of it.

quite a lot of companies have rules about wearing any kind of religious symbols at work, there was a big row here not long ago when British Airways said someone couldn't wear a cross, so i suppose a pentacle would come under that.

[Infinite Grey]

Idealistic vegetarianism.

Contrary to belief I have no problem with vegetarians per se. A person who does not eat meat because they object to eating other animals for moral or personal reasons is NOT a fluffy bunny, they are exercising a personal choice based on their own ethics.

However refusing to eat meat because they are "one with nature" to add a religous or spiritual motivation to justify what is a personal choice is an act of a "fluffy bunny". Furthermore, a "fluffy bunny" is in the habit of taking a moraly superior tone, setting him/herself up as a more enlightened being and inherently superior to other "carnivores".

see the diffeence?



I'm lean towards the opposite... I do not mind vegetarians for the purposes of religious beliefs, or for physical reasons... it's the idealistic vegetarians I think are pretentious twats.

There is vegetarianism in Hinduism and Buddhism... I've no problems with this.

[AussiePagan]

quite a lot of companies have rules about wearing any kind of religious symbols at work, there was a big row here not long ago when British Airways said someone couldn't wear a cross, so i suppose a pentacle would come under that.

But its not persecution if it's just a blanket, no religious symbols at all policy. And frankly it makes sense, if your are a business you don't want to risk offending some of your clients. It would be nice if everyone would just grow up and accept that different people have different religious beliefs, but I doubt that's gonna happen any time soon.

[phoenix shadowwolf]

Playing the bad guy here:

However refusing to eat meat because they are "one with nature" to add a religous or spiritual motivation to justify what is a personal choice is an act of a "fluffy bunny".

There are some people who refuse to eat particular foods or drink on religious grounds. The Jews for example don't eat pork, and the Mormons don't drink coffee or alcohol. So why should refraining from eating meat make one a fluff ?it more pertains to the reasons for the action.

Judaism and Mormonism have a known tenant, specific to their beliefs that consuming certain substances is taboo.

paganism, given how it is not a religion, but rather an umbrella term to cover all religions that do not fall under the Abrahamic god, don't have a unifying dogma for someone to say "i don't eat meat because i'm pagan".

second, if their reason is to be more in tune with nature, it is ignoring that beings in nature regularly do eat meat. yes, one does have herbavores, but omnivores and carnivores are as much a part of nature as the former.

[Carla O'Harris]

And there are people who completely over-emphasize the brutality in nature, and even celebrate it, as a means of excusing their inexcusable behavior, and trying to idolize "the dark side". Maybe we should call these "bloody bunnies". These folks lick their chops at the idea of brutality, and even seem to get off on it. Another term might be "sadists" full of resentment who feel a need to spill their schadenfreude on those who are seeking a higher agenda than the perpetuation of brutality, so they can then feel "superior" to those others. A lot of these people erroneously believe they are more intelligent or more knowledgeable, but are fairly mediocre while harboring some unwarranted elitism based on a greater degree of cynicism.

[Desert_Witch]

And there are people who completely over-emphasize the brutality in nature, and even celebrate it, as a means of excusing their inexcusable behavior, and trying to idolize "the dark side". Maybe we should call these "bloody bunnies". These folks lick their chops at the idea of brutality, and even seem to get off on it. Another term might be "sadists" full of resentment who feel a need to spill their schadenfreude on those who are seeking a higher agenda than the perpetuation of brutality, so they can then feel "superior" to those others. A lot of these people erroneously believe they are more intelligent or more knowledgeable, but are fairly mediocre while harboring some unwarranted elitism based on a greater degree of cynicism.


Ah. Now we will have another term to harmlessly identify those with whom we dissagree. I am sure all those in the Craft comunity will quickly adopt this indespensible and totaly truthful term! Way to go Carla. The entire Pagan comunity is in your debt. :fpraise: :fpraise: :fpraise:

[MankyCat]

And there are people who completely over-emphasize the brutality in nature, and even celebrate it, as a means of excusing their inexcusable behavior, and trying to idolize "the dark side". Maybe we should call these "bloody bunnies". These folks lick their chops at the idea of brutality, and even seem to get off on it. Another term might be "sadists" full of resentment who feel a need to spill their schadenfreude on those who are seeking a higher agenda than the perpetuation of brutality, so they can then feel "superior" to those others. A lot of these people erroneously believe they are more intelligent or more knowledgeable, but are fairly mediocre while harboring some unwarranted elitism based on a greater degree of cynicism.


Ooh... I like that term... "bloody bunny"... but it doesn't make sense given that would make the "bloody bunnies" the victims of the hunt that couldn't get away, and your statement seemed to be more towards the aggressors.

How about "bloody beasts"... I like that one too.

[skilly-nilly]

Another term might be "sadists" full of resentment who feel a need to spill their schadenfreude on those who are seeking a higher agenda than the perpetuation of brutality

My German-speaking husband informs me that "schadenfreude" means 'delighting in another's misfortune', making your sentence read:

"...sadists...who feel a need to spill their delight in other's misfortune on those who are seeking a higher agenda...."

Which doesn't make sense:
Who's unfortunate???
You would seem to be implying that the 'higher agenda' people are suffering and that the 'sadists' are delighting in this suffering. But why are the 'higher agenda' people suffering (to the delight of the 'sadists')? It would seem, from your argument, that the 'higher agenda' people have the moral high ground and so would be basking in the well-deserved glow of righteousness rather than feeling bad.

If you're going to use teh big wurds, you should use them correctly.

My personal take on the debate is a little different.

My Path is based on individual honour rather than external rules, and includes individual restrictions (called geas or geasa if you have several).

So, for me, if a person has a geas to not eat meat I would be fine with that; but it wouldn't be my geas. And it would be inappropriate for them to try to apply it to me.

I could argue my opinion:
For example, I eat meat but not veal. If someone asks me why, I explain why. I am hoping that they will agree and no longer eat veal, but it's not my decision. I have friends who eat veal and friends who don't. Although when one of them asked me why I don't eat liver, she decided to never ask me why I do or don't eat things ever again.

I could work to enact legislation:
If I wanted factory egg production ended; I would not eat factory eggs, I would inform people who indicated they wanted to hear about it why, and I would agitate in the government to differently regulate egg production.....

But I wouldn't call people who ate factory eggs or veal a bad name (Hen-Demon-Calf-Fiends comes to mind) and expect them to change because of it.

[BlueMoon13]

Ah. Now we will have another term to harmlessly identify those with whom we dissagree. I am sure all those in the Craft comunity will quickly adopt this indespensible and totaly truthful term! Way to go Carla. The entire Pagan comunity is in your debt. :fpraise: :fpraise: :fpraise:

:abored: Clearly you're not familiar with Isaac Bonewits' term "Scratchy Badger".

Years ago, Bonewits said something to the effect that we should'nt be"fluffy bunnies", but on the other hand we should'nt be "scratchy badgers" either. In other words, we should continue to strive for balance, with neither extreme being beneficial for the magical or mundane community.

I'll look for the exact quote.

[Sabriel MoonStar]

Years ago, Bonewits said something to the effect that we should'nt be"fluffy bunnies", but on the other hand we should'nt be "scratchy badgers" either. In other words, we should continue to strive for balance, with neither extreme being beneficial for the magical or mundane community.

I'll look for the exact quote.

I believe the essay you are looking for can be found here (http://www.neopagan.net/Making-Fauna-Pagans.html)

He also sells a poster that goes with the essay. I want to buy one some day, I find it quite amusing. :)

[BlueMoon13]

I believe the essay you are looking for can be found here (http://www.neopagan.net/Making-Fauna-Pagans.html)



Yes! That's the one I was thinking of...well done! (Humm...I coulda sworn it was scratchy,not stinky...._inabox_ ) In any case, if you read Bonewits' essay and reference the chart, you'll see that "Fluffy Bunny" is not, in of itself, a perjorative term, whereas I can't think of any circumstance in which a person who is not black, can use the word "******" without it being a perjorative term.

If my reading of Bonewits' essay is correct, I believe the distinction between a "newbie" (a term I personally can't stomach) and a "Fluffy Bunny" is the willfulness and the judgemental attitude of the stereotypical FB:


.....such as the ones who've just read a Wicca 101 book and are now going around telling everyone they meet on line what "real" Witchcraft is all about. Or the ones who've read a couple of books that have (shallowly) discussed the ethics of magic, so now they think doing magic for any other purpose than feeling good about themselves is "Evil Black Magick!™" My son Arthur considers people "fluffy" if they are willfully ignorant about what they say is their religion."

The judgmentalism of the FB has the whiff of "don't do that or you'll go to Hell" about it. Perhaps it's because the "fluffy" is still carrying baggage from a previous religion, or takes the concept of karma so seriously that they become like a Christian zealot who's attitude is that it's just not enough for themselves to be "saved", they have to make sure that everyone else is "saved" too. The willfullness comes into play when someone has a difference of opinion with a FB,and the FB simply cannot agree to disagree, they HAVE to be right, and any deviation from their view of "right" means the other person is absolutely wrong, no matter what path the other person is on, or how many years they have been on it.

Too much black and white, not enough gray.

[Desert_Witch]

Yes! That's the one I was thinking of...well done! (Humm...I coulda sworn it was scratchy,not stinky...._inabox_ ) In any case, if you read Bonewits' essay and reference the chart, you'll see that "Fluffy Bunny" is not, in of itself, a perjorative term, whereas I can't think of any circumstance in which a person who is not black, can use the word "******" without it being a perjorative term.

If my reading of Bonewits' essay is correct, I believe the distinction between a "newbie" (a term I personally can't stomach) and a "Fluffy Bunny" is the willfulness and the judgemental attitude of the stereotypical FB:



The judgmentalism of the FB has the whiff of "don't do that or you'll go to Hell" about it. Perhaps it's because the "fluffy" is still carrying baggage from a previous religion, or takes the concept of karma so seriously that they become like a Christian zealot who's attitude is that it's just not enough for themselves to be "saved", they have to make sure that everyone else is "saved" too. The willfullness comes into play when someone has a difference of opinion with a FB,and the FB simply cannot agree to disagree, they HAVE to be right, and any deviation from their view of "right" means the other person is absolutely wrong, no matter what path the other person is on, or how many years they have been on it.

Too much black and white, not enough gray.

If they do not have the "right" to tell you how or what to believe, why do you think you can hang a negative lable on them for their beliefs? Because you have more experiance on the Path? Because you have read more books? Because some Author uses the term? Hitler wrote a book too. Doesent make what he preaches right or true.

[Philosophia]

If I believe people are fluffy bunnies, I will tell them so. If they take offense, I know I've hit the target and maybe they might rethink their position. If they don't, meh...who cares?

[BlueMoon13]

If they do not have the "right" to tell you how or what to believe, why do you think you can hang a negative lable on them for their beliefs?
If someone is offended by being referred to as a "Fluffy Bunny", than it probably means they are.


Because you have more experiance on the Path?
No, because I have more experience on MY path, and will not be told it's a wrong path by anyone, be it a Buffy-bot or Cabot clone.


Because you have read more books?
See above.


Because some Author uses the term?
I think his essay and chart comparing the various behaviours found in the pagan community are quite anthropological in nature, and spot on.


Hitler wrote a book too. Doesent make what he preaches right or true.

Are you comparing Isaac Bonewits to Hitler? :eek: A bit overwrought, don't you think?

People use designations to describe someone's behaviour all the time-twit, nerd, bitch,git, and so on. Someone who displays behaviour that typifies the FB will be referenced to as such, whether one likes it or not (not necessarily here on MW). I personally have never "called" anyone a Fluffy Bunny, but have seen countless examples of behaviour attributable to that mindset.

[Xirian]

If I believe someone's a prick, I'll tell them so and won't have to explain what I mean.

Using the term fluffy bunny only benefits the person using the term. If a person is so new they don't know what the term means yet, it doesn't really affect them that much. If someone is so set in their ways that they don't even care that they're spouting on about information that is obviously inaccurate, then they probably won't care what you call them.

The only benefit is to the person who is on their high horse judging them.

At least with calling someone a prick, they know EXACTLY what I mean, no explanations needed.

[AussiePagan]

it more pertains to the reasons for the action.

Judaism and Mormonism have a known tenant, specific to their beliefs that consuming certain substances is taboo.

paganism, given how it is not a religion, but rather an umbrella term to cover all religions that do not fall under the Abrahamic god, don't have a unifying dogma for someone to say "i don't eat meat because i'm pagan".

second, if their reason is to be more in tune with nature, it is ignoring that beings in nature regularly do eat meat. yes, one does have herbavores, but omnivores and carnivores are as much a part of nature as the former.

Sure, Neo-paganism is just a catch all term, but why do you need a central authority backed by dogma before it becomes acceptable to abstain from certain substances ? "Christianity" used to be a catch all term for anyone following the teachings of Jesus, until one group wiped out the other groups and unified the Christian dogma.

Or is it, you don't like them associating paganism with vegetarianism ? Would it be better then if they said "I don't eat meat because of my spiritual beliefs" ?

[Desert_Witch]

[quote=BlueMoon13;2953843]If someone is offended by being referred to as a "Fluffy Bunny", than it probably means they are.

So by your reasoning here, if someone is ofended by being called a bastard, then they probably are one?


No, because I have more experience on MY path, and will not be told it's a wrong path by anyone, be it a Buffy-bot or Cabot clone.

And so in all your experience on your path, do you feel that it is mature and all to call people names? Cuz on my Path, that is not the case. To each their own, I am just trying to understand.



I think his essay and chart comparing the various behaviours found in the pagan community are quite anthropological in nature, and spot on.

What if I dissagree with you? Do I get to hang a hurtful lable on you? (It is for identification purposes)

I gravitate twards other work of his.



Are you comparing Isaac Bonewits to Hitler? :eek: A bit overwrought, don't you think?

Oh no, I do not want anyone to get that impression at all. I like Bonewits. I was however making a point that just because one person writes a book, does not make their words true, correct, or even sane. Issac may endorse the term, but i do not have to think it is OK, because HE does. That is just silly.


People use designations to describe someone's behaviour all the time-twit, nerd, bitch,git, and so on. Someone who displays behaviour that typifies the FB will be referenced to as such, whether one likes it or not (not necessarily here on MW). I personally have never "called" anyone a Fluffy Bunny, but have seen countless examples of behaviour attributable to that mindset.


if you have never called anyone FB, why defend the term at all?

[MankyCat]

Would it be better then if they said "I don't eat meat because of my spiritual beliefs" ?

Yes.

If someone claims it's their own personal spiritual beliefs that stop them, then that's fine. No one can claim them wrong because they made it clear that it was their own beliefs. If someone claims it's because they are 'pagan' then people can claim they are wrong, since simply being pagan does not necessarily mean someone should be vegetarian. Pagan is a broad word with various beliefs (especially by the definition listed in dictionaries).

I eat meat because of my own personal beliefs (spiritual, physical, mental, etc). I would not say I eat meat because I'm a witch.

[MankyCat]

if you have never called anyone FB, why defend the term at all?

I don't see why you'd have to use a term in order to defend said term. You can still have an opinion.

[BlueMoon13]

I don't see why you'd have to use a term in order to defend said term. You can still have an opinion.

Thank you.

Opinion is what this discussion is all about, after all. In some people's opinion, I'M a fluffy bunny, simply because I don't follow a path that's as dark as theirs, and people who know me IRL know I can be as dark as I need to be. Unlike people whom I consider to be a fluff, I don't wring my hands and stamp my feet like a child because someone called me a name I don't like, and yell that my way is the only way and anyone else who does'nt do it my way is wrong. That's my beef with fluffs. That some of them simply seem unable to mind their own business. If someone's SO insecure about their own path that they feel obligated to attack mine, they deserve whatever they're called, quite frankly. So many among the fluffy think it's rude to call them a Fluffy Bunny, but have no problem whatsoever with putting down people who practice Santeria,Voodoo, or are Satanists.

As far as "Fluffy Bunny" being a derogatory term, why not use your energy and bitch to the ACLU about getting it to be a hate crime, if you think it's so god awful? Let's just see how far you could actually get, because here we're just going around in circles, and I'm just about ready to :sick: :uhhhhh: from the centrifugal action
OR
you could just take a lesson from Anton LaVey and if people are going to call you a Fluffy Bunny, BE a Fluffy Bunny, and be the best damn Fluffy Bunny there is. Be proud of it, own it.

[MankyCat]

you could just take a lesson from Anton LaVey and if people are going to call you a Fluffy Bunny, BE a Fluffy Bunny, and be the best damn Fluffy Bunny there is. Be proud of it, own it.


I love that!!!!!

[BlueMoon13]

I love that!!!!!

Again, thank you.

Heck, someone's already tried to outlaw fluff:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/06/19/can_this_spread_be_stopped/

He did'nt get too far, either.

[AussiePagan]

Yes.

If someone claims it's their own personal spiritual beliefs that stop them, then that's fine. No one can claim them wrong because they made it clear that it was their own beliefs. If someone claims it's because they are 'pagan' then people can claim they are wrong, since simply being pagan does not necessarily mean someone should be vegetarian. Pagan is a broad word with various beliefs (especially by the definition listed in dictionaries).

I eat meat because of my own personal beliefs (spiritual, physical, mental, etc). I would not say I eat meat because I'm a witch.

Well said. :cheers:

[omar]

The person who calls another person a "fluffy bunny" is the REAL fluffy bunny or "Air Head". oops

[Carla O'Harris]

Yes.

If someone claims it's their own personal spiritual beliefs that stop them, then that's fine. No one can claim them wrong because they made it clear that it was their own beliefs. If someone claims it's because they are 'pagan' then people can claim they are wrong, since simply being pagan does not necessarily mean someone should be vegetarian. Pagan is a broad word with various beliefs (especially by the definition listed in dictionaries).

I eat meat because of my own personal beliefs (spiritual, physical, mental, etc). I would not say I eat meat because I'm a witch.


But they could claim that those spiritual beliefs were pagan or pagan-based, demonstrate that many pagans were vegetarians, and further explain that the nature-reverence of their pagan spiritual beliefs led them to take a further step, precedented by the examples of significant schools or earlier pagans, of respecting animals enough to not eat them. (This need not be a moral condemnation of others, but a personal choice based on spiritual beliefs which derive from a pagan perspective.) This could be followed up by noting that many pagans were in fact meat-eaters, but that the vegetarian choice was a respected minoritarian choice in several pagan cultures.

Someone else might attempt to emphasize the killing within nature. Then a debate might occur about what particular aspects of nature are worthy of using as a model. Nature is far too vast and filled with far too many models for every single one to be invoked, and therefore one might examine the choices of which models are chosen. It might further be argued that a pagan in their reverence for Nature does not necessarily revere every manifestation of what happens, but rather finds something significantly Numinous in Nature worthy of reverence, and for a given pagan, that might not include killing, even predation. Others might respectfully model predation for their own habits, while others might overemphasize the model of predation.

That paganism includes an attention to nature, and a reverence for that which is numinous in nature, might very well inspire some pagans to act upon that reverence in particular ways, including fostering a care for the beings of nature, that could in some cases manifest quite legitimately in vegetarian practice.

[elfmage]

And there are people who completely over-emphasize the brutality in nature, and even celebrate it, as a means of excusing their inexcusable behavior, and trying to idolize "the dark side". Maybe we should call these "bloody bunnies". These folks lick their chops at the idea of brutality, and even seem to get off on it.

You seem to have quite the "all or nothing" attitude going there. So someone is either a vegetarian "fluffy bunny" or some "dark side" person? What about those people who are somewhere in the middle?

It seems like you're interpreting what people are saying as a total rejection of certain ideals. Not everything is some dichotomous extreme; most of the people here are talking about the proverbial "happy medium".

[Carla O'Harris]

You seem to have quite the "all or nothing" attitude going there. So someone is either a vegetarian "fluffy bunny" or some "dark side" person? What about those people who are somewhere in the middle?

It seems like you're interpreting what people are saying as a total rejection of certain ideals. Not everything is some dichotomous extreme; most of the people here are talking about the proverbial "happy medium".

Read my latest post :


Others might respectfully model predation for their own habits, while others might overemphasize the model of predation.

You'll see I'm not speaking in the extremes you read into my post.

[Amythyst]

"Fluffy Bunny"...I hate this idiotic, childish term. It makes me think of a woman in a skimpy costume with a rabbit's tale pinned to her a$$.

[MankyCat]

But they could claim that those spiritual beliefs were pagan or pagan-based, demonstrate that many pagans were vegetarians, and further explain that the nature-reverence of their pagan spiritual beliefs led them to take a further step, precedented by the examples of significant schools or earlier pagans, of respecting animals enough to not eat them. (This need not be a moral condemnation of others, but a personal choice based on spiritual beliefs which derive from a pagan perspective.) This could be followed up by noting that many pagans were in fact meat-eaters, but that the vegetarian choice was a respected minoritarian choice in several pagan cultures.

By saying "I am vegetarian because I'm pagan", you are implying that it is a shared ideal in the majority of pagans. By saying "I'm vegetarian because I revere nature" would imply that those who are not vegetarian do not revere nature... when in fact it can be quite the opposite.

Why go through the whole following up bit that you mentioned? Why not just say, "I'm vegetarian because of my personal/spiritual beliefs." Simple. Straight to the point. No further explanation necessary. No stepping on the toes of others who call themselves pagan. No misconceptions given to anyone who is not pagan.

Not everything has to be complicated.

[Carla O'Harris]

By saying "I am vegetarian because I'm pagan", you are implying that it is a shared ideal in the majority of pagans. By saying "I'm vegetarian because I revere nature" would imply that those who are not vegetarian do not revere nature... when in fact it can be quite the opposite.

Why go through the whole following up bit that you mentioned? Why not just say, "I'm vegetarian because of my personal/spiritual beliefs." Simple. Straight to the point. No further explanation necessary. No stepping on the toes of others who call themselves pagan. No misconceptions given to anyone who is not pagan.

Not everything has to be complicated.

Who's complicating things? I'm clarifying them.

When a person's behavior has been modified by their spiritual beliefs, and when those spiritual beliefs are pagan, in shorthand, their saying, "I do X because I'm pagan" does have a level of truth to it. You just have to ask further questions to clarify what they mean by it.

[Rudas Starblaze]

oh Carla! youre so adorable in youre struggle for fluffy rights! you should just face it and stop being in denial. :hugz:

[RainInanna]

When a person's behavior has been modified by their spiritual beliefs, and when those spiritual beliefs are pagan, in shorthand, their saying, "I do X because I'm pagan" does have a level of truth to it. You just have to ask further questions to clarify what they mean by it.

Saying it that way implies a logical fallacy. Such a person would do better by saying "the fact that I do X is influenced by my beliefs regarding Paganism" without many more words. Such a person would then be more likely to encourage others to ask for more detail rather than annoying them immediately by implying Paganism requires vegetarianism.

At some point people should consider how they present their words - not just what words are correct, but how best to state them in order to truly convey their meaning. If you can avoid ticking someone off by choosing clearer sentences you go much further at encouraging free discussion of ideas.

[~Elise~]

want uncomplicated?

I'm a vegetarian.

How umcomplicated is that?

Most people don't care WHY you're a vegetarian... if they care to ask why--then you can go into the rest. But--dollar to donuts that once you state that you're a vegetarian-their eyes are going to glaze over and they'll start backing away slowly.

JMO and YMMV,

Elise

[Vigdisdotter]

so does fluffy bunny extend beyond pagans?

Absolutely :) My mom, the atheist, has used it to describe political figures.

[PsyMoon]

Absolutely :) My mom, the atheist, has used it to describe political figures.
I've just seen a pagan use it to refer to some Resolutionist gym goes.

she likes it when their numbers drop off.

[Carla O'Harris]

want uncomplicated?

I'm a vegetarian.

How umcomplicated is that?

Most people don't care WHY you're a vegetarian... if they care to ask why--then you can go into the rest. But--dollar to donuts that once you state that you're a vegetarian-their eyes are going to glaze over and they'll start backing away slowly.

JMO and YMMV,

Elise


Actually, non-vegetarians are very often threatened by vegetarians, and quite concerned when someone does not eat meat. Many times they become immediately defensive even when the vegetarian hasn't said a thing. This isn't true for everyone ; there are people who are quite tolerant, accepting, or even shrugging as you suggest. But people usually demand some kind of explanation.

[~Elise~]

Actually, non-vegetarians are very often threatened by vegetarians, and quite concerned when someone does not eat meat. Many times they become immediately defensive even when the vegetarian hasn't said a thing. This isn't true for everyone ; there are people who are quite tolerant, accepting, or even shrugging as you suggest. But people usually demand some kind of explanation.

The answer to their question of why -- is Why do you want to know?

People stutter and back off. I've seen it happen time and time again. (I actually learned that from an Ann Landers column)

Elise

[MankyCat]

Actually, non-vegetarians are very often threatened by vegetarians, and quite concerned when someone does not eat meat. Many times they become immediately defensive even when the vegetarian hasn't said a thing. This isn't true for everyone ; there are people who are quite tolerant, accepting, or even shrugging as you suggest. But people usually demand some kind of explanation.


I know why some people feel threatened by vegetarians... It's because they had bad experiences. You run into the people who practically beat you over the head that meat is wrong and so on.

But for the most part, times are changing. I know that when someone says they are vegetarian, most people just drop the issue because they already heard a lot of the reasons people choose to not eat meat or animal products. If they semi-know you (or think they do), they might ask why out of curiosity. They might simply want to know which 'category' you fall into (what type of vegetarian or which reason that they already heard).

The only times I've seen people get up at arms about vegetarianism is when those people came from 'old world' values. Try being vegetarian in a true-blue 'old school' greek family. I've heard horror stories about that, but it's because of their ingrained beliefs.

In most cases, the more they see it (and aren't treated badly for not understanding at first or for choosing to continue eating meat), the more accepting they will be of it. If it's their first time, they will react weirdly. If all their experiences are with the vegetarian fanatics, then they will react as their experience dictates. This type of reaction goes beyond dietary choices.


Try living gluten-free and you see where true intolerance (and even cruelty) is concerning your choice of avoidance. Difference is that it's not really a choice for most people avoiding gluten.


Besides... If someone said, "I'm a vegetarian because I'm christian," what would you think? What if you knew nothing about christianity (or very little)? You would make an erroneous connection between vegetarianism and christianity.

[RainInanna]

Sorry for the dumb question but what is involved in living gluten free that is so offensive?

[MankyCat]

Gluten free = No wheat, barley, rye, or oats... or anything derived from those grains.

Most people have several reactions.

A. What can you eat?!? (fear in their voices and concern that you are going to be malnourished or border-line anorexic, followed by, "That's in everything!")

B. I could never do that! (Connect to "You can't eat anything!!!" or "I can't live without ___fill in the blank___.)

C. It's all in your head! (or Are you sure?... even when you have physical and/or medical proof.)

D. It could be ___fill in the blank___. (Then followed by C., A., and/or B.)


Then they will offer you cake, bread, or any number of stuff you can't eat.

If you decide to host a party and have food that you can also eat (*gasp* The thought!), people will typically:

A. Not show up because there's nothing "normal" for them to eat. (When you are using normal food they also buy at the store or are cooking from normal cook books using normal recipes!)

B. say, "Won't there be food for normal people?!?" (Said in horror)

C. do or say any other number of odd things.

When you mention you can eat something normal, they say:

A. You can eat __fill in the blank___? (Including things like poultry, beef, corn, potatoes, rice, and any number of other things. Yes... even some mainstream potato chips are gluten free... the same stuff the people freaking out eat.)

B. You can eat out at ___ fill in restaurant name___? (Usually followed by, "Isn't that dangerous?" or reminders that you don't know what's really going on in the kitchen or other parts of the restaurant and that you are taking risks... which brings them to believe that you are faking it or downright stupid.)

C. other odd things.

And then the cruelty.

People insisting that you are a hypochondriac. That it's all in your head (not just stating it once, but actually trying to wear you down to eat "normal" food). It hardest when your family or even mate does this... and let's not forget the shame and guilt that can be doled out in the process.

People testing you by purposely contaminating your food or cookware with gluten to see if you react (get sick). They may also feed you erroneous info or encourage you to try things that they know are not safe. Of course if you do react, they say it's IBS or something else and still don't believe, even disregarding that it can take a couple days for the full symptoms to show. This is the hardest and most hurtful part because it's not only showing they don't believe you, but that they don't care about your real well-being. It also is completely disrespectful and can actually cause PERMANENT damage to someone who is allergic, even though the perpetrators don't see the damage immediately.

This is only a few of the problems faced.

I'm fortunate though. I have a tough skin and am actually able to explain things to people in a way that they don't freak as much. I try to make an example by being "realistic" and not "fanatic" about it. But I still have the things happen above. Others I've known have had it a lot harder and have the above happen much more and much worse.

Hope that helps. Sorry for derailing the conversation a little. :fpcsucks

[~Elise~]

We've got a lady in our group that is allergic to gluten--so we always try to have something she can eat after rituals.

Real challenge this Yule was to try to find a gluten free broth and/or bullion so she could partake of the Wish Soup that was the main part of our feast.

I passed your recipe site onto her a few months ago and she loves it, BTW.

Elise

[PsyMoon]

Actually, non-vegetarians are very often threatened by vegetarians, and quite concerned when someone does not eat meat. Many times they become immediately defensive even when the vegetarian hasn't said a thing. This isn't true for everyone ; there are people who are quite tolerant, accepting, or even shrugging as you suggest. But people usually demand some kind of explanation.Most of the people I know pretty much just take note that someones a vegetarian and give them vegetarian alternatives at the next BBQ or whatever.

I know a lot about vegatarians as my mother raised me as one. I rarely ask someone why they are one.because frankly I don't care. just like I don't care what sexuality people are.

went to a party where everyone was meat eaters... by the end of the night we were eating the Vegi burgers. and all the gluten free stuff we have at parties.but the real hard one is Corn allergies. yeah... the parties in my group just pretty much assemes that someone with some dietary restriction is going to rear it's ugly head and we are prepared.

those that think it's strange or unussual or what ever probably are the people that drink too much milk... cows milk... not so good for humans.


whatever.

but back on topic ( or at least closer to) is that the jewish faith has dietary restrictions bvased on faith some christians do as well ( i tell you it's not what you put into your mouth ...) but I find it hard to believe that a religion that encourages one to be one with nature would have a restriction on eating animals...

[MankyCat]

Sorry for the dumb question but what is involved in living gluten free that is so offensive?

In many ways, a culture defines itself by it's food.

The US (as well as many European based cultures) is a wheat-based culture.

[MankyCat]

but the real hard one is Corn allergies.

Yeah... corn is rough. My sister can't eat a lot of stuff (due to damage caused by celiac), but she's thankful corn isn't one of them.

[MankyCat]

We've got a lady in our group that is allergic to gluten--so we always try to have something she can eat after rituals.

Real challenge this Yule was to try to find a gluten free broth and/or bullion so she could partake of the Wish Soup that was the main part of our feast.

I passed your recipe site onto her a few months ago and she loves it, BTW.

Elise

If you are talking to me... I have a new recipe site I'm working on to attach to the "Frugal Celiac" Website. I'll send you the link if you like. PM me and I'll send the location (if you want, I can also send you some links refer her to... places that are extremely helpful). I can also send you info on broths that are safe (if you are in the US, though I can probably find companies elsewhere through connections) as well as anything else.

This applies to anyone else.

*Derailed it again. Bad me. I stop now.* 8O

[RainInanna]

Yuli - the fact that people do that blows my mind.

PsyMoon - You mention "I find it hard to believe that a religion that encourages one to be one with nature would have a restriction on eating animals". I can certainly see the reasoning when trying to harm as little as possible, considering oneself as more responsible as a consciously aware human being. At the same time I tend to lean more towards your view, of seeing myself as a natural omnivore as part of my inherent connection with nature. The problem there is in how much we distance ourself from the animals we consume, and the massive quantities of our consumption and environmental impact of the same.

[PsyMoon]

Yuli - the fact that people do that blows my mind.

PsyMoon - You mention "I find it hard to believe that a religion that encourages one to be one with nature would have a restriction on eating animals". I can certainly see the reasoning when trying to harm as little as possible, considering oneself as more responsible as a consciously aware human being. At the same time I tend to lean more towards your view, of seeing myself as a natural omnivore as part of my inherent connection with nature. The problem there is in how much we distance ourself from the animals we consume, and the massive quantities of our consumption and environmental impact of the same.Of course.

the only meat I eat is the meat I kill or someone who's hand I have shook has killed..

the qualities of being responsible as a consciously aware human being seperates one from nature not bring oneself closer to it.

I'm not saying that being responsible as a consciously aware human being is a bad thing here.

[RainInanna]

What do you think then of those who cannot for whatever reason consume meat and other products only of animals they themselves have killed?

[PsyMoon]

What do you think then of those who cannot for whatever reason consume meat and other products only of animals they themselves have killed?I never said that only I Killed in the first place I said that I killed or someone who's hand I have shook has killed.

But as far as those that can't even make the effort to get meat the way I state here than I have to say that they have removed themselves further from nature than they should be.

I for one know that I will survive through disasters and the falling of the government (should this happen), unless I am killed.

I started to learn how to hunt in my early teens on the rez. I also learned many survival techniques from a christian organization called the Royal Rangers... Locusts can be prepared in a very delicious manner with a little garlic and... well, anyways.

[~Elise~]

If you are talking to me... I have a new recipe site I'm working on to attach to the "Frugal Celiac" Website. I'll send you the link if you like. PM me and I'll send the location (if you want, I can also send you some links refer her to... places that are extremely helpful). I can also send you info on broths that are safe (if you are in the US, though I can probably find companies elsewhere through connections) as well as anything else.

This applies to anyone else.

*Derailed it again. Bad me. I stop now.* 8O

I was talking to you--and please feel free to send any links that you've got that will help her. I'll pass them on.

Yes, we're in the US

Elise

[Storm Moon]

I've been sitting here thinking while reading this thread, and my question is if someone feels they are closer to nature by not eating meat, then why not live and let live? Of course it's different when they are preaching for others to stop eating meat, but if that's not the case, then I don't think it's really a big deal. We'll all disagree of course on why eating meat is bad or not eating meat is bad. Buddhism broke off into several traditions because of this (and many others as well). Frankly, I say more power to you if you have made this decision. Myself, I don't eat a lot of 'red' meats, mostly lean meats because they are much better for you (depending on how they're cooked, of course).

[MankyCat]

I was talking to you--and please feel free to send any links that you've got that will help her. I'll pass them on.

Yes, we're in the US

Elise


I will send them along a little later today. :hahugh:

[Wolfpoet]

Actually, non-vegetarians are very often threatened by vegetarians, and quite concerned when someone does not eat meat. Many times they become immediately defensive even when the vegetarian hasn't said a thing. This isn't true for everyone ; there are people who are quite tolerant, accepting, or even shrugging as you suggest. But people usually demand some kind of explanation.

This works both ways, I believe a comment made on this very site described non-vegetarians as "carnivores". I would dearly love to find a single example of a Human carnivore, since the ALL Humans that are not vegetarian consume a mixed diet, we are omnivores.

It works both ways, there are many rather militant vegetarians that try to "convert" people with the use of emotional blackmail, going into detail about the cruelties involved etc. My responce to them is to descirbe the ingredients of black pudding.

I've seen allot of statements about the poor oppressed vegetarians without any reference to the vegetarians that have such a self-rightous view that they consider themselves moraly superior to non-vegetarians and go out of their way to express it. Many are the times when I've seen vegetarians harass meat-eaters, so you need to consider both sides here. each side of the vegetarian coin has it's fair share of arrogant bigots who constantly question the other side.

[MankyCat]

This works both ways, I believe a comment made on this very site described non-vegetarians as "carnivores". I would dearly love to find a single example of a Human carnivore, since the ALL Humans that are not vegetarian consume a mixed diet, we are omnivores.

Actually, there is a guy that only ate meat for about 3 decades. I can't seem to find the article and interview, but if I do, I'll post it.

Also there's a controversy about the Inuit diet... which is almost if not all based on meat and little or no vegetation. (The controversy is in regards to how much plant life they actually eat or ate. Everyone does agree that the number is extremely low if they do.)

[Xirian]

I've seen allot of statements about the poor oppressed vegetarians without any reference to the vegetarians that have such a self-rightous view that they consider themselves moraly superior to non-vegetarians and go out of their way to express it. Many are the times when I've seen vegetarians harass meat-eaters, so you need to consider both sides here. each side of the vegetarian coin has it's fair share of arrogant bigots who constantly question the other side.
You know, now that I think about it, in this town there is probably a balance of omnivores to vegetarians. The restaurants in this town, however, cater more to vegetarian diet. Meaning that if I want to get a properly cooked, decently priced prime rib, I have to go back to my hometown to get one (which is a small Iowa town), or cook it myself.

At any rate, I haven't really seen any meat-eaters, in this town, dis a vegitarian, but I cannot say the same for vegetarians dising meat-eaters. In fact when I first moved to town I was a vegetarian and had been for quite some time and the food I cooked for my son and myself was still questioned by vegetarians who didn't feel that I was eating properly and that I was slipping meat into my son's food. Which is my right if I choose to do so, but I really wasn't doing that. They were extremely pushy and thought I needed shopping lessons and were always questioning me and telling me that I was hurting my son. My friends that I moved here with, were all omnivores and they didn't have any problem with my choices.

So I would have to agree with you Wolfpoet that there are a "fair share of arrogant bigots who constantly question the other side."