Vegetarianism

[Praxius]

Quote by: inri No, it does not mean you don't value kindness to some extent, but It does likely speak to 'how much' you value compassion and kindness. Choosing to eat meat, regardless of what measures are taken to ensure that meat comes to the plate as humanely as possible, still does contribute to the suffering and killing of animals. This is a bit like saying, "Just because I treat an animal unkindly, does not mean I don't value kindness." Subjecting an animal to various forms of suffering and taking it's life for a diet preference, are not 'kind' acts. Those who value compassion and kindness at a level where they're willing to ignore their own preferences and change their actions, are operating at a higher level of moral integrity than most of us.

I believe you're way off base on this.

"but It does likely speak to 'how much' you value compassion and kindness."

No, it has nothing to do with "How Much" is has everything to do with "Where" those values are applied in regards to compassion.

Your entire understanding of compassion and empathy has thus far revolved around animals and nothing else, and if people do not show the same level of compassion and empathy towards animals as you do, then they have no compassion and empathy at all nor understand it.

Because of this approach on your part, I can't take your arguments seriously, because it's not only bias, but it's obviously flawed.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Morality Games The whole example is absurd, because nobody can live their life around such a contingency. By that logic, you should never tease anybody ever, because there is a chance they will become crazy later and come kill you.

It's possible..... check out all those school shootings as of late. Don't treat people like scum and make fun of them, and you might get the same respect returned.

Furthermore, while the numbers wouldn't correspond exactly, most such survival situations that could happen in this world would include elements favorable to vegans. For example, some vegans are nature watchers; they would track animals just to observe them in the wild. It would be easy to adapt such experience to a hunting scenario.

Watching from a distance is completely different when you have to get at close range without being detected and then killing the animal before it kills you or escapes. This can not be done without direct experience in the matter.

You may know where the animals are, but you wouldn't know how to properly take them down without them suffering or them attacking/stampeding. How about sneaking up without being detected?

My point was that omnivores wouldn't be better equipped for survival than vegans, unless the number of hunters among omnivores is being over represented in the omnivore side of the conflict

Which was part of my example relying on the above poll showing the majority who voted are not vegans/vegetarians. Onmivores are far better equipped for survival then someone who relies only on meat or only on plants, because depending on the season and what foods are available, an omnivore has two classes of food to look for, as opposed to just one class. This doubles their chances of survival.

-- which is even more doubtful, because a significant number of hunters is unlikely to end up in a survival situation with a significant number vegans. In any real survival scenario, a vegan would probably have some skill other than hunting, relating to nature or something else, that would make them a valuable asset to some group or another. Agricultural knowledge, for example.

And yet, omnivores and many hunters in the past knew about crops and growing plants too. Vegans may specialize in these things a bit more, but I don't see it as being enough to being a worthwhile asset.

Many corn, wheat, etc. farmers still eat meat too. Most of the farmers I know around here also hunt regularly, or they fish commercially.

For that matter, the nature-experienced vegans might make an alliance with the nature-experienced hunters to kill all the city-dwelling omnivores and city-dwelling vegans. Alliances could develop on more lines than just a person's diet prior to the survival event, and almost certainly would.

Possible.

You are being silly. You are assuming such a string of improbabilities in your scenario that if we are to apply the same standard to all manner of situations life is literally impossible to live. Everything has to work "just so" in order for your scenario to play out as imagined -- more likely outcomes not totally unfavorable to vegans would happen first.

Which is why what I originally said should have been taken as a joke, which is was meant to be in the first place. Trying to find logic in jokes is usually a fools errand and we get into long winded posts like this over nothing.

Greater demand usually results in cheaper production because of innovations in technology and a stable market, making for a cheaper purchases. I don't know why you believe shipping would cost more.

Because more locations in the world would reuqire the food to be shipped in because their areas of the planet make it difficult to produce their own products. Unless you invent teleporters, the costs would increase with the demand.

Gradually, yes. But I don't see how the criticism relates. The corn would still be used for food, and society's weaning off of domesticated animals would free up more space for agriculture.

Then that falls back on the same problem of land space being used for human food requirements, which cuts into forest lands, marshes, and other natural lands.

That probably wouldn't occur at a fast enough rate to outpace the ability of vegan industries to provide for the increasingly vegan population, meaning the majority of animals domesticated for consumption would probably be eaten before the "final push" to end the practice once and for all came about. But most people probably wouldn't stop being omnivores.

Then that'd be similar to quitting smoking cold turkey or an alcohol prohibition.... relying on the existing animal population in farms today and then suddenly stopping when it all runs out and forcing people to eat veggies would probably create an underground market for meat products still. Granted, that method would reduce the amount of animals set free and also their demand on our same food sources, it would also create a bad transition effect and a bunch more problems. (Mind you, the same thing would still happen if they were all just set free.... people would just go out and hunt them themselves, whereby your example, there simply wouldn't be anything to hunt.)

That would assume the vegan strategy is to make everybody become vegan overnight. Even if we used the strongest rhetoric imaginable (and we already have), that wouldn't occur. Very likely, it will never occur. Personally, I am even less concerned than most vegans about making other people vegan. It is a personal commitment based on what I believe I am capable of. The broader vegan strategy is increasing the number of vegetarians, then hopefully converting them to veganism because the animals that provide nourishment for vegetarians are housed in industries which use them for slaughter. At the same time, we argue for the more humane treatment of animals destined for slaughter, simply because we acknowledge their survival is not something that can be procured soon.

Well I wasn't exactly meaning vegan life starts all in one day... even gradually over a few years animals would eventually have to be killed or set free. Leaving all the animals to be eaten and then switch to a vegan lifestyle still promotes the continued suffering of those animals and the logical solution would be to set them free.

Since this principle of suffering doesn't seem to related exactly to your position per se, we'll move on, rather then continuing to beat a dead horse.

Which is the same as saying that because one unlikelihood might lead to the next and so on, and we shouldn't try to be vegan. That can apply toward anything, like the dangers of driving a car or riding an airplane.

All of my issues listed are in regards to a planet-wide expansion to this way of life. I already admitted and agreed that there is no serious harms on an individual basis to being vegan. But if it ever became planet-wide (or close to), many similar problems we are seeing today with meat products would still exist in this new approach.

[Praxius]

Least harm you are capable of. People in those regions always have greater moral license to consume meat.

See, I have an issue with people determining what other people or cultures are allowed to act differently while others would be forced or guilted into living a different way. We are all humans equally and should have the freedom to choose as we see fit. To say one group of humans are allowed to do something while another group of humans are not allowed, or greatly frowned upon, to me, that's a level of discrimination, not a solution.

Well, that would be bad on the small chance it happened, but technology and innovation would most likely provide less draconian solutions.

Well unless you can think of a way to reduce the greater expansion of farmlands to meet human demands, and not expanding into other animals' natural habitats to meet this demand, I don't see too many options available.

And saying that someone will make it up as we go along, is not all that comforting. A plan beforehand is always wisest.

Again, most domesticated animals would be dead because the practice of consuming them would have been eased out of existence. But that is assuming veganism ever became popular enough to end the practice of domestication for consumption. Two hundred years later, more people will probably be vegetarian, and the market for domesticated animals for consumption will have correspondingly shrunk, but a population of omnivores would probably remain.

I imagine it will always go back and forth.

Hope you don't take driving seriously either. Anyway, the tidy explanation is that although any moral endeavor can lead to bad results if fortune stacks the cards against it, that still doesn't diminish the obligation to try.

I do take driving seriously, because the greater majority of the rules and laws that apply make logical sense.

The concerns are all pretty ridiculous because they probably won't happen. It would be bad if they did, and would require some kind of probably painful and costly address, but vegans are at liberty to ignore the chance for the same reasons car drivers can ignore the perils of driving -- because the contingency isn't compelling enough to dictate what we should or should not do. Allowing it to do so would be illogical.

There are risks to driving, yet there are proper procedures, rules and laws to follow to ensure the safest possible travel there can be at present.... but to do a large scale vegan diet transition would require some factual and logical rules and laws to be applied in order for it to function properly.

it's always good to try new things, but don't expect those things to work out or last very long if all foreseeable risks and problems are not at least addressed in a way that would reduce the impacts of those problems before setting out to try.

I could be telling people not to drive, or not driving, on logic comparable to your disavowal of veganism.

I don't think you fully understood my position.

The logic is unsound, because, as a logician recently told me, an argument's soundess (aka, strength) varies according to the probable existence/occurrence of its claims. Very few vegans, and none of the organizations founded toward the goal of a vegan society, claim society can stop eating meat over night; on the contrary, usually the official line acknowledges living up to your potential is hard and can take time, first from easing off meat to fish and then from fish to vegetarianism and then from vegetarianism to veganism.

Whatever you're told elsewhere matters not to me.... I am going on what others say in this thread, where I have been told a number of times by self-promoting or self-proclaiming vegans, that "Humans can live perfectly well off of a vegan only diet."

My argument is that that claim is false when applied to all humans.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Diogenes .....Ontheotherhand, those in this thread who are promoting a vegan lifestyle choice are behaving like self-righteous egotistical dolts...

That is my only position and opposition as well. I wouldn't be making bible-long posts if vegans could simply let others who differ from them live their own lives or didn't continually post excuses I find contradicting.

nothing more - nothing less.

[inri]

[QUOTE=Praxius;653950]I believe you're way off base on this.

"but It does likely speak to 'how much' you value compassion and kindness."

No, it has nothing to do with "How Much" is has everything to do with "Where" those values are applied in regards to compassion.

Those with high ability for empathy generally see suffering wherever it occurs. acting as the cause of suffering and taking life for the purpose of a mere preference, is not an act of kindness. It is rather black and white. Sure there are varying degress of cruelty and humaneness in the act of confinement and killing but there's not much of a chance that anyone would call such acts in and of themselves "kind."

Doing no harm is a very basic kindness we can extend to all sentient beings.
If you place small value upon kindness and compassion, then you likely would not agree that someone who posseses these traits in abundance is superior to someone who posseses them not at all or in a limited capacity.




You seem to be arguing over whether or not causing an animal to experience suffering and taking it's life is a kind act or a cruel act. To those who have high empathic ability, there is little question re: this.

Your entire understanding of compassion and empathy has thus far revolved around animals and nothing else, and if people do not show the same level of compassion and empathy towards animals as you do, then they have no compassion and empathy at all nor understand it.

Not true. You evidently did not read my Hitler analogy. (He was a veg. yet did not extend his basic kindness towards humans)
) Refraining from doing harm to all sentient beings is the very basic of kindnesses.


Clearly someone who chooses more humanely produced meat is morally superior in exhibiting a higher level of empathy and empathic action than someone who could care less where his meat comes from.

A person who takes their empathic action a step further (likely because they experience higher levels of empathy) and gives up all animal products is yet a step higher on the continuum.
You keep accusing me of black and white thinking, yet I continue to talk of a continuum or heirarchy of empathic ability and integral action. some actions are simply 'more kind.'

The man who feels little or no empathy when he sees an animal suffer is likely not completely devoid of empathic ability, yet he clearly has less capacity/skill in this area than the man who is moved to action by such suffering.

Superior ethical behavior begins with a high ability to experience empathy.

Scientific studies suggest that empathic ability is partially determined by genes. FuturePundit: Mice Suggest Genetic Basis For Empathy
This means that good character/empathic ability/liklihood of integral action (attributes determined by our empathic ability levels) are somewhat predetermined. Therefore, although a kinder more integral person is superior to one who is not, it is not something that is under his personal control.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lostinlife What complete bulls***. You would of course object to humans being rasied from birth as livestock, their only purpose in life being to feed the masses.

If that was the custom.....

No one is behaving in any such manner, and this only shows how defensive you are on this matter. I can't force you to do anything, but I feel obligated to show you why human suffering is no different than animal suffering. That since we do not REQUIRE these animals to survive it can be said that it is wrong to kill them.

Really? I count at least three people thus far in this thread acting as described. Based on your skewed and limited views on animals and their requirements in our way of life, you believe it is wrong to kill them, thus passing judgement on those who do not follow in your footsteps, even if the counter arguments against your own make more sense.

Everybody in here who is not vegan have already claimed a number of times that vegans can do as they please, while a few vegans in here feel it's their job to tell those same people that they're wrong and will always be in the wrong until they follow suit to your beliefs.

I think his discription fits quite nicely.

Comments like this and "I'll eat all the vegetarians" only shows how you're cornered and are otherwise unable to defend your position. Its immature, idiotic, and insensitive to others who really care about an animal's life, and only strengthens our side of the fence. Thanks for stopping by.

^ See.... perfect example of what he's talking about, and a perfect example of the hypocracy I keep talking about that vegans hold onto.

"I'll eat all the vegetarians" and all others I have read so far are jokes.... because the only people taking this discussion so damn seriously are yourself and other vegans.

Insensitive? Gee I wonder why?

Maybe because we are kinda tired of being preached to about how bad our way of life is and how you and your way of life is somehow better, regardless of all of the obvious flaws and contradictions.

It's sorta like a Jehovah's Witness constantly knocking on an Atheist's door, continually trying to convert them by using ill-informed guilt trips.

You won't get any respect for your beliefs when you don't respect other people's beliefs first.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Diogenes .....It IS different...I know you don't want to believe that but that's your problem...the fact is animals do NOT feel pain the same way we do...there is a mechanism in nature that provides for their relief...

Exactly... and since animal suffering isn't on par with human suffering, and vegans feel plant suffering isn't on par with animal or human suffering, the whole excuse of suffering cancels everything out and isn't a logical defense.

man, because of his environment, is far more complex... when you see Jackals tearing at a Wildebeest while it's still alive the animal is not experiencing pain... their body kicks in something akin to an adrenalin rush that desensitizes the animal to the pain it would otherwise be feeling... like someone high on crack... nature is not cruel...it may appear cruel, but that's just because it is often misunderstood. There are protections in nature...like if someone has you on the ground and is punching you in the face you will not feel continuous pain...there will come a point that the pain will dissipate...and eventually you will pass out... in nature this is even more true... pain itself is a good thing...without it no creature would survive their childhood...especially man...but nature is not cruel, along with pain, there are protections in place to prevent excessive or prolonged pain. Man is unique only in that we have, because of unique environment, created a unique situation for ourselves that can and often does involve excessive or prolonged pain...but...that's because we have interfered with the natural course... but even in our case certain protections still apply.

Now see, you ruined the fun

[Diogenes]

Exactly... and since animal suffering isn't on par with human suffering, and vegans feel plant suffering isn't on par with animal or human suffering, the whole excuse of suffering cancels everything out and isn't a logical defense.

Exactly.

Now see, you ruined the fun

Oops....sorry

[Praxius]

Quote by: inri There is no scientific proof that plants 'suffer'....there is proof that they respond to stimuli...a VERY different thing. Your reasoning here hinges upon a presupposition that plants DO in fact suffer.

Pain and suffering is once again subjective. We respond to stimuli in much the same way. Just because you identify one stimuli as pain or pleasure doesn't change what it is..... An Electrical Response to Stimuli

Whether or not a plant's stimuli fits into your subjective understanding of pain and pleasure is irrelevant.... the fact remains is that the respond in very much the same way as we do and their bodies react appropriately to those stimuli's as we do.

Continually trying to revolve your entire defense around subjective terms only shows the equally weak side of the vegan argument.

First it was about not reacting to stimuli, then when that was proven wrong, you jump to not being aware, then when that was proven wrong, you jump to being able to feel pain, then when evidence is shown that it is quite possible, you then argue the level of pain or suffering, or that there isn't enough factual evidence and it's not factual because you say so..... or that you personally choose not to believe in those studies or simply trivialize them.

Thus, I'll continually trivialize animals' suffering, regardless if you think it's irrefutable. You can not acknowledge one and ignore the other simply because it doesn't suit your subjective beliefs without being a hypocrite.

An ethical vegan's diet choice hinges on the fact that animals suffer. Until you can provide absolute evidence that plants actually 'feel pain' and are not merely responding to stimuli, you have no scientific basis for these points you continue to make. Scientific evidence for an abiity to suffer and feel pain exists regarding animals.

Really? They sure seem to give birth pretty easily, they sure seem to not have a problem with getting into fights with one another, cut each other up badly, break bones, etc.

Yet a human will scream bloody murder and cry out during any of those examples.

Animal suffering is in no way similar to human suffering, and could easily be summed up by responses to stimuli, just like plants, if one was so inclined to sum up...... which I do.

Being that this is a debate forum, a different set of rules apply. We are here to give reasons and/or justifications for our position or assertion. I agree that in day to day living, no wants to have their point of view attacked or be told they're wrong for living life as they choose. Off debate forums, Most vegans I know use the 'gentle education' method of getting their point accross, and only to those who show a genuine interest...obviously, some vegans, just like any other group with a particular set of beliefs - meat eaters included, will attempt to 'push' their point in day to day living.

Indeed, which is why they have no grounds to complain when their beliefs are challenged back.

"Most vegans I know use the 'gentle education' method of getting their point accross"

^ Really? By calling everybody else who doesn't follow their way of life murderers, uncaring, have no understanding of compassion or empathy, that vegans are somehow superior and anybody who eats meat are destroying the world?

Yeah.... real gentle. Gentle like an elephant farting in a condom maybe.

However, accusing someone of 'imposing' their view on a debate forum is rather silly.

Hardly silly.... when you and others come on here talking up one side as being "Superior" as you put it, and basically making any other view out to be heartless, having no understanding of compassion/empathy, basically stating the vegan way of life is the only way of life and all others are out-right wrong..... that's what I would consider as "Imposing" because it's a "My way or the highway" mentality. And that type of mentality isn't usually up for questioning or accepting differing ideas..... such has been proven already on a number of occasions in the last few pages alone.

Once again...I'm not "preaching"....I am debating. I am putting forth an argument. Simply because I am not myself one of the 'morally superior' does not mean I cannot recognize those who are..... It is not hypocritical at all. I't precisely because I know first hand just how difficult it can be to match actions to beliefs that I hold vegans and others who honor their eithics through action, in such high regard. Simply because I lack the level of integrity to follow through with my beliefs does not mean that I cannot hold an opinion about those who do.

Maybe the reason why it's so difficult of a lifestyle to follow is because it's a lifestyle we're not supposed to follow in the first place. You yourself said that you felt desires and a want to continue to eat meat and gave up on the whole thing.... is that a personal choice or your natural instincts driving you?

The reason why the vegan way of life requires a lot of dedication and hard work is because they are using their emotions (whether they're right or wrong) to over rule their instincts and logic.

If the vegan way of life was the right way of life, then why was it so hard to stick with it?

And just because someone holds a lot of devotion to a paticular cause or principle/belief, doesn't somehow make them right in what they're doing. Some people believe the devil or god is telling them to go and kill people or to sacrafice a lamb, etc..... and they do it because of how much devotion they hold to those beliefs..... does this make them right?

There's that tit for tat thing again... Most of us learned on the playground that this is not a recipe for success.

Then stop jumping back to your superiority complex and flawed arguments on who holds the better morals, and you won't have to worry about the tit for tat. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you.

[inri]

[QUOTE=Praxius;653974]If that was the custom.....

Maybe because we are kinda tired of being preached to about how bad our way of life is and how you and your way of life is somehow better, regardless of all of the obvious flaws and contradictions. It's sorta like a Jehovah's Witness constantly knocking on an Atheist's door, continually trying to convert them by using ill-informed guilt trips.

It seems kind of silly to even have to explain this but..... this situation is actually very, very different than a Jenovah's Witness constantly knocking on your door. You have CHOSEN to come to this debate forum and specifically THIS particular thread in order to debate this subject. Therefore, accusations of anyone of preaching to you and 'guilt-tripping you are ridiculous. If you want an escape, it's as simple as choosing not to visit this thread.

[Diogenes]

this situation is actually very, very different than a Jenovah's Witness constantly knocking on your door. You have CHOSEN to come to this debate forum and specifically THIS particular thread in order to debate this subject. Therefore, accusations of anyone of preaching to you and 'guilt-tripping you are ridiculous.

Even though this was directed at Praxius I'll take a stab at this myself...

as far as religious people go I respect JW['s and Mormons far more than your typical Catholic or Protestant...they may be annoying but they at least practice what they preach...and it takes a lot of guts to for these young kids to leave home on a two year ministry in another city when they know 98% of the doors they knock on are going to have your attitude toward them...where is your compassion and understanding for them?

as for debating the subject...that is exactly what we have been doing...by contrast you and a couple others haven't been debating the topic but rather have spent a large portion of your time attacking people's character...

on both fronts you are far off base...

the fact is, although you'll swear it isn't true, rocks are not plants, plants are not insects, insects are not animals, and animals are not humans...

you've spent the majority of your case, when you weren't attacking people's character that is, comparing apples to oranges...

yes humans are animals...but we're as different from an anteater as an anteater is to an ant.

[inri]

Quote by: Praxius Pain and suffering is once again subjective. We respond to stimuli in much the same way. Just because you identify one stimuli as pain or pleasure doesn't change what it is..... An Electrical Response to Stimuli Whether or not a plant's stimuli fits into your subjective understanding of pain and pleasure is irrelevant.... the fact remains is that the respond in very much the same way as we do and their bodies react appropriately to those stimuli's as we do.

the belief that animals feel pain and are capable of suffering is backed by science. The Belief that plants are capable of suffering is not.

Continually trying to revolve your entire defense around subjective terms only shows the equally weak side of the vegan argument.

Revolving yours around facts that have no scientific basis does not make your argument a strong one. Plants have been shown to react to stimuli...it is a HUGE jump to say that they therefore are capable of suffering.

Thus, I'll continually trivialize animals' suffering, regardless if you think it's irrefutable. You can not acknowledge one and ignore the other simply because it doesn't suit your subjective beliefs without being a hypocrite.

If we base our beliefs upon current scientific knowledge, then Yes, we can acknowledge one and ignore the other. There is currently no sound scientific proof that a plant is capable of suffering.

Really? They sure seem to give birth pretty easily, they sure seem to not have a problem with getting into fights with one another, cut each other up badly, break bones, etc. Yet a human will scream bloody murder and cry out during any of those examples.

Science has long ago proven that animals can and do feel pain....however,those with high empathic ability do not need science to tell them something that is fairly obvious.

Animal suffering is in no way similar to human suffering, and could easily be summed up by responses to stimuli, just like plants, if one was so inclined to sum up...... which I do.

In no way similar to human suffering? Animals cry out in pain, physically attempt to 'move away from' painful or unpleasant circumstances, exhibit increased respiration and heart rate.....AND possess a brain/nerve system that allows them to be conscious of such...sounds pretty similar to me.

"Most vegans I know use the 'gentle education' method of getting their point accross" ^ Really? By calling everybody else who doesn't follow their way of life murderers, uncaring, have no understanding of compassion or empathy, that vegans are somehow superior and anybody who eats meat are destroying the world?

A debate is different from general day to day life and day to day socializing.

Hardly silly.... when you and others come on here talking up one side as being "Superior" as you put it, and basically making any other view out to be heartless, having no understanding of compassion/empathy, basically stating the vegan way of life is the only way of life and all others are out-right wrong..... that's what I would consider as "Imposing" because it's a "My way or the highway" mentality. And that type of mentality isn't usually up for questioning or accepting differing ideas..... such has been proven already on a number of occasions in the last few pages alone.

I'm simply stating my opinion/assertion that under my value system (therefore yes, it is a personal/ subjective opinion...a kinder more compassionate, more integral person IS superior to someone who is less compassionate.

Put simply...Was Gandi a superior person to Hitler? Of course. Clearly these are extreme examples, but if we value basic kindness towards sentient beings, these extreme examples work well to illustrate how 'more kind' is better than 'less kind'.

We may disagree about whether or not killing an animal for food preference is cruel or not...But surely we can agree that killing an animal purely for this purpose IS NOT a kind act.

Maybe the reason why it's so difficult of a lifestyle to follow is because it's a lifestyle we're not supposed to follow in the first place. You yourself said that you felt desires and a want to continue to eat meat and gave up on the whole thing.... is that a personal choice or your natural instincts driving you?

I said nothing of the sort. I am a long time 'vegetarian,' whose spent many years as a vegan. I currently am having trouble completely giving up cheese...as in pizza....therefore I am not currently a vegan.

The reason why the vegan way of life requires a lot of dedication and hard work is because they are using their emotions (whether they're right or wrong) to over rule their instincts and logic.

There are some who never struggle at all with this choice. Perhaps those with superior levels of empathy, simply have little taste for animal product. Using our emotions (our empathic abilities) to rule over our instincts is simply part of being human if you ask me. I don't believe vegans put their logic on suspension at all....If someone is feeling empathy, it is logical to attempt to act accordingly. Vegans use their logic in tandem with their empathy to come to the conclusion that it is wrong to actively cause the suffering of another sentient being.

If the vegan way of life was the right way of life, then why was it so hard to stick with it?

Many of us have been tainted by a diet introduced to us when we were very young children. Eating animal product has become a habit for many. Peoples of differnt cultures have trouble changing their diets to include different spices and flavors when they move to a different region, for the same reason. I'd imagine if you asked someone who'd been vegan their entire life, they'd tell you they have absolutely no taste for animal product.

And just because someone holds a lot of devotion to a paticular cause or principle/belief, doesn't somehow make them right in what they're doing. Some people believe the devil or god is telling them to go and kill people or to sacrafice a lamb, etc..... and they do it because of how much devotion they hold to those beliefs..... does this make them right?

of course not...Most of us however, do uphold and value basic tenets of kindness towards others. When a cause/principle/belief is hinged upon acting with compassion, there is little room for error.

I don't think there's many people that would argue that kindness is not 'better' or 'more right' than cruelty.

Then stop jumping back to your superiority complex and flawed arguments on who holds the better morals, and you won't have to worry about the tit for tat. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you.

Oh, I wasn't complaining...merely making an observation.

[inri]

Quote by: Diogenes Even though this was directed at Praxius I'll take a stab at this myself... as far as religious people go I respect JW['s and Mormons far more than your typical Catholic or Protestant...they may be annoying but they at least practice what they preach...and it takes a lot of guts to for these young kids to leave home on a two year ministry in another city when they know 98% of the doors they knock on are going to have your attitude toward them...where is your compassion and understanding for them?

Holy...Off topic!!

as for debating the subject...that is exactly what we have been doing...by contrast you and a couple others haven't been debating the topic but rather have spent a large portion of your time attacking people's character...

I have not attacked anyones personal character here. When discussing issues that have a moral basis behind them, the general character of each group is quite likely to come into play. When one group is saying that their actions are not unkind, and another believes they are, judgements are going to be made. IN a debate about vegetarianism, morals and ethics are bound to come up.


For all I know, the individuals debating here are full out vegans and are simply playing the devils advocate in debating the other side. I'm a firm believer that personal attack is completely unnecessary while debating...and that even personal stance can be irrelevant.

the fact is, although you'll swear it isn't true, rocks are not plants, plants are not insects, insects are not animals, and animals are not humans... you've spent the majority of your case, when you weren't attacking people's character that is, comparing apples to oranges...

Could you please show me a case where I've attacked a debator's personal character? The way in which animalsl suffer is not going to be completely the same to how humans suffer, however, it is similar. A plant...not so much.

yes humans are animals...but we're as different from an anteater as an anteater is to an ant.

Yet, we are alike enough, that those with high empathic capabilities are able to see an animal suffering and 'feel' for it. Once again, empathic ability is not the same in everyone. Those who do possess low capabilities in this area will likely be unable to understand completely how it truly feels to empathize with others. Clearly some are more able to extend their empathy to animals than others. If this ability is very low, and the individual has reached adulthood (some studies suggest that empathy can be enhanced in childhood through specific teaching) it will likely remain so...therefore, if someone simply cannot 'see' suffering where it exists, they likely will not ever.

[Cruella]

Comments about the posters have no place in reasonable debate, can you all ensure that you're sticking the topic of vegetarianism before you make any more comments, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[inri]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Except that by saying that a human is doing the suffering makes all the difference in the world. If I go Joker and set up a scenario in which you, as batman, have to choose between a baby being dropped in a pit of flames and a beef cow, you'll let moo moo fry every time. That's because you are speciesist and value human life and suffering over all other animals, all people who are honest with themselves do (barring any mental illness) Once this step is taken, it's simply a matter of asking whether animals are expendable for human purposes, and most people by far reply yes.

I agree, most humans will save a human life if it came down to choosing one over the other. Our empathic systems are set up to recognize suffering that is similar to our own. In young children, it's around the time they can recognize themselves in the mirror that empathic abilities begin to occur. Generally,Those who are capable of empathizing with animals have empathic systems that are highly developed to include those who do not perfectly resemble us....animals.
It rarely, if ever comes down to a scenario such as what you've described. Choosing to take the life of an animal for a mere food taste/ preference is very, very different from taking an animals life to save a human life.

Are the lives and well-being of animals expendable for mere human preferences? Vegans say no.

[Diogenes]

Those who are capable of empathizing with animals have empathic systems that are highly developed to include those who do not perfectly resemble us....animals.

Or...they are abnormal in their empathy...more is not necessarily better...in fact too much empathy can be just as harmful as not enough...it can cause abnormal thinking, self-delusion, even violent outbreaks...

case in point...abortion clinic bombings and militant animal rights groups...

[inri]

Quote by: Diogenes Or...they are abnormal in their empathy...more is not necessarily better...in fact too much empathy can be just as harmful as not enough...it can cause abnormal thinking, self-delusion, even violent outbreaks... case in point...abortion clinic bombings and militant animal rights groups...

Clearly someone who is capable of harming one being for the sake of another is not exhibiting a well-developed ability for empathy in general, or a high level of integrity. If someone sees nothing wrong with killing several human beings for the sake of saving others, he is ignoring the needs of the one group, doing them harm for the sake of the other. If I think it's okay to kill a human in order to rescue an animal, (as in the case of a militant animal rights activist) I'm cleary lacking in empathy for the human. My empathy is therefore very limited, one sided. I do not denote this as someone who has superior empathic ability.

As in the example I gave earlier re: Hitler. He was apparently a vegetarian (possibly for ethical reasons?) yet he did not extend these same kindnesses towards humans. He may have cared about animals, yet he was clearly NOT a person I (or many) would call superior because of his lack of empathy/sympathy/kindness towards humans.

The indicator of an individual with high empathic ability and integrity to those empathic feelings, is generally a desire to avoid doing to harm to anything capable of experiencing suffering.

those with very high empatic abilities & high levels of integrity to act will see and acknowledge suffering 'wherever' it actually is,...thereby making it very unlikely they'd harm anything capable of feeling pain or suffering.

Most vegans I know extend the basic kindness of 'doing no harm' to animals and humans. ie; they would never engage in an activity that directly caused suffering or death to a human...many also extend their compassion far pst this basic level, actively 'helping' humans and animals alike. A person who has a general ability to strongly 'feel the pain of other's, does not pick and choose who to empathize with. When suffering is seen, it is felt.

So, you believe that being 'too' kind is a negative thing, a human abberration.. being that most humans highly value kindness and integrity you'll likely not have much agreement.
As I've said, my assertion that: humans who have high empathic abilities and who act with high levels of integrity, Are superior, is a personal value judgement...an opinion of my own, (that happens to be shared by many).

[Diogenes]

So, you believe that being 'too' kind is a negative thing, a human abberration.. being that most humans highly value kindness and integrity you'll likely not have much agreement.

How you threw ' integrity ' in there was amazing...why not throw in honesty, nobility, charity, etc etc etc

why not stick to your basic assumption of kindness...

not sure what world you live in but kindness in this world is not highly valued...in fact someone who is too kind, too nice, too amicable is often seen as an odd-ball, and is often used and taken advantage of...

which doesn't gel with your assertion that overt excessive kindness is superior...as those who are overtly excessively kind often become the go-fers of the world...the people-pleasers...

kindness in itself is useless without the constraints of common sense...

a rational mind knows when kindness should be applied and when it should be withheld...

granted, I agree, we'd all be a lot better off in a loveydub world of overtly kind people...but that world does not translate to reality...nor does it suggest a superior being...

the superior being is one who uses common sense.

[inri]

Quote by: Diogenes How you threw ' integrity ' in there was amazing...why not throw in honesty, nobility, charity, etc etc etc

Because when empathic feelings are strong enough...we are 'moved' to act with integrity (act in accordance with our feelings). The other words you threw in do not necessarily apply here. Although, an an empathic person might demonstrate any one of them through his 'integral acts'.

why not stick to your basic assumption of kindness...

Strong feelings of compassion generally result in acts of kindness (acting with integrity towards our empathy/sympathy). empathy and integrity combine to form 'kindness'.

not sure what world you live in but kindness in this world is not highly valued...in fact someone who is too kind, too nice, too amicable is often seen as an odd-ball, and is often used and taken advantage of...

I don't know....... such people as Mother Theresa, Gandi, the Dalai Lama etc. (all wonderful examples of exceptionally empathic/integral human beings) seem to have a pretty good reputation throughout the world.

which doesn't gel with your assertion that overt excessive kindness is superior...as those who are overtly excessively kind often become the go-fers of the world...the people-pleasers...

There's a difference between honoring your empathic feelings and being walked on. However, it is often this fear of being 'taken advantage of' that plagues those who are less likely to act in compassionate ways...and it is likely this belief that allows them to feel okay about not 'feeling' more for and acting in kindness towards others.

If someone is truly honoring their feelings to act kindly, then being a go-fer or people pleaser would not bother them at all....usually these kinds of people though are not honoring their feelings of empathy, but are acting in ways they believe will cause others to like them...therefore, low self esteem is actually at the core.

Being an empathic/integral preson does not mean putting others before yourself. As I've said before all normal humans have a natural desire to self preserve. Putting others needs at equal or similar to equal level is really all that's necessary to act without the type of selfishness that most of us deem as negative.

In the case of those who hold to the basic kindness of doing no harm....no specific action even needs to be taken.... All that is to be done is to 'avoid' taking action that will harm another.

a rational mind knows when kindness should be applied and when it should be withheld...

And this will vary for each of us according to the level of empathy we feel, how motivated we feel to act. It would be truly stupid indeed for a man to ignore an empathic reaction that tears him up inside and choose to take no action, or attempts to ignore it, for our self-esteem and self-worth hinges upon our own opinion of ourselves.

granted, I agree, we'd all be a lot better off in a loveydub world of overtly kind people...but that world does not translate to reality...nor does it suggest a superior being...

And you have illustrated my point here very nicely that not all humans highly value the traits of kindness. Clearly then, you will not agree that empathy combined with integral action (kindness) denotes a superior human being. This makes perfect sense.

the superior being is one who uses common sense.

Kindness and common sense are not mutually exclusive.

[Diogenes]

I don't know....... such people as Mother Theresa, Gandi, the Dalai Lama etc. (all wonderful examples of exceptionally empathic/integral human beings) seem to have a pretty good reputation throughout the world.

I take it you mean Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama...of which only Gandhi was a devout vegetarian...

in fact the Catholic Church has at times condemned vegetarianism as the Bible clearly illustrates that animals are meant as food...how you would even come to the conclusion a devout Catholic would be a vegetarian when the Church clearly opposes it is beyond me...you must be getting your facts off of militant veggie sites...

and Gandhi was not a vegetarian for the sake of kindness to animals but for self-mortification as all Indian mendicants practiced throughout time...giving up meat was like giving up a house, a car, etc...it was part of the dis-associative process of removing yourself from the world...

not only did you spell their names wrong you obviously don't know very much about them...

so, you referred to them as ' wonderful examples of exceptionally empathic/integral human beings ' but by what you've said to date, these three people would be inferior beings...

you should make up your mind.

This is from his own website...

His Holiness's kitchen in Dharamsala is vegetarian. However, during visits outside of Dharamsala, His Holiness is not necessarily vegetarian.

A Routine Day of HH The Dalai Lama

he is fond of veal by the way.

From his Readers Digest interview...

Dalai Lama: [Laughs.] In the early 1960s, I became a vegetarian, and for almost two years I remained a strict vegetarian. But then I developed hepatitis, and I returned to my previous diet; for a while it would be vegetarian one day, nonvegetarian the next. My kitchen is now totally vegetarian. But that doesn’t mean I am completely vegetarian, for when I visit places, occasionally I take nonvegetarian…that seems to help reduce the size of my stomach.

Love, Laughter & Good Karma

he also owns an air rifle which he uses to scare hawks...

oooooooooooo, so horribly unkind.