The Vegetarian Myth et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus


ou
Identifiez-vous pour activer la commande 1-Click.
ou
en essayant gratuitement Amazon Premium pendant 30 jours. Votre inscription aura lieu lors du passage de la commande. En savoir plus.
Amazon Rachète votre article
Recevez un chèque-cadeau de EUR 2,50
Amazon Rachète cet article
Plus de choix
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

 
Commencez à lire The Vegetarian Myth sur votre Kindle en moins d'une minute.

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.

The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability [Anglais] [Broché]

Lierre Keith
4.5 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (2 commentaires client)
Prix : EUR 15,46 Livraison à EUR 0,01 En savoir plus.
  Tous les prix incluent la TVA
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Il ne reste plus que 2 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon. Emballage cadeau disponible.
Voulez-vous le faire livrer le mardi 5 août ? Choisissez la livraison en 1 jour ouvré sur votre bon de commande. En savoir plus.
Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 2,50
Vendez The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 2,50, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Amazon.fr. Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Offres spéciales et liens associés



Détails sur le produit

  • Broché: 312 pages
  • Editeur : PM Press; Édition : 1 (1 mai 2009)
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ISBN-10: 1604860804
  • ISBN-13: 978-1604860801
  • Dimensions du produit: 22,6 x 15,2 x 2 cm
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : 4.5 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (2 commentaires client)
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: 82.468 en Livres anglais et étrangers (Voir les 100 premiers en Livres anglais et étrangers)
  •  Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?


En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Quels sont les autres articles que les clients achètent après avoir regardé cet article?


Commentaires en ligne 

3 étoiles
0
2 étoiles
0
1 étoiles
0
4.5 étoiles sur 5
4.5 étoiles sur 5
Commentaires client les plus utiles
5.0 étoiles sur 5 An enlightening book 21 juin 2013
Par Anthony
Format:Format Kindle|Achat vérifié
It really is good to get out of clichés and have a book about nutritional issues which actually condiders the whole picture. I would recommend it to any vegetarian or meat eater.
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
2 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 lierrekeith has it all right and all wrong 13 avril 2013
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
One of the best books ever written. Lierre Keith has written an epos on food and environment that will make your spine shiver.
Yes we are on the road to hell but not hte way you thought. It is agriculture that is bringing is there, deleting the topsoil, annihilating water resources and totally driven by .. petrol. You never hear about it but we are already dead on paper . When Oil runs out so will agriculture. The crops of grains thrive on pesticides and fertilizer derived from the oil industry. It is not that we will run out of cars but out of food and the calculations that puts Mrs Keith forward make it beyond doubt that there are 7 billion to many of us.

It would have gotten 5 stars if it had not one major flaw. Lierre Keith if you read this please get some education about big business and who runs it. Mrs Keith bashes continually the white european male throughout this book, being the scource with his machism. While in reality the white male of european descent is on the verge of extinction and he, our forefathers, had nothing to do with the exploitation of people, slavery and resources. This has been all in the hands of elite and big banking.

Lierre Keith wishes us to go back to nature nut she wants a homosexual life for herself, she wants a society of diversity of race, she is pro abortion, she wants women to be independent from evil men, alle very natural off course. O yeah and she also believes in Aids (biggest medical hoax of the century). In fact this book is an conondrum. It was one of my biggest eyeopeners of the last years while at the same the auhtor is so stuck in political correctness and promoting her judeo marxist ideas on society that I hope she will continu to evolve and see the ligth.
Lire la suite ›
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 3.6 étoiles sur 5  243 commentaires
3.128 internautes sur 3.334 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Disappointing 30 mai 2010
Par A. Perri - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
I want to be clear about a few things:

1) I am a female.
2) I give the idea of this book 5 stars, but its execution 1.
3) I have been a radical vegan, a rabid meat-eater and everything in between (currently in the in-between)
4) I am working on an archaeological PhD on hunter-gatherer diets, subsistence, hunting and transition to agriculture.

I picked this book up after reading Jonathan Safran Foer's "Eating Animals". I thought it would be interesting to read a different perspective on the vegetarian debate. I found Safran Foer's book to be much more geared towards the inhumane practices of meat while Keith's book is geared more towards diet/health.

I admit that it took a very long time for me to get through this book, for several reasons. I purchased this book hoping to get something out of it. I am not an upset vegan who wants to hate it and I am not someone who bought it knowing Id love it. I was just neutral. There were two main reasons for my disappointment with the book. One minor, one major. First, I found the second agendas (specifically the radical feminism) distracting and unnecessary. I have nothing against the feminist agenda, but this wasnt the place to put it. Second, I found the book absolutely riddled with bad information, faulty facts and just plain lazy research (if you can call it 'research'). As someone who intensively researches these issues on a daily basis, I found myself underlining items on nearly every page that I knew were just plain untrue or were 'cherry-picked' facts slanted to give a certain perception. This is such a disappointment as a really great case could be made for the author's view if she had only put the real work into researching the book properly. Once you lose the reader's trust that you are providing factual information what do you have? Ill provide examples:

1) pg. 140: The author states that "Carbon-13 is a stable isotope present in two places: grasses and the bodies of animals that eat grasses". She goes on to suggest that since there is no evidence of grass "scratch marks" on the human teeth found, that they must have been eating animals. There are many flaws in this thought process. First, I cant even begin to explain the preservation and degradation issues present in examining three million year old teeth for 'scratch marks'. Second, carbon-13 is an isotope found in ALL terrestrial and marine plants, not just grass. Finding high levels of C3 or C4 (which are what carbon-13 breaks down into) in human teeth only means that that human was eating large amounts of SOME plant, seed, nut, etc. (not JUST grass) or the animal that ate those. It is not as simple as GRASS OR COW.

2) pg. 142: The author states that there are no bacteria in the human stomach. This is simply untrue. In 2005 Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won a Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering a stomach bacteria that causes gastritis and ulcer disease. There are currently over 130 known stomach bacteria.

3) pg. 146: The author states a "rumor" authored by RB Lee about hunter-gatherers getting 65% of their calories from plants and 35% from meat. She states that this "simply isnt true". First, this rumor-spreader is one of the most well-respected anthropological/archaeological researchers in hunter-gatherer studies who edited what is considered THE tome on hunter-gatherer theory, 'Man the Hunter'. He isnt some random hack. Second, saying those numbers 'simply arent true' is simply not true. Hunter-gatherers did and do inhabit a huge range of environments and likewise their diets cover a wide range. Some do follow the 65/35% number. Some eat much more meat. Some eat much less.

These are only three examples from a span of six pages. This pattern continues throughout the entire book. Fact is the authors 'facts' just arent believable (which, again, is a shame because a factual book on this topic could be powerful). She writes as if the anthropological and archaeological evidence she quotes is written in stone, when in fact many of these topics are constantly under revision or not well understood yet. Most importantly, I just believe that writing a book and promoting it as a factual, scientific account of a subject when it is not is doing a great disservice to your (mostly) unknowing readers. If you are not willing to put in the real research effort, write a book that is touted as a personal account and nothing more. Selling flubbed facts to people who are truly searching for answers, inspiration or (insert what you are looking for here) is just bad journalism.

Ill end this review with some facts and encourage any readers (whether you liked the book, hated the book or havent read the book) to always question whether what you are reading is true and to do some research of your own.

The author cites 207 references in this book.
62 of those references are websites (~30%)
18 are newspapers and magazines (~7%)
32 are journals (~15%)
95 are other books (~46%)

First of all, think about that. 30% of the references in this book come from website information. Five of those 62 website references were Wikipedia. Wikipedia! One was Google Answers. I wont let my freshmen students use Wikipedia as a reference in their papers, why would it be acceptable for a book? Like websites, newspaper and magazine information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Of the 32 journals less than half come from well known, peer-reviewed sources. The remaining 46% are books, which can truly say anything the author cares to print (as this one does) and only show that the author is getting her information from another source (and another opinion) aside from the primary one. The point of this is to make clear that this is a book that is sold as (and which many positive reviews hype as) providing scientific, factual, intellectual knowledge on the vegetarian/diet/health debate. In reality less than 8% of the book is coming from peer-reviewed, fact-checked sources which can provide unbiased, neutral information.

If anything I hope this review encourages people to get away from the bias on either side, find factual scientific sources instead of second-third-fourth hand knowledge, check information for yourself instead of blindly believing an author, and to question published material and push for it to actually be factual if it presented as such.
322 internautes sur 394 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 A few caveats 22 août 2009
Par Joan Howe - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
I'm not going to summarize the book. That's been done well in earlier reviews. This is just a description of some of my issues with the book.

The author interweaves her deepening political and environmental understanding - looking at the whole picture and realizing that pretty much everything in the supermarket, not just the meat, is produced by methods that make the world a crueler, more polluted and, worst of all, less sustainable place, and that to avoid contributing to the problem calls for much more radical solutions than merely leaving the animal products out of your diet - with her own story of worsening health on a vegan diet followed by recovery when she began to eat meat again. This is where my first caveat comes up: she implies, without coming right out and saying, that her vegan diet was also a low-fat diet. I have also been vegan for long periods of my life (although never the decades that she logged) and it was only during the last one, from 2004-2006, that I experienced the slight beginnings of the back problems she describes. No coincidence: that was the one where I went low-fat as well as vegan and actually lost my ability to digest fat. Fortunately I got an accurate diagnosis promptly, got nutritional therapy to regain my ability to digest fat, and lost the back pain within a year. In the latter half of her Nutritional Vegetarianism chapter, she devotes several pages to challenging the demonization of dietary fat by the mainstream medical community. Nevertheless, she continues to attribute her health problems mainly to lack of meat rather than lack of fat.

With my newfound understanding of the necessity of dietary fat, and in the context of my ongoing involvement with the radical food movement, I realized that if you want to be healthy and live in a temperate climate you can either be a locavore or a vegan but not both because temperate-climate plant foods just aren't fatty enough. Lierre Keith has chosen to stay in Massachusetts. Therefore this woman, so tenderhearted that she went through an extended moral agony over whether and how to kill the slugs that were eating her garden to the ground, now looks for what the radical diet community calls the happy meat, sustainably and humanely raised, not part of the factory farm system. In arguing for this choice, she digs deep into several technical subjects: ecology (with a particular emphasis on species extinction and habitat destruction for croplands), evolutionary biology, nutrition, anthropology, geology. I find her sources and her use of them pretty solid except for the last one. She really does seem to think that petroleum is dead dinosaurs and she considers genuinely possible that bogus theory that "[i]f all the methane is released from the melted permafrost...the planet [will be] hotter than Venus [and] there won't even be bacteria left; yes we can kill the planet." I wish someone had told her that there have been a few periods in the history of the Earth when all the permafrost was melted and the methane presumably released from it and there were enough bacteria to leave traces in the fossil record, not to mention descendants including ourselves. On the other hand, she seems to know the anthropological record pretty well and is admirably free of Noble Savage fantasizing. She acknowledges that a number of sustainable traditional societies are nevertheless, by our standards, profoundly unjust, particularly to women. If you idolize the Australian Aborigines and want to continue doing so, don't read this book.

As the book goes along she begins to weave in her other concerns, the ones on which her career as a writer is based: radical feminism, racial equality, the peace and justice movement. She also introduces, without actually naming it, the Peak Oil hypothesis: that we really are facing societal collapse on account of declining petroleum production within fifty years, and it's time now, while we still have the resources, to start preserving what we can of our culture and our values.
353 internautes sur 435 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 Vegan Reader Gives 3 Stars 31 janvier 2010
Par Lucas Rockwood - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
As a vegan (since 2002), I quickly learned that you can't trust the vegetarians for information as they are just as likely to skew the truth as the Beef or Dairy Boards.

So I always love to read non-veg writing, and this book was worth reading for sure. Keith has done her homework and has some very interesting insights to share. I usually burn through books in 2-3 days, but it's taken me a full week to get through this one and I've got about 25 dog-eared pages.

Here's what was interesting:

1 - The need to admit that agriculture itself is screwed up and unsustainable (whether veg based or meat based)

2 - The reality that grains are a pretty bogus basis for a diet.

3 - The bitter truth that our planet can't support us, period (veg or non-veg)

4 - The potential problems with fat soluble vitamins

(note: if you haven't read the book yet, the above might not seem that ground-breaking, but seriously, Keith uncovers some new, very compelling stuff).

Here's where it was deeply flawed:

1 - We vegans are so few in numbers, writing a book about us is so uninteresting to most, that it had to became a book about vegetarians (in most countries, they don't even have a word for vegans, btw).

But it's not a book about vegetarians, except in title.

There are loads of vegetarians, lots of them who don't give much thought to their diet, and most of whom consume copious amounts of animal products (dairy, eggs). So the Vegetarian Myth is itself a myth that most vegetarians don't subscribe to. Vegans, yes. We get attacked so often, every vegan I know has had to create a core story to explain "why" (except me... I just shrug and smile). And so it's no surprise that most vegans catch whatever pitch PETA or John Robbins is throwing their way, and hold on tight.

But vegetarians are a different group, and it's (relatively) socially acceptiable in many countries (and I travel a lot) to abstain from meat. And remember, most veggies worldwide actually live/love/worship cows and eat plenty of eggs.

They don't dream of a farm animal-less world like the author was looking for (and I too have tried to imagine in the past... not possible, of course). They dream of cows and chickens in Central Park, or a small New England farmhouse where they make their own butter... the Charlotte's Web thing where Wilbur never dies.

But in truth, most veggies don't dream about anything in relation to Vegetarianism as they've simply discovered that they feel lighter if they drink milk and skip the beef. Or they read an article about some celebrity that's a veggie, so they're trying it out. Or they want to lose weight. Or whatever other (totally valid) personal/religious reason that has little or nothing to do with HUGE issues like sustainability and long-term nutrition.

With that in mind, much of what Keith is writing about really has nothing to do with vegetarians, just vegans. And the distinction between the two group is huge. And the relevance of that latter (the vegans), is minimal. To call vegans a minority is an understatement... within 10 years, Boeing will come out with a plane that can fit all of us inside. With such a small group, a disconnected and understudied group, it's nearly impossible to come to any conclusions that are not anecdotal at best.

2 - Keith spends a lot of time dogging vegans, suggesting their low-fat, low-protein diets make them angry and aggressive. Interestingly, the vocal vegan movement in most cities is almost always run by already-angry types: the punk rockers, the straightedge youth, the outcasts etc. My theory is these kids (most of the vocal vegan community is very young) were already pissed off at life already and then they found out they could be pissed off at EVERYONE about food. Which came first, the anger or the vegan?

Keith also suggest that most vegan are clueless and don't look at the entire big, global picture. This, I'm afraid, it the gospel truth. But there are a growing minority of us who know EXACTLY what's going on - environmentally, socially, nutritionally - and we continue not because we're ignorant, but because (a) we've figured out how to eat plants in a way that makes us exceptionally healthy even without meat (it's not something you figure out intuitively by-the-way), and (b) we feel that someone needs to play this role right now in the world. You could call this ideological, but I think it's just reality. The yin to the yang...

And finally, the true narrative of the book is one of self rejection, not self discovery. Every quality in stereotypical vegans that Keith now so clearly despises - their self-righteousness, their anger, their suffering - all of those qualities are so clearly her own qualities (and probably her greatest gifts if positioned differently)... the angry vegan has become an angry omnivore... it's a little unsettling. At times, more so than the topics being discussed.

Interesting to see what Keith writes next...

Lucas
17 internautes sur 19 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Agriculture is carnivorous 6 août 2013
Par Nadia555 - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
This book came to my attention in the most unlikely of circumstances - at a raw vegan food prep class at Jivamukti Yoga School. Fortunately, the instructor was open to good research, regardless of the source, and so this book made her resource list.

On a personal note, I'm extremely grateful 'The Vegetarian Myth' was written. It's a poetic, formidably intelligent book. This book is intensely personal, a life's work, and it is authoritative in its own right. I enjoyed and understood the mixture of anecdotal and scientific evidence. I found her references to be diverse and relevant (on completion of this book, I took the time to explore some of them and i'm not yet done). Clearly, the topic of the vegan diet is a controversial hotbed and Lierre must be commended for her insistence on finding the truth, regardless of who is alienated in the process -- this book is concerned with "adult knowledge" and "adult responsibility". Lierre contends that to understand the world, we must know it. Lierre's forays into farming, including her failed attempts at 'veganic' farming, led her to the heartbreaking, but finally undeniable, understanding that for life to be possible, someone has to die. Agriculture is anything but natural, Lierre explains here -- it is biotic cleansing -- so a vegan's hands are not 'clean'. It is instead a question of the suffering we can see and identify with (such as that of factory farmed animals), and the death we can not see but still 'benefit' from in very real and equally unjust ways. This book is not belligerent towards vegans -- it's more like a love letter to our earth. Factory farming is condemned for being the ethical and ecological nightmare that it is, but it turns out to be just the beginning.

I believe Lierre when she says 'The Vegetarian Myth' was a gruesome book to write."You are allowed to learn from my mistakes", Lierre says, before describing the "shrapnel" feeling in her spine -- the legacy of her 20 years as a vegan. This book grapples with some pretty uncomfortable subjects, such as overpopulation ("species overshoot"), fossil fuel, civilisation, and the dangers of soy, to name a few. I can't imagine a person whose understanding of food justice, and animal justice, would not be enriched by reading this book. There are vegans who want so badly to get this book out of circulation altogether that they will not even borrow it from a library, for fear that the library may order more books like it in future. The adolescent boycott of this book only hints at how powerful it is -- if it had nothing to say, vegans would not find it threatening. Take it from someone who actually took the time to read the book: it will inform my activism and my food choices from here onward. It is also unrelentingly well-written (I must get my hands on Lierre's fiction books). I could not appreciate this book more -- I hope Lierre knows that, at the very least, a few of us have got the message.
384 internautes sur 491 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 The Myth of Thinking You Know Everything: Or, the Dangers of Applying the Personal to the Whole 9 août 2009
Par Dustin G. Rhodes - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
I read this book because it's gotten so much attention from the vegan community --- mainly in the form of anger and outrage. So, for the sake up being up front: I am a vegan. And I did read the book, with as open a mind as possible.

Let me also say from the get-go that not everything in this book did I find to be unfair and/or absurd. Keith certainly makes provocative, interesting, passionate arguments about many things --- much of which has already been pointed out ad nauseum from the fanclub here on Amazon. That's not to say that I agree with hardly anything (maybe "agree" is not the right word; maybe it's more accurate to say that I don't see the world the same way Lierre Keith does).

What's very bothersome for me about this book, and it's entire premise, is that it makes, on the issue of veganism in particular, such sweeping generalizations based on one person's experience and the observations made by that one person. In other words, every single person who is vegan is lumped together --- as if our entire process toward and experience of animal rights/veganism is exactly the same and will yield the same results.

And I have to wonder: Does Lierre Keith get out much?

My own coming to veganism is even related to Keith's experience, either. I do not have an eating disorder, nor do I have a rigid or sociopathic, angry personality (Keith claims that only ill people are drawn into the "cult" of veganism). I am not anorexic or orthorexic. Yes, it's true: some vegans are crazy people. There are crazy Scientologists, crazy fundamentalist Christians, crazy people who fight for civil rights, crazy people who don't really care about anything at all. Which is just to say: if you haven't noticed, there are crazy people everywhere. And there are also amazing people who fit into the categories I listed above --- people who have nuanced views of the world, and who attempt to lead ethical, compassionate lives. And most of the vegans I know are wonderful, caring, smart, hard-working responsible people who do not harbor illusions/delusions about the world.

I am particularly horrified by Keith's assertion that vegans are naive (read: stupid) when it comes to matters of life and death. I know full well that animals die in order to grow the plants upon which I live. I also am fully aware of the horrors of industrial agriculture and how destructive civilization is, in general, towards this planet. But I still don't think this discredits the merits and ethics of veganism.

Keith also implies that by virtue of being vegan, all vegans claim that eating animal products is bad for human health. I don't. I don't think science will ever unequivocally say that animal products, in moderation, are ever "bad" for humans when it comes to disease or health. That's not the point. I know it's bad for animals, regardless of how they are raised.

Keith very clearly blames her health woes on veganism. But veganism, in and of itself, is not a diet. There are a thousand different ways of eating vegan, and I am convinced there are very healthy ways and very unhealthy ways of doing it. Same for being an omnivore. Keith doesn't really describe the kind of diet she blames for destroying her health, other than the fact that it was plant-based. Certainly, some people's constitutions are more sensitive than others, and we all have different nutritional needs, but Keith doesn't provide any proof that human needs cannot be met on a carefully planned vegan diet. And just to reiterate: some people probably need to emphasize the careful planning. There are pro-vegan medical professionals -- like Dr Klaper, for instance, who's conducting the Vegan Health Study --- who clearly recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all vegan diet plan. There probably never will be --- just like omnivorism.

I have an auto-immune disease (a non-life threatening one). I was a meat eater when I was diagnosed with it, and to be perfectly honest, I was also one of those free-range, organic, grassfed, blah blah blah animal eaters--because I once thought that was good for animals. And I had been for quite a long time. By Keith's logic, my auto-immune disease should be blamed on my omnivorism. When I became vegan almost a decade ago, my auto-immune disease eased up a little, but it certainly hasn't gone away. I doubt it ever will, unless some sort of miracle occurs. Trust me: I want to blame my disease on eating animal products, and I want the cure to be eating plants. But that isn't to be the case. I find it disturbing that Keith plays nutritional authority, and with such zeal.

Finally, in my eyes, Keith comes off as exactly the same kind of personality she criticizes in her own experience of the vegan community: rigid and absolutist. Now that it appears Keith has found a savior in Weston Price and the vitures of eating animals, it's simply the same personality with a different set of values to preach to the world. But Keith claims that growing up and taking responsibility for her food and the "necessity" of eating animals means that she's grown up.

But being a grown up, in my most humble opinion, lies in the knowledge that not a single one of us is the absolute authority; being a grown up is realizing that the world is complicated and nuanced and messy. It's not this or that. It's this and that.

What makes veganism such a beautiful, appealing idea to me --- and it's really what I would always hope to convey to others --- is that there is magic in the intention to not harm. I don't think being a vegan makes me better than any one else. Or more wise or righteous. But it does contribute, in a very concrete way, in diminishing human domination --- a theme of this book --- in a way that is not addressed or explored. It also directly addresses the real lives of non-human animals --- whom I do not believe exist for human purposes. I believe, unlike other animals, humans have a choice about what we consume. Why shouldn't we make the decision that causes the least harm?

This book would be more intellectually honest, interesting and readable had the author simply reported her own experiences---acknowledging that individual experience is just that, rather than applying her life to all of us. A grown up wise person doesn't blame, s/he investigates, questions and searches her soul for answers. It's unfathomable to me that someone who claims to have once been a committed vegan, and understands the fullness of that path, would become an advocate for Happy Meat (TM). Just like the rest of us, I suspect there's still some growing up left to do.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous
Rechercher des commentaires
Rechercher uniquement parmi les commentaires portant sur ce produit

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Thème:
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier
 

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon
   


Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Commentaires

Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?