Vegan Greetings

[Savitri Devi]

I was up-to-recently on politicalforum.com, but due to MANY issues that seem to occur (and a link posted suggesting to come here), I am now here :grin:.

I am an ethical vegan. Most of my posting will be about that most likely, although I do have other political interests.

I look forward to debating and discussing various ideas with everyone.

[Agravan]

Welcome Savriti!
Now, what the heck is an ethical vegan?
Does that mean you don't go for the red-meat handed out by hard core political pundits?
or a regular vegan?

[Trinnity]

Welcome to the forum!!! Have fun.:icon_flower:

[KC]

Welcome! Being an ethical vegan must take some commitment. I was vegetarian- for like three months.

Care to explain what philosophical ideas led you to your conclusion that meat production/consumption is unethical?

[Carygrant]

Thank God there are so few Vegans .
If the movement ever became widespread , Capitalism would crash .
Discuss .

[Goldie Locks]

Welcome to tPF


Eat Meat!...;)

[IMPress Polly]

Hi Savitri! I'm a vegan too! (Mostly for moral reasons, like you.) :smiley::cool2:

Nice to meet you!

[URF8]

Namaste. :)

[Peter1469]

Has anyone looked at metabolic typing? It is based on the premise that no one diet will be healthy for everyone. Broadly speaking there are three types: protein types, carb types, and mixed types. I am very much a protein type- I tried a vegetarian diet and got pretty sick from it. But carb types shouldn't have much of an issue so long as they supplement B-vitamins and Omega 3 trans-fatty acids.

[Captain Obvious]

Welcome, glad you're here.

[Savitri Devi]

Welcome Savriti!
Now, what the heck is an ethical vegan?
Does that mean you don't go for the red-meat handed out by hard core political pundits?
or a regular vegan?

Just denoting I am a vegan for ethical concerns, not for health or spiritual reasons.

[Savitri Devi]

Hi Savitri! I'm a vegan too! (Mostly for moral reasons, like you.) :smiley::cool2:

Nice to meet you!

Glad I won't be alone here then lol. On other general political forums I tend to be...

[Savitri Devi]

Thank God there are so few Vegans .
If the movement ever became widespread , Capitalism would crash .
Discuss .


Actually I would argue eating meat is causing more damage to capitalism than anything else. The only reason the average Joe can probably even afford to eat meat is because the industry is subsidized. This is diametrically opposed to 'true,' laissez-faire capitalism.

[Savitri Devi]

Welcome! Being an ethical vegan must take some commitment. I was vegetarian- for like three months.

Care to explain what philosophical ideas led you to your conclusion that meat production/consumption is unethical?

It was a challenge at first. Like any change (be it a new exercie regimen, new diet of any type, new job, etc.), it does get a lot easier once it's incorporated into one's lifestyle.

The philosophical ideas that lead me to being vegan. Short answer: it's unnecessary. As a negative utilitarian any harm should be reduced as much as possible.

I will certainly discuss further as well. But I don't want to get long-winded right away lol.

Although I am a firm believer it is the proponent of an action or belief (be it war, violence, a cultural belief, etc.) that should be the one to justify the action in question. Not the people abstaining. So I like turning the question around and ask why people choose to eat meat and other animal products?

[Trinnity]

Savitri Devi Mukherji (September 30, 1905 – October 22, 1982) was the pseudonym of the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks) writer Maximiani Portas, who was a Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) intelligence operative in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). She wrote about animal rights movements and was a leading light of the Nazi underground during the 1960s.An admirer of German National Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism), Savitri Devi was also an animal-rights activist who authored the book The Impeachment of Man in 1959 and was a proponent of Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) and Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism), synthesizing the two, proclaiming Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) to have been sent by Providence, much like an avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar) of the Hindu god Vishnu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu).

She believed Hitler was a sacrifice for humanity which would lead to the end of the Kali Yuga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga) induced by who she felt were the powers of evil, the Jews. Her writings have influenced neo-Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism) and Nazi occultism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_occultism). Among Savitri Devi's ideas was the classifications of "men above time", "men in time" and "men against time". Rejecting Judeo-Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christianity), she believed in a form of pantheistic monism; a single cosmos of nature composed of divine energy-matter.

She is credited with pioneering neo-Nazi interest in occultism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultism), deep ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology) and the New Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) movement. She influenced the Chilean diplomat Miguel Serrano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Serrano). In 1982, Franco Freda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Freda) published a German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) translation of her work Gold in the Furnace, and the fourth volume of his annual review, Risguardo (1980-), was devoted to Savitri Devi as the "missionary of Aryan Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism)".

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

I'm curious about your screen name. Very interesting choice. This lady was quite an interesting and complicated character. Is it her animal rights activism that interested you, or perhaps her influence in the "new age movement"?
What is "deep ecology"? I've never heard of that. Was she a pagan or Hindu?

[IMPress Polly]

Deep ecology is the philosophical viewpoint that says all living things are of equal worth; that views this planet and universe as one giant, holistic operating unit, not as a collection of separate and unrelated entities. It is thus distinguished from the more standard environmentalist view that sees nature as but a human resource; something valuable and worthy of being sustained only in as far as it can be used to benefit our particular species; something to be saved only to be exploited. Deep ecology suggests that people belong to nature, not the other way around.

The most common criticism I hear of this view is that it's "misanthropic" (i.e. rooted in contempt of the human species). That is true only if we equate equality with the rest of nature with contempt for our own species. In other words, it is true only in the minds of specie-chauvinists. Another common critique is that outlooks this holistic neglect to concern themselves with the well-being of individual entities. That is probably true of some who embrace a strictly utilitarian outlook. But there are also plenty who take up a more moralistic view and approach to life that considers the value intrinsic to individual entities while yes still considering that value subordinate to the greater good of the planet and of the universe itself.

Wiki article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology)

[Savitri Devi]

I'm curious about your screen name. Very interesting choice. This lady was quite an interesting and complicated character. Is it her animal rights activism that interested you, or perhaps her influence in the "new age movement"?
What is "deep ecology"? I've never heard of that. Was she a pagan or Hindu?

I am interested in enigmas. She is certainly one that has piqued my interest. Most people think vegans are nazis, so when I was researching this accusation (along with the 'Hitler was a vegetarian' claim), I came across her.

I am quite anti-democratic. Which is a more recent belief. Up until quite recently, I considered myself a libertarian. But I don't believe we have seen true democracy and probably never will. Even if we did, 50%+1 ruling the remaining 50%-1 is just as much of a dictatorship as anything else for that minority. And that's assuming elected politicians even obtain a majority of the votes (which in most systems they don't anyway).

I am more of a Platonist. I would like to see a system of "philosopher kings/queens" implemented. Their sole goal would to be to uphold the freedoms of the population. In my version this would include animals.

I'm not really clear on her spiritual beliefs. I am more interested in her authoritarian and animal rights synthesis anyway.

And deep ecology is the principle that nature should be protected for its own sake, and not simply for the interest of humans. Surprisingly the Nazis actually did this. Having soldiers plant trees and enacting strong animal protection measures (most notably a ban on vivisection).

I'm certainly not a racist, but their views on non-human animal rights/welfare have gone further than any other country I am aware of.

[Trinnity]

Thank you for explaining. That was a very thoughtful and interesting explanation.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, carnivorous salutations. I'll be eating a plate of chicken wings big enough to choke a fucking horse in a little while.

[Peter1469]

Deep ecology is the philosophical viewpoint that says all living things are of equal worth; that views this planet and universe as one giant, holistic operating unit, not as a collection of separate and unrelated entities. It is thus distinguished from the more standard environmentalist view that sees nature as but a human resource; something valuable and worthy of being sustained only in as far as it can be used to benefit our particular species; something to be saved only to be exploited. Deep ecology suggests that people belong to nature, not the other way around.

The most common criticism I hear of this view is that it's "misanthropic" (i.e. rooted in contempt of the human species). That is true only if we equate equality with the rest of nature with contempt for our own species. In other words, it is true only in the minds of specie-chauvinists. Another common critique is that outlooks this holistic neglect to concern themselves with the well-being of individual entities. That is probably true of some who embrace a strictly utilitarian outlook. But there are also plenty who take up a more moralistic view and approach to life that considers the value intrinsic to individual entities while yes still considering that value subordinate to the greater good of the planet and of the universe itself.

Wiki article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology)

Beings are not of equal worth. Plants don't make moral decisions. Animals don't make moral decisions. Humans do. I can decide to save my neighbor from a hostile attack. My tomato plants cannot. And my dog wouldn't do it unless he thought that I was in danger.

[Savitri Devi]

Beings are not of equal worth. Plants don't make moral decisions. Animals don't make moral decisions. Humans do. I can decide to save my neighbor from a hostile attack. My tomato plants cannot. And my dog wouldn't do it unless he thought that I was in danger.

I would argue that animals DO make moral decisions and humans often don't. As for your assertion about plants, I completely agree. I am only referring to sentient beings. The fact that there are a no clearly defined sets of morals all humans can agree to is an indication that morality isn't even a good indication of whether we should grant equal consideration to a creature.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Beings are not of equal worth. Plants don't make moral decisions. Animals don't make moral decisions. Humans do. I can decide to save my neighbor from a hostile attack. My tomato plants cannot. And my dog wouldn't do it unless he thought that I was in danger.

As Savitri pointed out, animals often do make moral decisions. But I gather that your essential point is that animals are of lesser intelligence and therefore deserve to be systematically murdered and abused for human entertainment and consumption and so forth? If that's your case, then why don't we treat human children or say the mentally handicapped that way?

No. Animals can feel everything we can and that's the main and essential point to be made here. Animals experience love and fear and happiness and pain and so on the same ways we do. The fact that they have the ability to experience emotion, including suffering, in the same ways we do by itself makes the case for treating animals with respect and dignity, as in to say not using, abusing, and murdering them for our own benefit here in an era where we don't need to. That, of course, doesn't mean that we should treat animals the same as people. But it does mean that we should apply negative (i.e. hands-off) liberties to them.

When it comes to plants...well obviously that's somewhat a different matter because plants are not sentient beings. They are not conscious in the same way that people and animals are. Plants obviously then should be treated differently than either people or animals. We need to consume plants to live. We don't need to consume animals. Those are very different things. However, that doesn't negate the fact that this Earth we live on needs abundant and flourishing plant life, not just for us, but for itself; for the sustenance of life on Earth in general. We need to plant new trees where we cut them down and reforest a significant amount of land, I believe, for example. While we have to be able to exploit plants to survive, at the same time we need to respect the equal importance of plant life to our planet as a matter of principle for the sake of the Earth itself. That's my case on that.

[countryboy]

Animals cannot be murdered, only humans can. This is not to say animals should in any way be abused. When harvesting animals for food, this should be done in as humane a way as possible. Animals should NEVER be killed strictly for sport.

There is no higher quality protien than that found in meat. As a vegan I am sure you are aware of the great care which must be taken to ensure adequate levels of proteins are are consumed from different plant sources. Animal protien is a complete protien, this is not true of vegetable protien.

I have a love and respect for all life. When I see a baby cow romping and playing, or a mother cow showing what appears to be genuine affection to her babies, I can somewhat sympathize with the PETA types. But the trouble with most PETA types is that they seem to place greater value on animal life than they do human life. Plus, if God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them so gosh darned tasty. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink011.gif

[IMPress Polly]

countryboy wrote:
I have a love and respect for all life. When I see a baby cow romping and playing, or a mother cow showing what appears to be genuine affection to her babies, I can somewhat sympathize with the PETA types. But the trouble with most PETA types is that they seem to place greater value on animal life than they do human life.

I've already addressed the misanthropy argument. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5538-Vegan-Greetings?p=122912&viewfull=1#post122912) Glad to hear that you sympathize some though! I wonder though how it is you determine what constitutes animal abuse without taking an abolitionist position?

[countryboy]

I've already addressed the misanthropy argument. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5538-Vegan-Greetings?p=122912&viewfull=1#post122912) Glad to hear that you sympathize some though! I wonder though how it is you determine what constitutes animal abuse without taking an abolitionist position?
Purposefully causing, or allowing an animal to suffer needlessly, would be considered abuse IMHO.

I've never heard the term "abolitionist" used with regards to animal rights. Would you care to expound on that a bit?

[Mister D]

I was up-to-recently on politicalforum.com, but due to MANY issues that seem to occur (and a link posted suggesting to come here), I am now here :grin:.

I am an ethical vegan. Most of my posting will be about that most likely, although I do have other political interests.

I look forward to debating and discussing various ideas with everyone.

Ethical? I thought you didn't believe in right and wrong?

[IMPress Polly]

countryboy wrote:
I've never heard the term "abolitionist" used with regards to animal rights. Would you care to expound on that a bit?

Abolitionism refers to the idea of abolishing animal murder and enslavement in total, not in part, as concentrated in the famous PETA slogan: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment", i.e. animals are not resources.

[countryboy]

Abolitionism refers to the idea of abolishing animal murder and enslavement in total, not in part, as concentrated in the famous PETA slogan: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment", i.e. animals are not resources.
So, pets are out too?

[Mister D]

I would argue that animals DO make moral decisions and humans often don't. As for your assertion about plants, I completely agree. I am only referring to sentient beings. The fact that there are a no clearly defined sets of morals all humans can agree to is an indication that morality isn't even a good indication of whether we should grant equal consideration to a creature.

How could an animal make a moral decision?

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
How could an animal make a moral decision?

The same way you do.


countryboy wrote:
So, pets are out too?

For me, yes.

I don't really object to people adopting, but I do object to the buying of kidnapped animals at a pet store.

[Mister D]

The same way you do.

:laugh: Really? How do I make moral decisions?

[countryboy]

For me, yes.

I don't really object to people adopting, but I do object to the buying of kidnapped animals at a pet store.

What do you mean by "kidnapped"?

I see sock monkeys are okay....hehe.

[Agravan]

So I like turning the question around and ask why people choose to eat meat and other animal products?

Because BBQ ribs and steak taste MUCH better than BBQ lettuce and carrots.:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Agravan]

Abolitionism refers to the idea of abolishing animal murder and enslavement in total, not in part, as concentrated in the famous PETA slogan: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment", i.e. animals are not resources.

I'll take this quote over yours:
In the beginning "...God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:26)."

[Smartmouthwoman]

I'll take this quote over yours:
In the beginning "...God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:26)."


I would guess our lil fruit & berry moonchildren here are atheists. Hope they don't come down with pernacious anemia from not eating meat. My old vegan boss contracted that incurable conditon and it drove her to psychosis.


The brain needs B-12.

[Mister D]

It's quite telling that while these two women who preach to us about the moral worth of animals are both enamored of totalitarian systems of government. Moreover, I find it odd that Savritri would prefer animals (no pun intened) like Stalin over known vegetarian animal lovers like Hitler. Perplexing to say the least...

[IMPress Polly]

Agravan wrote:
I'll take this quote over yours:
In the beginning "...God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:26)."

Yes well being that god doesn't seem to know the fossil record very well, his word has little bearing to me on the subject at hand.

Sorry to be insulting, but that's just not an argument to me. Not all of us here are Christian fundamentalists.


countryboy wrote:
I see sock monkeys are okay....hehe.

You know it. I'm quite a fan of monkeys. :grin:


What do you mean by "kidnapped"?

You know, forcibly taken from their natural setting and/or family, caged, and sold in a store.

[Agravan]

Yes well being that god doesn't seem to know the fossil record very well, his word has little bearing to me on the subject at hand. And how do you think those fossils got there in the first place?

A man was praying once and actually got to talk to God. the man asked "God, is it true that to you, a billion years is like a second?", God answered, "Yes, my son.". Whereupon the man asks, "God, is it true that to you, a billion dollars is like a penny?". God answered, "Yes, my son." So the the man asks, "Then, God, may I have a penny?", God answers, "In a second."
:notworthy:



Sorry to be insulting, but that's just not an argument to me. Not all of us here are Christian fundamentalists.

Neither am I.

[countryboy]

You know, forcibly taken from their natural setting and/or family, caged, and sold in a store.

So, basically wild animals are what you are talking about? If so, how do you feel about zoos?

I must say, I'm not a big fan of wild animals being kept as pets either. But I have absolutely no problem with domesticated animals being bred and sold, as long as they are treated humanely and the breeding is done in a responsible manner. I live in NE Ohio, home of thousands of Amish puppy mills. I abhor this practice.

[IMPress Polly]

Agravan wrote:
And how do you think those fossils got there in the first place?

Oh gee, you totally got me! I guess it must be god. :wink:

Was that the answer you were looking for?


A man was praying once and actually got to talk to God. the man asked "God, is it true that to you, a billion years is like a second?", God answered, "Yes, my son.". Whereupon the man asks, "God, is it true that to you, a billion dollars is like a penny?". God answered, "Yes, my son." So the the man asks, "Then, God, may I have a penny?", God answers, "In a second."
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/notworthy.gif

Yeah, a (religious) family member sent me that one in an e-mail a few years back. Moderately clever.


countryboy wrote:
So, basically wild animals are what you are talking about? If so, how do you feel about zoos?

Of course I'm against zoos. The principle of abolitionism is very simple: animals, as sentient beings, should have all the basic negative liberties that people enjoy. It shouldn't be legal to arbitrarily kill them, kidnap them, buy them, sell them, use them as entertainment, experiment on them, you get the idea.

[Smartmouthwoman]

I would guess our lil fruit & berry moonchildren here are atheists. Hope they don't come down with pernacious anemia from not eating meat. My old vegan boss contracted that incurable conditon and it drove her to psychosis.

The brain needs B-12.

Some well-meaning poster whispered in my ear that my post wasn't very welcoming and in hindsight, it wasn't very friendly. I apologize for the smartmouth. Vegans are kewl as long as they don't try to tell me cattle are sad because I ate a ribeye last night.

Glad you've found a kindred spirit here, SD. Welcome to the forum. ;)

[Captain Obvious]

:laugh: Really? How do I make moral decisions?

Instinct, silly.

:afro:

[Peter1469]

I don't think it is possible for many people to be healthy without eating quality meat (organic not commercial factory farmed meat).

[Peter1469]

As Savitri pointed out, animals often do make moral decisions. But I gather that your essential point is that animals are of lesser intelligence and therefore deserve to be systematically murdered and abused for human entertainment and consumption and so forth? If that's your case, then why don't we treat human children or say the mentally handicapped that way?

No. Animals can feel everything we can and that's the main and essential point to be made here. Animals experience love and fear and happiness and pain and so on the same ways we do. The fact that they have the ability to experience emotion, including suffering, in the same ways we do by itself makes the case for treating animals with respect and dignity, as in to say not using, abusing, and murdering them for our own benefit here in an era where we don't need to. That, of course, doesn't mean that we should treat animals the same as people. But it does mean that we should apply negative (i.e. hands-off) liberties to them.

When it comes to plants...well obviously that's somewhat a different matter because plants are not sentient beings. They are not conscious in the same way that people and animals are. Plants obviously then should be treated differently than either people or animals. We need to consume plants to live. We don't need to consume animals. Those are very different things. However, that doesn't negate the fact that this Earth we live on needs abundant and flourishing plant life, not just for us, but for itself; for the sustenance of life on Earth in general. We need to plant new trees where we cut them down and reforest a significant amount of land, I believe, for example. While we have to be able to exploit plants to survive, at the same time we need to respect the equal importance of plant life to our planet as a matter of principle for the sake of the Earth itself. That's my case on that.

I don't believe that animals make moral decisions at all. They act on instinct and self interest. For this argument intelligence is of no matter. Although I doubt that many animals even get onto the human IQ scale.

I would agree that animals have a dim experience of simple emotions, but nothing compared to humans.

Regarding treating animals with dignity. I agree. That is why I don't buy meat from conventional factory farms. I get my meat from my local farmers market that has sustainable farming practices.


When it comes to plants...well obviously that's somewhat a different matter because plants are not sentient beings.

Neither are animals. I fundamentally disagree with this position. Animals are here to be consumed. Just like the plants. We have a moral obligation to treat them well- before we eat them. :-)

I agree about planting more trees.

[Peter1469]

I would argue that animals DO make moral decisions and humans often don't. As for your assertion about plants, I completely agree. I am only referring to sentient beings. The fact that there are a no clearly defined sets of morals all humans can agree to is an indication that morality isn't even a good indication of whether we should grant equal consideration to a creature.

Morality doesn't fit into an animals existence. Humans are different because of the moral aspect. Of course many humans get it wrong, but the moral reality is there for them.

[Captain Obvious]

At some point, and it's probably already here, some fringe group out there is going to criticize both vegans and carnivores and demand that they all consume only mineral matter.

... and then will come the minerans or whatever.

[Smartmouthwoman]

yeah, and guess what else?

They'll all still die.

Even with Obamacare.

[countryboy]

At some point, and it's probably already here, some fringe group out there is going to criticize both vegans and carnivores and demand that they all consume only mineral matter.

... and then will come the minerans or whatever.

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are. :D

[Savitri Devi]

I'll take this quote over yours:
In the beginning "...God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:26)."


Even if it says dominion, does is say eating them?

Secondly, if you actually look in Genesis prior to that, it mentions eating FRUIT and SEEDs as food. And NOTHING else! I guess bible-thumpers just cherry-pick their favourite passages. After-all, anything else would mean they would have to reconcile a LOT of contradiction or cognitive dissonance.

[Savitri Devi]

I would guess our lil fruit & berry moonchildren here are atheists. Hope they don't come down with pernacious anemia from not eating meat. My old vegan boss contracted that incurable conditon and it drove her to psychosis.


The brain needs B-12.

Which you can get in ample sources from bacteria. It's amazing how meat-eaters shove this B-12 non-sense in your face as if they've proven your whole world view incorrect, failing to mention it's the bacteria in animals' guts that produce and not animal cells themselves.

[Savitri Devi]

It's quite telling that while these two women who preach to us about the moral worth of animals are both enamored of totalitarian systems of government. Moreover, I find it odd that Savritri would prefer animals (no pun intened) like Stalin over known vegetarian animal lovers like Hitler. Perplexing to say the least...

No reply required seeing as this is strawman...

Although I would like to add (hopefully once and for all, but with you I am sure you will still claim I said the opposite), simply because I dissect yours or anyone else's argument with their own line of reasoning, does NOT (I don't know how to emphasize this any more) mean I believe that same line of reasoning. In fact, I use such arguments to SHOW the absurdity of them!

[Savitri Devi]

I don't think it is possible for many people to be healthy without eating quality meat (organic not commercial factory farmed meat).

Well them maybe you don't think hard enough. Sorry to sound harsh, but I am sick of people like you stating your opinion like it's some sort of fact. Try doing some research. I did lots before I became vegan.

In fact, many pro-athletes are going vegan for performance purposes alone. Most of the longest living and least diseased peoples in the world tend to be vegetarians (or eat meat very seldomly; like less than 5%). Not that I do this for longevity, but it would be an added bonus.

[Savitri Devi]

Morality doesn't fit into an animals existence. Humans are different because of the moral aspect. Of course many humans get it wrong, but the moral reality is there for them.

It depends on your definition of morality. I actually consider myself amoral in that morals do not truly exist. Morality IS vested self-interest. Why do you not kill someone? Most likely because you will become ostracized from society. Why not do any "immoral" act? Most likely for the same reason. Because there will be repurcussions and people's image of you will be tarnished.

Animals behave the same way. Animals that play too aggressively are shunned. Many species will have a form of 'revolt' against undesirable leaders. Again, this is all in the name of mutual self-interest. Don't harm me unless you absolutely have to and I will not harm you unless I absolutely have to.

[Trinnity]

Even if it says dominion, does is say eating them?

Secondly, if you actually look in Genesis prior to that, it mentions eating FRUIT and SEEDs as food. And NOTHING else! I guess bible-thumpers just cherry-pick their favourite passages. After-all, anything else would mean they would have to reconcile a LOT of contradiction or cognitive dissonance.Bible thumpers??? Hey, there's no call for that. If you're an atheist, I respect your decision as your own, but I don't think it's very civil or wise to attack Christians with negative labels.

[Savitri Devi]

Bible thumpers??? Hey, there's no call for that. If you're an atheist, I respect your decision as your own, but I don't think it's very civil or wise to attack Christians with negative labels.

I'm sorry, but if you read the comment I was replying to, in which they simply take the bible quote over any other quote simply because it's the bible, I think the term fits.

And I'm not saying it applies to all Christian. Just ones like the aforementioned. I have many Christian friends who actually weigh evidence. Apologists I think they call themselves. I judge people by their actions/decisions. Sorry if there was confusion.

[Trinnity]

"Apologists" ?

What the heck does that mean?

As for "Bible thumpers", I know an insult when I see one.
Are you an atheist?

[Savitri Devi]

"Apologists" ?

What the heck does that mean?

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



As for "Bible thumpers", I know an insult when I see one.
Are you an atheist?

It was meant to convey the ignorance of simply taking something from the bible because it's from the bible.

I'm more an apathiest. But sure. Whatever you need to define me as (I have yet to see the relevance).

[countryboy]

I'm sorry, but if you read the comment I was replying to, in which they simply take the bible quote over any other quote simply because it's the bible, I think the term fits.

And I'm not saying it applies to all Christian. Just ones like the aforementioned. I have many Christian friends who actually weigh evidence. Apologists I think they call themselves. I judge people by their actions/decisions. Sorry if there was confusion.
Actually, Christian apologetics has to do with defending the inerrancy of Scripture. Defenders of the faith.

I find it amusing you would criticize those who would cherry pick the Bible by.....cherry picking the Bible. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif There are many instances of meat eating in the Bible. And fish as well.

[IMPress Polly]

Concerning the alleged health issues of vegans, I'm not truly an expert on such matters (like I said, adopting veganism was more of a moral than a health choice for me), but I can say that, personally, I actually feel healthier now than I did before starting my current diet. Among other things, my vegan diet has brought down my weight, which is a very good thing because cholesterol issues run in my family. And I'll also say that, concerning this whole protein issue, you CAN find alternate sources of protein...and also that actually the bigger problem in American society is consuming far too much protein. I believe the average American consumes like three times as much protein as they actually should on a daily basis.

Now I will say that vegan dieting requires some real effort, though you do get used to it after a while. But, as a stepping stone leading in that general direction, let me propose that at least conventional vegetarian dieting is pretty easy and effective at improving one's health in the practical. I did this in two stages: first I adopted vegetarianism, then later full-fledged veganism. Adopting the former first makes transitioning into the latter easier, and it's not very hard. Indeed, in my experience, it was harder to try and keep up with the calorie- and carb-counting schemes of nutritionists. Those schemes manifestly don't work. I think that's because they're too complicated. You might have to carry a calculator with you just to go grocery shopping. When it comes to dieting healthier, I think people just need simple rules that are easy to remember, like "don't eat meat". It seems to work in many respects. Did you know, for example, that while the average American is overweight by about 20 lbs., vegetarians on average weigh some 20 lbs. less than meat-eaters? It also seems to be the case that those who live the longest incorporate vegetarian dieting into their lifestyle, among other things. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2011/11/aging_well_into_your_90s_and_1.html)

Point: I really don't see any evidence that neglecting to consume meat is bad for people. It seems to get the best health results in the practical...at least in my observation as a non-health-expert. The main problems with the standard American diet largely revolve around excess consumption of meats and sweets.


Savitri Devi wrote:
It depends on your definition of morality. I actually consider myself amoral in that morals do not truly exist. Morality IS vested self-interest. Why do you not kill someone? Most likely because you will become ostracized from society. Why not do any "immoral" act? Most likely for the same reason. Because there will be repurcussions and people's image of you will be tarnished.

Animals behave the same way. Animals that play too aggressively are shunned. Many species will have a form of 'revolt' against undesirable leaders. Again, this is all in the name of mutual self-interest. Don't harm me unless you absolutely have to and I will not harm you unless I absolutely have to.

I agree with the contents of your latter paragraph, but don't see the connection between that and what you say in the former paragraph. Frankly, you do seem to be somewhat stumbling over yourself when it comes to the question of morality. Initially you indicated that your decision to adopt veganism was guided by ethical considerations. Now you say that morality doesn't exist and that you're "amoral". You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I find moral considerations (ethics) to be entirely bound up with degrees of selflessness; with the extent to which one considers and/or acts in the interests of others at their own expense. Animals, like people, often have ethical codes of sorts that the greater good might be best serviced. It may be deemed in the best interests of the vast majority to have a functioning society, which may be considered more important than allowing individual members thereof unlimited freedom to oppress and exploit others.

Sentient beings have two basic natures, I believe: they have a selfish side and a selfless side. Both need to be kept in balance, I further contend. You learn about this two-sided nature of at least human nature in basic psychology courses. People behave according to three natures: one way when they are alone (this is when they're the most selfish), a different way when they're around strangers (this is when they're the least selfish), and still another way when they're with people they're close to (a synthesis of the two poles). I suspect that that's probably true of sentient beings generally to one extent or another.

[Savitri Devi]

Actually, Christian apologetics has to do with defending the inerrancy of Scripture. Defenders of the faith.

Using evidence. I can at least respect that than someone who quotes genesis...Something no one can prove.


I find it amusing you would criticize those who would cherry pick the Bible by.....cherry picking the Bible. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif There are many instances of meat eating in the Bible. And fish as well.

*sigh*. Maybe you missed my post:

Although I would like to add (hopefully once and for all, but with you I am sure you will still claim I said the opposite), simply because I dissect yours or anyone else's argument with their own line of reasoning, does NOT (I don't know how to emphasize this any more) mean I believe that same line of reasoning. In fact, I use such arguments to SHOW the absurdity of them!

[respectfulguest]

idk, guess when try to think about all this self-defining stuff I get a head-ache (ie I'm a little of this but not that) and then when someone comments about how one defines themselves the typical martyred response is often "ok label me what you want I don't care" (but really they do).., not pointing to anyone in particular just my experience. In general making good decisions and treating others (namely humans) the way you want to be treated has worked fairly well.. appreciate topic and insightful Posts..

[Savitri Devi]

I agree with the contents of your latter paragraph, but don't see the connection between that and what you say in the former paragraph. Frankly, you do seem to be somewhat stumbling over yourself when it comes to the question of morality. Initially you indicated that your decision to adopt veganism was guided by ethical considerations. Now you say that morality doesn't exist and that you're "amoral". You can't have it both ways.

Sorry if there is any confusion here. My goal is to live the most logically consistent lifestyle.

Maybe to clarify this, I should explain that I consider morals and ethics to be different things. Hence, why I didn't say a "moral" vegan. Maybe they are synonymous is some definitions. For instance I would consider the following a working defition for ethics:
"the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:"

Whereas, morals, I like this definition:
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

Both are from dictionary.com.

They appear similar, but are not the same. I think the key difference is the aspect of 'right' and 'wrong'. I don't believe these terms serve a purpose in ethics. I deal in harm. So there may be harmful actions, then we need to evaluate if those harms were justified (i.e. in self-preservation).

Does that make more sense? I don't know. My beliefs are a work in progress. If there are points of issue with them I am all for hammering them out. Especially when done civilly :smiley:. It seems that several people in this forum are being deliberately antagonistic to vegans.


Personally, I find moral considerations (ethics) to be entirely bound up with degrees of selflessness; with the extent to which one considers and/or acts in the interests of others at their own expense. Animals, like people, often have ethical codes of sorts that the greater good might be best serviced. It may be deemed in the best interests of the vast majority to have a functioning society, which may be considered more important than allowing individual members thereof unlimited freedom to oppress and exploit others.

But isn't the interest of the majority a mutual self-interest ethical system? For instance many species give alarm calls. This risks themselves, but they expect the same from their companions. So it's mutual reciprocity I believe that dictates this.


Sentient beings have two basic natures, I believe: they have a selfish side and a selfless side. Both need to be kept in balance, I further contend. You learn about this two-sided nature of at least human nature in basic psychology courses. People behave according to three natures: one way when they are alone (this is when they're the most selfish), a different way when they're around strangers (this is when they're the least selfish), and still another way when they're with people they're close to (a synthesis of the two poles). I suspect that that's probably true of sentient beings generally to one extent or another.

According to Occam's razor, wouldn't the theory of self-interest alone fit better?

[Savitri Devi]

idk, guess when try to think about all this self-defining stuff I get a head-ache (ie I'm a little of this but not that) and then when someone comments about how one defines themselves the typical martyred response is often "ok label me what you want I don't care" (but really they do).., not pointing to anyone in particular just my experience. In general making good decisions and treating others (namely humans) the way you want to be treated has worked fairly well.. appreciate topic and insightful Posts..

So you think definitions are meaningless? Because that would make speech essentially impossible.

[Trinnity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist
It was meant to convey the ignorance of simply taking something from the bible because it's from the bible. I'm more an apathiest. But sure. Whatever you need to define me as (I have yet to see the relevance).I'm not trying to define you, just understand where you're coming from.

[Trinnity]

Sorry if there is any confusion here. My goal is to live the most logically consistent lifestyle.

And yet you use the name and avitar of a NAZI who valued the rights of animals more than humans. I don't get that.

[respectfulguest]

So you think definitions are meaningless? Because that would make speech essentially impossible.

hold on now, did not state anything was meaningless including "definitions".. best of luck., on second thought if your "definitions" somehow oppose the concept of luck then just a plain and simple.., best to you.
see what I mean about the head-ache thing.

[Mister D]

No reply required seeing as this is strawman...

Although I would like to add (hopefully once and for all, but with you I am sure you will still claim I said the opposite), simply because I dissect yours or anyone else's argument with their own line of reasoning, does NOT (I don't know how to emphasize this any more) mean I believe that same line of reasoning. In fact, I use such arguments to SHOW the absurdity of them!

What reasoning? What argument have you dissected? Do you know? :grin:

[Mister D]

It depends on your definition of morality. I actually consider myself amoral in that morals do not truly exist. Morality IS vested self-interest. Why do you not kill someone? Most likely because you will become ostracized from society. Why not do any "immoral" act? Most likely for the same reason. Because there will be repurcussions and people's image of you will be tarnished.

Animals behave the same way. Animals that play too aggressively are shunned. Many species will have a form of 'revolt' against undesirable leaders. Again, this is all in the name of mutual self-interest. Don't harm me unless you absolutely have to and I will not harm you unless I absolutely have to.

What's amazing is that you don't see the contradiction here...

[Savitri Devi]

What's amazing is that you don't see the contradiction here...

You're right, I probably used an improper term there. People are referring to morality, and I most likely got confused. Then again I was also referring to these things in terms people were using. I guess I shouldn't use words I don't believe in. Morality, god, etc...:rollseyes:

See, I am able to admit mistakes. Your turn to admit your inconsistencies (or admit you made a contextual error like me)...

[Savitri Devi]

What reasoning? What argument have you dissected? Do you know? :grin:


Good fucking grief! The fact is was a strawman. How old are you?

[IMPress Polly]

Savitri Devi wrote:
Sorry if there is any confusion here. My goal is to live the most logically consistent lifestyle.

Maybe to clarify this, I should explain that I consider morals and ethics to be different things. Hence, why I didn't say a "moral" vegan. Maybe they are synonymous is some definitions. For instance I would consider the following a working defition for ethics:
"the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:"

Whereas, morals, I like this definition:
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

Both are from dictionary.com.

They appear similar, but are not the same. I think the key difference is the aspect of 'right' and 'wrong'. I don't believe these terms serve a purpose in ethics. I deal in harm. So there may be harmful actions, then we need to evaluate if those harms were justified (i.e. in self-preservation).

Does that make more sense? I don't know. My beliefs are a work in progress. If there are points of issue with them I am all for hammering them out. Especially when done civilly :smiley:. It seems that several people in this forum are being deliberately antagonistic to vegans.

It does clarify somewhat. Your distinction between ethics on the one hand and morality on the other is interesting. Here's how I see it:

Morality is what you believe is right and wrong by others (be those others people, animals, god, or what have you). Ethics are what society believes is right and wrong by others (including both its members and outsiders), perhaps in a written, legally binding way or alternately in an unwritten, culturally binding way (depending on how important the issue is deemed to be). The latter is simply an outgrowth...a collectivization...of the former. And so I believe that the two things are inextricably bound up together, connected by selfless thinking.

And yeah, of course there are people here who are determined to disagree with you. That's how things work most of the time both here and out in the world, especially when you take an unpopular position.


But isn't the interest of the majority a mutual self-interest ethical system? For instance many species give alarm calls. This risks themselves, but they expect the same from their companions. So it's mutual reciprocity I believe that dictates this.

I think you're just trying too hard to reconcile collaboration with individualism. If there's a cost-benefit analysis involved then it's not purely individualistic. You're having to compromise, which means that you're having to weigh the worth of others. Maybe it's ultimately in order to get something that you want more than total freedom (like greater physical security, more food security, or what have you) and maybe it's not. Maybe it's purely altruistic or maybe there's an ulterior motive involved. That depends on the individual case.

[Smartmouthwoman]

With all the serious issues facing our world, I can't imagine why anybody would make such an issue about what they choose to eat. It's just like gays... nobody cares what you do in the privacy of your own home... until you come on the internet seeking acceptance for your abnormal lifestyle.

Sounds like at least two people on this thread need to expand their horizons. Maybe it's the lack of protein that makes them do so much inward thinking. Geesh, eat a cheeseburger, ladies. Trust me, the sun will still come out tomorrow.

:icon_flower:

[IMPress Polly]

Smartmouthwoman wrote:
Geesh, eat a cheeseburger, ladies. Trust me, the sun will still come out tomorrow.

Not for a certain cow or two.


With all the serious issues facing our world, I can't imagine why anybody would make such an issue about what they choose to eat.

It's a matter of conscience for me. Here's a great (if only partial) explanation of why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8div3AxqtI

As you can see, the death camps we put animals in are so brutal that they make the Nazi ones seem downright gentle by comparison!

I'm just sensitive to the suffering of animals for human benefit. I apply the proverbial Golden Rule: if that were me, if I were an animal, would I want anything vaguely resembling that done to me?

When we suggest that people are being treated in a particularly horrendous manner, we might say that they're being treated "like animals". Think about that. What does that tell you about how we treat animals? Personally, I'm sensitive to that.


It's just like gays... nobody cares what you do in the privacy of your own home... until you come on the internet seeking acceptance for your abnormal lifestyle.

The blatant prejudice of your wording aside, obviously some people do or things like the Defense of Marriage Act wouldn't have come into existence in this country. Neither would homosexuality continue to be considered a criminal offense in many countries.

But of course, as much as conservative-minded people enjoy comparing gay people to animals (e.g. their routine comparison of same-sex marriage to bestiality), they are human beings who deserve not only the negative liberties that we SHOULD (but don't) give animals, but also an additional set of positive rights as members of human society, IMO.

[Trinnity]

Paul McCartney.....<pfft>

[IMPress Polly]

Mmm. That was a hard-hitting response. :rollseyes:

[Mister D]

What does the DOMA have to do with homosexual intercourse? I'm sure a handful of folks give a shit what gays do behind closed doors but most peopel don't regardless of their positions on gay marriage.

[Smartmouthwoman]

Not for a certain cow or two.



It's a matter of conscience for me. Here's a great (if only partial) explanation of why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8div3AxqtI

As you can see, the death camps we put animals in are so brutal that they make the Nazi ones seem downright gentle by comparison!

I'm just sensitive to the suffering of animals for human benefit. I apply the proverbial Golden Rule: if that were me, if I were an animal, would I want anything vaguely resembling that done to me?

When we suggest that people are being treated in a particularly horrendous manner, we might say that they're being treated "like animals". Think about that. What does that tell you about how we treat animals? Personally, I'm sensitive to that.



The blatant prejudice of your wording aside, obviously some people do or things like the Defense of Marriage Act wouldn't have come into existence in this country. Neither would homosexuality continue to be considered a criminal offense in many countries.

But of course, as much as conservative-minded people enjoy comparing gay people to animals (e.g. their routine comparison of same-sex marriage to bestiality), they are human beings who deserve not only the negative liberties that we SHOULD (but don't) give animals, but also an additional set of positive rights as members of human society, IMO.

There is such a thing as overthinking. As you're totally absorbed in your own little world, don't forget people are more important than animals. And there are plenty of suffering people to be concerned with before you start shedding tears for livestock.

Just my $.02. After 75 posts of me me me, just thought I'd throw in a little reality.

Trust me, nobody cares what you eat... or don't eat.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/ICONATOR_095983d564cb145a329227a0e9.jpg

[Mister D]

Or who you have sex with.

[IMPress Polly]

Smartmouthwoman wrote:
There is such a thing as overthinking. As you're totally absorbed in your own little world, don't forget people are more important than animals.

What makes you say that? Why, in your mind, are people "more important than animals". The only case for that claim I've seen here so far is that, you know, god just made it that way. Do you have an argument that might be applicable to the non-religious?

[KC]

There is such a thing as overthinking. As you're totally absorbed in your own little world, don't forget people are more important than animals. And there are plenty of suffering people to be concerned with before you start shedding tears for livestock.

Just my $.02. After 75 posts of me me me, just thought I'd throw in a little reality.

Trust me, nobody cares what you eat... or don't eat.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/ICONATOR_095983d564cb145a329227a0e9.jpg


Ok, I wasn't going to get involved in this one but you are right. People are more important than animals. So what if I told you the high level of meat consumption is part of the reason why may people around the world have nothing to eat?

http://www.gan.ca/lifestyle/vegetarian+guide/vegetarians+and+world+hunger/index.en.html


It takes up to 10 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh.

I am no longer a vegetarian or a vegan but I just thought I would share this new perspective, since it seems to be neglected in the ethical evaluation of meat consumption.

[Smartmouthwoman]

What makes you say that? Why, in your mind, are people "more important than animals". The only case for that claim I've seen here so far is that, you know, god just made it that way. Do you have an argument that might be applicable to the non-religious?

Not sure what religion has to do with anything. So you really think how many animals you save is important to starving children?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01950/SOMALIA-UNRE_1950191c.jpg

[Smartmouthwoman]

Ok, I wasn't going to get involved in this one but you are right. People are more important than animals. So what if I told you the high level of meat consumption is part of the reason why may people around the world have nothing to eat?

http://www.gan.ca/lifestyle/vegetarian+guide/vegetarians+and+world+hunger/index.en.html



I am no longer a vegetarian or a vegan but I just thought I would share this new perspective, since it seems to be neglected in the ethical evaluation of meat consumption.

This makes sense from a vegan point of view. From the viewpoint of non-vegans, I can tell you plenty of cattle are raised on nothing but grass... in fact, grass-fed beef is considered healthier than grain-fed beef.

Just goes to show ya... you can find any proof you need to prove a 'point' if you look hard enough. ;)

[IMPress Polly]

Smartmouthwoman wrote:
Not sure what religion has to do with anything. So you really think how many animals you save is important to starving children?

What do you care about starving children? You're against social welfare.

People will do what they have to to survive, given their conditions. I understand that. And I think that we need a far more equitable GLOBAL wealth distribution for that matter. 85% of all wealth disparity is attributable to one's location. Impoverished Third World peoples need development, work, free health care (the only kind they can afford), and a more equitable global food distribution.

I do think of animals differently than people, but not as inferiors. For example, I don't think humans have a responsibility to feed animals and just generally provide for animals. But I do think animals have the right to be left alone and not oppressed by people. People and animals are different, but equal in terms of worth as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to pit the interests of people against those of animals.

[KC]

This makes sense from a vegan point of view. From the viewpoint of non-vegans, I can tell you plenty of cattle are raised on nothing but grass... in fact, grass-fed beef is considered healthier than grain-fed beef.

Just goes to show ya... you can find any proof you need to prove a 'point' if you look hard enough. ;)

Grass fed is ideal, especially since it is less likely than corn or grain fed beef to carry E. Coli. In the case of corn, cows (and in fact humans) are not really meant to eat it, and so it is more difficult to digest.

[KC]

For those of us who are committed omnivores, I would urge you to eat as little meat as possible. Most Americans eat more than enough meat, but remember that as a consumer your choices affect the rest of us. Decreasing the demand for meat products ideally would create a situation where less grain is wasted on the animals, and more of it is up for consumption by humans.

If we were to feed animals less corn, we might expect to see a decrease in fuel prices as well, since the federal government currently mandates that corn based ethanol is mixed in with gas at the pump.

Sorry if I come off a little anthropocentric, it's one of my biases I guess.

[Smartmouthwoman]

What do you care about starving children? You're against social welfare.

People will do what they have to to survive, given their conditions. I understand that. And I think that we need a far more equitable GLOBAL wealth distribution for that matter. 85% of all wealth disparity is attributable to one's location. Impoverished Third World peoples need development, work, free health care (the only kind they can afford), and a more equitable global food distribution.

I do think of animals differently than people, but not as inferiors. For example, I don't think humans have a responsibility to feed animals and just generally provide for animals. But I do think animals have the right to be left alone and not oppressed by people. People and animals are different, but equal in terms of worth as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to pit the interests of people against those of animals.

LOL @ oppressed animals. Why am I envisioning somebody keeping a milkbone from their poodle?

In the larger scheme of things, God created this earth to provide us with everything we need to survive. Nobody has to tell a robin how to feed it's young or head south for the winter. Animals can take care of themselves... it's human beings who sometimes need help from other human beings. We're pretty far down on the species list when it comes to taking care of ourselves.

Which brings us back to my point... humans are more important than animals. Wealth distribution is a fool's dream that will never happen. It's our responsibility to take care of those who suffer... and are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Here's an organization I support. Next time you try to decide between the organic soy beans or kale... drop them $20 instead. Give a child a shot at a future. It's the humane thing to do.

http://www.opcare.org/

[IMPress Polly]

Smartmouthwoman wrote:
LOL @ oppressed animals. Why am I envisioning somebody keeping a milkbone from their poodle?

Why am I not laughing? Watch the previously-referenced video again. There's nothing funny about slaughter, abuse, and other oppressions.

Even pets, though often pampered in this country, are oppressed in important ways. They are taken from the wild, perhaps from their families, in order to be sold to you, whereupon they are not free to leave. Imagine if someone treated you that way.

[Captain Obvious]

There is such a thing as overthinking. As you're totally absorbed in your own little world, don't forget people are more important than animals. And there are plenty of suffering people to be concerned with before you start shedding tears for livestock.

Just my $.02. After 75 posts of me me me, just thought I'd throw in a little reality.

Trust me, nobody cares what you eat... or don't eat.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/ICONATOR_095983d564cb145a329227a0e9.jpg

Yeah, I don't understand the whole focus on one aspect of one's personality. I'm an omnivore and that's not the central thesis of what I promote myself as, in fact I don't promote myself as anything in particular. I don't understand the need or the want to do that, I like to think I'm fairly complex and multi-faceted.

It's almost like being a vegan or whatever and wearing it on your sleeve is like you're trying to sell that concept, or moreso that you're trying to criticize those who aren't. That's a little condescending IMO.

As for animals, I don't think anyone supports the inhumane treatment of them on any front but they like plants are a food source and a resource and should be harvested appropriately, which is humanely and with decency. I agree that this isn't always the case but it's not absolute by any stretch.

Animals cannot reason, they cannot rationalize nor can they be ethical or moral. That is idiocy.

[Peter1469]

Well them maybe you don't think hard enough. Sorry to sound harsh, but I am sick of people like you stating your opinion like it's some sort of fact. Try doing some research. I did lots before I became vegan.

In fact, many pro-athletes are going vegan for performance purposes alone. Most of the longest living and least diseased peoples in the world tend to be vegetarians (or eat meat very seldomly; like less than 5%). Not that I do this for longevity, but it would be an added bonus.

I am perfectly OK if you being sick of people stating their opinions as if they are fact.


In fact, many pro-athletes are going vegan for performance purposes alone.

Really, how many? There are a few of course. Even one who is a professional natural body builder (no drugs)- and that is one out of all of them (I am only considering males- don't follow the women natural body builders). But it doesn't work for most athletes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120122116182915297.html (just as an example).

I have studied the issue. And I have tried cutting down on meat (for moral reason, not health reasons) and it didn't work for me- but then I was lifting weights 30 minutes a day in the morning and running 6-8 miles in the evenings. In an earlier post I mentioned metabolic typing. Perhaps that is something you should look at before you accuse others of lacking facts.

[Peter1469]

This makes sense from a vegan point of view. From the viewpoint of non-vegans, I can tell you plenty of cattle are raised on nothing but grass... in fact, grass-fed beef is considered healthier than grain-fed beef.

Just goes to show ya... you can find any proof you need to prove a 'point' if you look hard enough. ;)

I would go further and say that grain fed grass is not very healthy for you. Of course if you are starving, bon appetit. Grain is an unnatural diet for cows and they should not be fed it. Grass fed beef is very healthy for people.

[Trinnity]

What do you care about starving children? You're against social welfare.
Hold on now, that was uncalled for. I'm surprised at you!
Just because someone doesn't approve of govt -with all it's incompetence and waste- largess does NOT mean they don't care about starving children. Really, Polly, that bit of pettiness was beneath you.

[Peter1469]

What do you care about starving children? You're against social welfare.

People will do what they have to to survive, given their conditions. I understand that. And I think that we need a far more equitable GLOBAL wealth distribution for that matter. 85% of all wealth disparity is attributable to one's location. Impoverished Third World peoples need development, work, free health care (the only kind they can afford), and a more equitable global food distribution.

I do think of animals differently than people, but not as inferiors. For example, I don't think humans have a responsibility to feed animals and just generally provide for animals. But I do think animals have the right to be left alone and not oppressed by people. People and animals are different, but equal in terms of worth as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to pit the interests of people against those of animals.


What do you care about starving children? You're against social welfare.

That is unfair. Most people care about starving children. The questions is how best to create the conditions to feed the world. Conservatives believe that free markets (not corporatism), individualism, and charity will allocate resources much better than collectivism and statism.

[Trinnity]

I would go further and say that grain fed (beef) is not very healthy for you. Of course if you are starving, bon appetit. Grain is an unnatural diet for cows and they should not be fed it. Grass fed beef is very healthy for people.We eat a lot of deer. It's very healthy. But I love a steak now and them. It's a rare treat...

[Peter1469]

Deer is good. I have had beer before too, but in chili.

[KC]

Deer is good. I have had beer before too, but in chili.

Beer is my favorite meat. :wink:

[Peter1469]

Beer is my favorite meat. :wink:

Me too.

I meant bear. Oops....

[countryboy]

Beer is my favorite meat. :wink:
Beat me to it. :D I'll second that one. ;)