Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

Paragraphs are your friend.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin LOL! Yes, always convenient to ignore that which can`t be handled. lol.

Yes, just like you ignored my equation of your to Stalin :rolleyes:

Quite simple stating the obvious. Values do change over time, though, whether you are able to admit it or not.

But with emancipation of slaves, the people who imposed it were those who wouldn't be negatively effected by it. For this to happen, they would have to be fine with the restriction of meat and animal products - Something which most citizens will not be able to give up.

I haven`t read any news reports of police arresting someone because they forced someone to eat a vegetarian meal at a restaraunt or put a gun to someone`s head saying, "be a vegetarian or I will kill you." I think you are confusing the terms "lobbying, persuading, campaigning" with the term "force" -- like you did with "value" and "truth," and as Kubedawg pointed out to you about the details of "production" and "slaughter."

Ok, I'm sick of this bullshit. I have not confused any words, I merely assumed you were being relevant when you mentioned Ghandi, and as it turns out, you were not. Stop mentioning it, and stop flame baiting.

What would be the consequences of disobeying your proposed restriction of meat? Jail?

That is force, buddy. The fulfillment of your desires would lead to imposing your opinion onto others, which would, in that act, be favoring animals over humans.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then they talk to you, then you win. Looks like your thoughts are in the stage 2 area of the procession. No matter where they are the vegetarian and AR movment continues to pick up momentum. Just look around at the news and statutes on the laws and the court cases being brought on behalf of animals in their own right seperate from objects of ownership.

I'm not ignoring your movement. I'm ignoring your tangential comparisons to abolition.

Kind of nice how history has a way of cyclicaly repeating itself or sits there as a blue print for future generations to guide them.

Why are people so confident that their movement won't fail after only looking at the prominent ones that didn't fail?

Movements fail. Yours fits into a criteria of one that will fail.

[Gods_Mercenary]

And History does not have real cycles, common themes exist, but you can't use it as a Blueprint.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Quite simple stating the obvious. Values do change over time, though, whether you are able to admit it or not.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 But with emancipation of slaves, the people who imposed it were those who wouldn't be negatively effected by it. For this to happen, they would have to be fine with the restriction of meat and animal products - Something which most citizens will not be able to give up.

Kamehameha, look at my quote above. If values change over time as I have stated then obviously I am referring to the general population which would be willing to accept restrictions on meat -- hence your reply "most citizens" is not the case in the construct.

Ok, I'm sick of this bullshit. I have not confused any words,...

Yes, you have. Three times. Four now, if we consider your confusion for a general change in values over time by the population not meaning "most" in the construct above. Besides not understanding word usage, you have trouble dealing with constructs. If you are sick, take some medicine, and if I were the doctor, I would prescribe a "dictionary."

What would be the consequences of disobeying your proposed restriction of meat? Jail?

What are the consequences if someone eats a human or presently an animal not permitted to be killed and eaten?

I guess the penalty would have to be severe enough to reasonabley deter someone from doing it. But, if in a democracy the laws are derived from the general public, then the majority would not violate them. But all that will only come with evolving values as I have already stated.

Though, there will always be the lawbreakers. Even today people still kill each other, and a few amongst those seem to have a liking for human flesh.

That is force, buddy. The fulfillment of your desires would lead to imposing your opinion onto others, which would, in that act, be favoring animals over humans.

See? This is a good example of what I mean when you are not comprehending words. If values evolve over time so that the general public enacts the laws that correspond to their beliefs and values, then it would not be me forcing anything on anyone. It all depends on values evolving. Why can`t you comprehend what I am saying here?

Could you please explain to me what "evolving values" and "general public" means to you. I want to confirm you are not confusing these as well -- like you have with the others.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm not ignoring your movement. I'm ignoring your tangential comparisons to abolition.

The Movement for Animal Rights is made up of many people who view the tyranny and exploitation of animals as slavery and the fight to abolish (the root of "abolition, abolitionist") it. By ignoring one of the cornerstones of the Movement and not addressing that, you are ignoring one of the forces that fuels the Movement. If you want to only look at the tip of the ice-berg and be ignorant to what lies beneath the surface, that is fine by us. Not understanding us fully makes it more likely the status quo will be defeated.

Perhaps you have never heard the phrase, "know your opponant well." If you do not know us well because you ignore our arguments (those which fuel us), how do you expect to blunt our momentum? We have been enjoying a wave of successes in the trend toward winning animal rights and winning more over to vegetarianism.

Why are people so confident that their movement won't fail after only looking at the prominent ones that didn't fail?

Because people are optimistic and people plan for success -- not failure. The hope for success is what keeps driving them.

The AR Movement propelled by vegetarians is a Movement to win reprieve from exploitation, protect integrity of body, and enshrine the principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. What other movement seeking those points have failed?

Movements fail.

Yes, some do, but the ones that have sought to address suffering based on the 3 points above have not failed.

Yours fits into a criteria of one that will fail.

LOL! Well, we will just have to wait and see. I am more than willing to leave that up to future historians. I will hope for something that ends exploitation, and you can hope against something that ends exploitation. I will be the positive optimist, and you can be the negative optimist.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary And History does not have real cycles, common themes exist, but you can't use it as a Blueprint.

The mechanics of past struggles are lessons and are used as blue prints to guide actions. Are you saying an embargo or blockade or boycott was only used once in history, the very first time, and then no one else saw the effectiveness of it and didn`t seek to adopt the same action?

The mechanics of struggles are embedded within the cycles -- or themes -- as you wish to use. Those are well worn blue prints throughout history.

[Cadre]

Is this real open dialogue and discussion, or mere argument to sharpen wit and banter?

Ask yourself that before you respond, and ensure that it is the former, otherwise we're just wasting our time here.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Cadre Is this real open dialogue and discussion, or mere argument to sharpen wit and banter? Ask yourself that before you respond, and ensure that it is the former, otherwise we're just wasting our time here.

It is the former, Cadre, but when someone answers with "I am sick of this bullshit," it deserves a reply for its inference.

You, too, should have thought about your question before you posted your sarcastic "lion population" situation. I didn`t view that as much real discussion.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Perhaps you have never heard the phrase, "know your opponant well." If you do not know us well because you ignore our arguments (those which fuel us), how do you expect to blunt our momentum? We have been enjoying a wave of successes in the trend toward winning animal rights and winning more over to vegetarianism.

Your "arguments" are ignorantly subjective.

Because people are optimistic and people plan for success -- not failure. The hope for success is what keeps driving them.

So ignorance. You could have used that one word to compress both of those sentences.

The AR Movement propelled by vegetarians is a Movement to win reprieve from exploitation, protect integrity of body, and enshrine the principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. What other movement seeking those points have failed?

Yours is the first to attempt to grant such a thing to mentally lesser beings.

Yes, some do, but the ones that have sought to address suffering based on the 3 points above have not failed. LOL! Well, we will just have to wait and see. I am more than willing to leave that up to future historians. I will hope for something that ends exploitation, and you can hope against something that ends exploitation. I will be the positive optimist, and you can be the negative optimist.

You speak of exploitation like it's a bad thing, which is a subjective view, in two respects.

• That exploitation is negative
• That animals deserve reprieve.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It is the former, Cadre, but when someone answers with "I am sick of this bullshit," it deserves a reply for its inference. You, too, should have thought about your question before you posted your sarcastic "lion population" situation. I didn`t view that as much real discussion.

No, you aren't debating about the subject, either. You are debating about how you think your movement isn't going to fail, to shift the focus away from the fact that your argument is completely unjustifiable with evidence, not just your subjective meanderings.

[Danzo]

Well personally, I think that being a vegeterian is great, since you're not supplying the demand to kill animals (Which I do believe to have souls:rolleyes:) and not eating anything too unhealthy. Of course, meat just tastes great, and in many cases is very good for you. I myself eat meat, and am unguilty although my stomach does churn when I think of the slaughtered cows and so on...

At the risk of sounding like a crazy lunatic and typing this just to be proven wrong by a stupid scientific theory, let me say that eating and drinking isn't even a need for life. Yes, I said it and I am sure that's worthy of being quoted and being put into the 'Stupidest posts on volconvo' thread, but I do mean it. For instance, there is a woman who lives in Arizona who survives solely on sunlight. These people are also called breatharians. I know few people will even consider such possibilities like not eating for several years, but there are people who have literally not eaten in that long. However, eating is just a simpler way to live life. Why complicate things when you can just live life conveniently?

[Kamehameha34]

Excellent point. Here's a cookie.

[Danzo]

Yes, I thought so. Humans have long since lost their interest in learning, gaining skill, gaining experience, doing things strategically, and purely for survival, and now they just do things for pure convenience. From whether or not being a vegetarian is good to how humanity has become over these cruel years... Quite off topic.

Again, I don't think it's too just and right to slaughter an animal and devour it as though it was made purely for you (Although you may believe that if your religion is like that) but I do it anyway. I am just bringing a point across, not giving my personal opinion. Do what tastes right... o_O

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Your "arguments" are ignorantly subjective.

lol. Easy to declare. btw, your statement, too, is "ignorantly subjective." Ha!

What I have noticed is your reliance on the "subjective" thing in other threads you post in. You seem to think everything is subjective. I think it was in this thread and perhaps it was Pahl who pointed out to you that to you reality does not exist for everything depends on the subjective view of another.

Yours is the first to attempt to grant such a thing to mentally lesser beings.

Fine. Being the first time does not make it wrong. We ARists are in great company with other respected persons throughout history who have felt it wrong to exploit animals.

You speak of exploitation like it's a bad thing, which is a subjective view, in two respects.

That is the point of The Equal Consideration of Interests when suffering and violation of integrity of body and freedom is in question.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, you aren't debating about the subject, either. You are debating about how you think your movement isn't going to fail, to shift the focus away from the fact that your argument is completely unjustifiable with evidence, not just your subjective meanderings.

I`ve already given you a list of a few objective observations that the argument is built on. Go back and take a look.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: Gregory Vegetarianism, what is the specific reason for it?

I became a vegetarian back in 1975 when I realized that the muscle tissue of mammals were very much the same. I felt canabalistic, it made me sick to think about it. So I stopped eating meat. Would you eat your retarded little brother?

Since then, there have been many "pro" reasons to sustain my belief in being vegetarian, and a couple of "con" reasons for not being vegetarian as well. But being vegetarian still has greater value for me than being omniferous.

Pro Vegetarian:
An animal in many respects are humans at a lesser stage of evolutionary development. Eating animals is very much like being canabalistic.

Cows consume 100 times their weight in vegetation to produce 1/2 their weight in edible meat. The food wasted on raising cattle could better be refined to feed people.

Cows and other farm animals produce a vast amount of methane every year which has a significant effect upon global warming. The methane holds the heat in.

Cows and other farm animals are fed human compatible hormones. These growth hormones influence the development of cancers, tumors, child development processes, reproductive systems, and the retention of fat. Ranchers mix chicken defication in with cattle feed to circumvent FDA regulations related to growth hormones given to cattle. In 1978 Puerto Rico babies and women were growing body hair and mustaches, men were going bald, cancer spiked,...eating chicken was shown to be the culprit. Even today, children who eat too much chicken will have reproductive problems.

The broad ranges of cattle and farm animal grazing has deminished the natural environment for wild animals to develop. Diversity in all species helps to protect ourselves from significant outbreaks of viral infections. For example, today, there are no genetically pure strains of corn found on the planet Earth. All natural species of corn have accidentally been contaminated and crossed with artificially produced hybrid corn. The result, a destructive vegetable virus could wipe out corn from the face of the Earth. Since all species of corn are now strongly related genetically, the same virus could kill all corn in a short amount of time. What kind of an effect would that have on the human population? No feed corn for cattle and other farm animals. No corn for humans. Think of all the products and food that depend upon corn.

...


Con Vegetarian:

We as humans depend upon high protein intake to sustain our ability to think. The brain uses proteins to form mental building blocks. A person with a very low protein uptake will have a poor memory. Soybean protein powder is a decent substitute. But meat with its protein and complex B vitamins makes being mentally healthy easy. A vegetarian must plan for their own future mental health.

A vegetarian must learn about combining certain foods in the same meal to be able to extract specific nutrient combinations.

As an example of vegetarian mental health. In India, the kids not only have to learn subjects in school, they must memorize the entire book; and they do. The native India population is largely vegetarian.

[brien]

SH: The fact that you intentionally confuse the debate by comparing animals to slaves and human beings is disingenuous. It is an obvious ploy to deflect from the real issue of the debate. My comment still stands true.

People who are vegans would probably force meat eaters to be vegans but those whom are carnivores would never force vegans to eat meat. It is a matter of tolerance and choice, both which would be denied by vegans with respect to carinvores. Vegans seem to have no tolerance for carnivores and if they could, would deny choice to carnivores as well. Carnivores offer choice and tolerance, therefore, I side with both choice and tolerance, and thus carnivores. Compare us to anyone you wish, but you can't deny the truth that vegans stand for intolerance and are anti choice.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Hi brien,

The analogy I gave you prior still stands. I know it is an ugly analogy, but the reasoning is solid and quite analogical.

Besides that, vegetarians know quite well that a vegetarian world will only come about once values change in the general public and then the public grants protection to other beings against the desires of others to exploit them.

It is just a matter of widening the circle of protection to include more beings in it. Sure, when that happens others in the previous status quo lose out on what they thought was their right -- such as slaveholders who thought it was their right to hold humans as property. The circle of protection was widened and the slaveholders lost out.

Sorry that the analogy bothers you. But the reason cuts across species. To say that reason stops at a certain species is disengenious and is in fact speciesism, built on the same reason as racism or sexism. Address the reason.

[brien]

Analogies don't bother me. Intolerance and anti choice does bother me. It is anti individualism that bothers me.