Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 26
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...Page 2 of 43    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
I will have to ask them where they get their B12 from then, as they look healthier than I do.
But then my diet is savoury pies, double stacked subs, and pizza.

I think the reason one of them does it is spiritual. She is a very conscious, and caring person.
As for my other friend, he is a pompous **** So I think part of the incentive is it is something he can feel proud about.
And he brags about it/pushes it on everyone too.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 5:50:22 PM
Maybe he has some dementia and memory loss, then. :)

There is a big difference between how some people adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and how others do. If you just take the typical American diet and eliminate all meat, you have a sub-standard, unhealthy diet, that can leave you feeling depleted and irritable from a lack of nutrients for your brain. B12 is a brain nutrient.

If you are going to eliminate an entire food group, you have to eat more consciously, and the remaining food you eat needs to be even more nutritious. (That usually means, fresher, less processed, and well-rounded.)

Many vegans know about B12 and take a supplement for this. But any person can benefit from taking B12 for their health and brain functioning. Just be sure to tell your Doctor about it if you are feeling unwell, because taking B12 can mask anemia that is caused by other diseases.

B12 is being used to treat memory loss, dementia, autism, ADD and is in supplements for people trying to enhance their intelligence.

The religious/spiritual reason for being vegetarian is based on observations by spiritual people for centuries. I think it has a lot to do with the hormones in the meat at the time the animal is killed for food. If the animal is unduly stressed at the time of death, or is unhealthy (and thus has inflammation, or immune system activity) then these hormones are in its body tissues when they are removed to become food.

The adrenaline (the fight or flight hormone) that is in the fearful animal is in the food you eat. We can produce all our own hormones ourselves, in our own bodies. We don't need them from animals. So if you are eating animal flesh, the hormones from the animal (and also any hormones that are given to the animal by the farmer, such as bovine growth hormone) are going to enter your body, and your body will have to adjust its hormones to that. If you are trying to meditate or are trying to hear "that still, small voice" they call the conscience, any hormones you have injested might interfere with that process of going within to seek a quiet source, or of seeing the subtle mysteries of life.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with trying to find a purpose in life beyond your own self-interest. Paradoxically, our species' ability to do this has helped us to survive because of our ability to cooperate with others in the same survival group. And expanding this to include those in the entire ecosystem could also help our species to survive long term. But trying to gain moral superiority by just claiming to be vegetarian is annoying, not spiritual.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 28
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 7:12:59 PM
>>>Vegetarians live longer

They don't live longer because of their diet, but rather because they observe their diet better than the average person- that they eat certain plants because it helps them balance their nutrients, as opposed to the average person who simply eats.

>>>I have heard that people can survive quite well on just coconuts for a very long time, though, and most (desert = tropical) islands have them, since coconuts float to almost any location.)

Don't twist the hypothetical to suit your needs. It wasn't a question of "would you survive on coconuts rather than eating meat"- it was "would you die for your ideals, or would you eat meat"

>>>I became a vegetarian after taking a philosophy class where we were required to read the book "Animal Liberation" by philosopher Peter Singer

I think thats horrible that your professor, in order for you to pass your philosophy class, forced you to be exposed to their politics. I think, in the effort to expose you to some ethics, your professor acted unethically.

>>>in the process of domesticating animals for food and in their upkeep, many animals suffer greatly from the conditions in which they are required to live until they are used for food.

And I believe that that is a message not against animal domestication, but rather a message against animal abuse. And alot has changed in the 35 years since that book has been written, too.

>>>A lot food that could be consumed by humans is wasted in the process of feeding it to the animals while they are being raised.

Thats a misconception spread by animal liberationists in an attempt to gain support by essentially maniplulating people- for instance, alot of the food fed to animals are completely inedible by humans.

Also, this concept assumes WAY too much- like in order for the feed to be given to the starving, that everyone would have to have equal ownership of the food to decide such a thing- otherwise, it would be left up to the farmer- and the farmer would offset the cost of feeding the animals to the increased profit they would make. Equally, alot of the land used for livestock isn't able to handle crops, and to convert these farms would costs hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars- and if the world rejects meat on that same day, the farmer would have no way to regain their losses. So what you are arguing would, in fact, create more starvation and malnuitrition, since both meat would become a rare commedity and less food would be able to be produced.

>>>We originally seem to have existed mainly on fruit grown high up in trees (where we were safe from other predators) and on vegetables we could forage, with a few insects thrown in for protein.

If what you're stating is our ancestors didn't eat meat, you're wrong. We are onmivores, and evolved from onmivores.

>>>Even carnivores don't usually kill food for sport or over-kill a species. That would remove the source of their food, and they are less adaptable than an omnivore is.

Neither morality nor concious thought has anything to do with that- they don't spare some animals and eat others to ensure there will be food next year- they do it because they are full, and content. Some animals, though, still hunt for sport- esspeically in their youth. And if given the chance, yes, animals will hunt other animals to extinction. This is nothing humanity is unique in doing. Hell, even herbivores will eat their plantlife to extinction if the opportunity arrises- thats why we have hunts, to keep the herbivore population in check with the plantlife population

>>>If they have benefited from being vegetarian, by feeling better, having better health, having something in common with other people in the nature of a club, or feel more passion in their lives for having a higher purpose beyond their own survival, then it would be ethically wrong of you to try to convince them to give up their convictions simply for your own comfort level.

Except for the health, couldn't the same results be achieved if they take up Heroin?

>>>In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with trying to find a purpose in life beyond your own self-interest.

I agree- but equally, I find nothing wrong with trying to living a life with your own interests in mind. Hell, I imagine that living for your own happiness rather than living through the happiness of others is a far greater moral action.





Also, I didn't post this earlier although someone mentioned it, but what the hell- this has already diverged into a general "Vegans suck" thread, so here is the Bullshit video that someone mentioned earlier;

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0exLa6saV9o
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAJ6-X7zvY&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3gpEyHWXqQ4&feature=related
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 29
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 8:32:19 PM
I agree- but equally, I find nothing wrong with trying to living a life with your own interests in mind. Hell, I imagine that living for your own happiness rather than living through the happiness of others is a far greater moral action.


Can you clarify what you mean by that?
I notice you are non-religious as am I.

I often felt that as a finite existence, everything I do in the name of serving my own happiness will ultimately be a wash when I kick the bucket. I really don't feel comfortable taking a finite amount of resources and wasting it away on a finite venture as my own existence. I still consume, but grudgingly.

My moral system has grown to an attitude attempting to embrace the following:
The less I can depend on to get by...
The better I can use awareness to find the benefit and potential in all things...
The better I can use intelligence and creativity to take something and make of it 10-fold...
The better I lived.

I've gone far off-topic. lol
And yes, if everyone embraced these things our economy would drop dead in days.
 SierraBeth
Joined: 12/29/2008
Msg: 30
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 8:57:36 PM
Often wonder how much traveling PETA types have ever done. I ask because if you live as your ancestors have for centuries in Artic areas, you better eat animals if you expect to survive. Same with desert inhabitants who cannot grow crops, but who must rely on milk, and animals for food.

And if we are really honest and have had any basic biology class we know that even plants have 'life' forms that in some way can sense irritation like a plant that closes up when touched. Heck look at meat eating plants. Are they considered evil by PETA?

And if you listen REAL close does a carrot cry when its pulled from the group?

And as for vegetarians being healthier, that all depends on who they are. As an example SDA (Seventh Day Adventist) have longer healtheir lives in part to being vegetarian. But they also get more physical exercise, dont drink coffee etc, and strive to be stress free, dont smoke.

Whereas some vegetarians I have known, stopped eating meat etc, but got unhealthy loading up on high fat, high sugar, high calorie junk/processed foods.
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 31
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 9:07:58 PM
Why not just let Vegans, et al. just be as they are. At least the ones who let us meat eaters alone.
We may fundamentally be the same, and constitute a single expansive resource, but spreading redundant behaviour across the board would be a waste of our potential. Let's just accept our diversity.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 32
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 9:45:32 PM
>>>Why not just let Vegans, et al. just be as they are. At least the ones who let us meat eaters alone.

Simply being Vegan, perhaps, although not all Vegans hold that live and let live attitutde- but PETA supporters? They clearly do not want to leave meat eaters alone. They want meat eating abolished, and all animals to be liberated. They are abundantly clear on this.(and it gets worse the more extreme groups you look into- like ALF and ELF, who openly support arson and violence against those who disagree with their beliefs)

>>>but spreading redundant behaviour across the board would be a waste of our potential.

And completely ignoring the fact that many of these peoples beliefs are based on ignorance and emotionalism? At the end of the day, why shouldn't we openly discuss and debate the pros, cons, and misconceptions of both lines of thought?
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 33
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 10:15:04 PM
I just noticed this topic became more about attacking the message, rather than the medium.
Generalizing Vegans into whack-a-doos.
I have no problem with their message. I simply don't subscribe to it.
There is more behind the cause of an antagonistic PETA mentality than simply the message.
Let's attack that. lol
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 34
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 10:25:21 PM
Not at all. But you cannot deny that the mindset exists, either. I certainly do not assume that anyone here subscribes to the PeTA belief, but lets be honest- PeTA is the largest Vegan group in existence- the second and third largest groups, on the other hand, are considered terrorists by the FBI. Is it really insane to believe the largest organsations for vegans and vegetarians....represent vegans and vegetarians?
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 35
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 10:39:56 PM
PETA appeals to vegan/vegetarian pride, and it excels in trying to justify radical action and escalate prejudice against others.
But to me there are many organizations across the globe, that do the same, and unfortunately taint the very people they claim to represent.
Pride, prejudice and the radical actions that result from it, sucks balls!
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 36
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 11:16:35 PM
You can't use a rationalization based off of ignorance. That's how the fish die.. they suffocate. As soon as the fish comes out of the ocean, they suffocate. Besides, we are what is called a consumer. And as a heterotroph, we engulf other beings. It's the fact of life. In order to survive, something else has to die.

Btw, did you know that plant life is very similar to human life as well? They have DNA, organ's, cell's.. In effect, they are a living entity. You are killing something in order for yourself to survive. Even if you are killing an autotroph, you are still killing a producer since you are a consumer.
Did you know if you swim in the ocean and accidently take a drink of the water, you are consuming animal life? They are microscopic, but they exist and they move around. You are ingesting Amoeba's, bacteria, and other very small animals as well. Your body also kills those animal's.

When you eat something, those particles turn into human cell's by energy transformation. All you are eating are a bunch of molecules that make up plant life and animal life as well. By being a vegetarian, you are limiting yourself to an unnatural state of being. This state greatly effects the amount of energy your body gets. We are omnivores, not carnivores or herbivores. Start acting like it.

Mona
has god spoken to you directly? Do you hear a voice in your head? If not and if you only believe what you read in the bible, then has it ever occured to you that men wrote the bible and God didn't? Were you also aware that there was a committee to accept certain gospels into the bible?
Were you also aware that the bible condones selling your daughter to slavery and sexism? God says both are ok, thus they both must be ok! He also says anyone who is disobedient to their parents should be put to death. Next time your kid acts up, I expect you to stone him otherwise you arn't following god's "infallible" code of conduct.
 rogerrabbitrr
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 37
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 11:26:50 PM
"Generalizing ....into whack-a-dos"

Implicit within PETA mentality is the idea that animals are to be given a higher status on this earth than traditionally accorded. I believe society has devalued human life and hence animals have thus been elevated by human’s decline. Therefore we see politically correct support for the little creatures.

Often it is the same people who advocate animal rights also preach against violence and war. Unbeknownst to these folks are dynamics that follow when animals and humans are given the same relative value. This misguided fanaticism actually furthers violence against humans in the long run.

Human beings are the most valuable thing on this earth. Accordingly due care should be given to the environment (including animals) to protect human life. Philosophies that by intent or unintentionally diminish the value of human life are actually a several thousand year step back for humanity.

wack a do wack a do
when the dream..comes true.
We'll all be drinkin' free bubble-ubb,
Eatin' that rainbow stew.

Eatin' rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
Underneath that sky of blue.
All be drinkin' free bubble-ubb,
An' eatin' that rainbow stew.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 38
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 10:45:33 AM
>>>Pride, prejudice and the radical actions that result from it, sucks balls!

Granted, but what can anyone do about it? If all the average person hears about vegan and vegatarianism is how the largest and most active vegan and vegatarian group advocates fire bombing, and spends millions of its budget in publicity stunts rather than helping hurt animals, they're going to get the implication that they represent vegans and vegetarians.

The answer clearly is vegans and vegartarians must get active, not to support fire bombings and intolerance and violence towards others- they must work together to fight to dismiss the hatred eaten sects of PeTA, of ALF, of ELF to defend their beliefs. Vegans and Vegatarians allowed these organsations to reach prominance through a gross maniplulation of their message- if you feel these people don't represent the belief, only Vegans and Vegatarians can resist it.

If the only active christian organsations were people like the Westboro chuch, people would make the obvious conclusion that christians were hate filled intolerants- this is the same situatuon- its only when vegans and vegaritarians themselves object and oppose these organsations, and condemn them for as the intolerant hate filled groups that they are will you get the progress you speak of.

And they are the intolerant ones- make no mistake- you don't see people protesting stores that, on moral grounds, refuse to serve meat, but you DO see people who, on moral grounds, demand that places like KFC and McDonalds stop serving meat. You don't hear about people breaking into labs and setting them on fire because they believe their "no animal testing" policy is immoral- You cannot say that Vegans just want to live and let live, when their most active organsations are clearly fighting to deny us of what we perceive as our right- and they are doing it through violence.

If vegans and vegartarians don't want to be represented by these organsations, they must organize . Otherwise, people will accept that these organizations represent them, and their goals are to deny people the simple freedom to eat meat or own a pet.
 rogerrabbitrr
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 39
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 12:29:49 PM
"The answer clearly is vegans and vegartarians must get active"
Rather smart intellegent and insidious strategy. Direct the propaganda to be acceptable to the mainstream and the lies become truth.

"Who controls the media, controls the mind
The more often a LIE is repeated, the more likely the LIE will become TRUTH to the majority"
George Orwell 1984
 TruthSeeker333
Joined: 4/29/2008
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 12:34:33 PM
There is no classification for what I am that is easily pronounced. I am a quasi-vegetarian who eats fish and seafood, but who does not do dairy or eggs because of food allergies. If it weren't for the fish, I would be vegan (aside from the leather and non-edible side of it).

I had several reasons for vegetarianism.

1. Health - As an experiment I tried to stop eating red meat. The difference in my health and feeling of wellbeing was so phenomenal that I never went back. I then tried with pork, same thing. I held off on the poultry for a year, but eventually gave that up too.

2. Spiritual Reasons - There are many arguments to the life of plants vs. animals vs. human beings. I look at it as levels of consciousness. I eat the animals that to me are the furthest away from us in the sense of consciousness, aside from plants.

3. Willing to Do the Dirty Work - We are so far removed from where our food comes from, my goal has been to try to buy locally as much as possible, and grow some of my own food. We as Americans, who are priviledged with grocery stores, really have little knowledge of where our food comes from and what it took to get it there. Most people have little knowledge of the practices of factory farms and the gruesome conditions the animals often experience. If Americans had to kill their own meat, most would become vegetarians. So my decision was to only eat what I would be willing to kill myself. I have indeed cleaned and eaten many fish so therefore I feel justified in this respect.

4. The level of pain felt at slaughter. There is no doubt a fish feels pain, I have witnessed it myself or at least what seems to be pain. However, I do not sense much self-awareness in a fish. I also know that biologically they are said to have far less capillaries in their tissues than mammals or birds. When I kill a fish myself, I bless the spirit of the animal and thank it for sacrificing itself to give me life. Respect for all life is important to me.

So when organizations like PETA shout their messages, it IS damaging. It is intolerant in some ways, though I agree with some levels of their messages. They are put on a pedastal to laugh at and ridicule while the true values of the movement away from a diet dependant upon animal flesh is a noble one. It is one which requires a reinvention of the American way of cooking. It requires a real committment to learning other cultures practices because our cooking habits are dependant solely upon meat based meals. In America, to stay American and go Vegetarian is to fix a plate with mashed potatoes, corn, and green beans. :-) I know, I grew up in the heart of the Mid-West!

I have never faulted anyone for eating meat. I don't make jokes or harass people.
However, I have been the butt of ENDLESS JOKES about my lifestyle. Especially the heavy meat-eaters. They just either cannot understand, or are uncomfortable and quietly are threatened by my lifestyle and therefore have to continuously make fun.

The best part is trying to find something to eat at a family function in the Midwest which actually does not contain dairy or eggs, let alone meat!!!!!!

All in all, I respect the right of all peoples to do as they will. I do believe that man's consciousness is far in excess of self-awareness from an animals, but that does not mean that animals should have no respect. Respect vs. Rights.

We gave Corporations Rights as Individuals, and you all see how well that served us!

But really, the more compassion we have in our hearts for those creatures and the more respect that we can muster, the better relationship we will have with our environment and only positive can come from that improved relationship.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 41
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 1:17:05 PM
>>>Rather smart intellegent and insidious strategy. Direct the propaganda to be acceptable to the mainstream and the lies become truth.

No, I'm asking that those who disagree with the intolerant philosophy of PeTA, ALF, and ELF to stop letting them represent their ideals. By standing by and allowing these psychos to represent them, they are doing themselves a grave disservice, and really have no place to complain that people project PeTA's ideals onto Vegans in general when they allow these organsations to represent them.

>>>If Americans had to kill their own meat, most would become vegetarians.

And if Americans had to remove their own appendix's, most would continue life with them- if most Americans had to repair their own houses plumbling, most would set up an outhouse in the backyard. The "Its a messy job, so its better the job didn't exist" philosophy is a severly flawed one, of which numerous things in life people take from granted should disappear as well, if we are expected to live under such a philosophy.

>>>When I kill a fish myself, I bless the spirit of the animal and thank it for sacrificing itself to give me life.

Are you assuming the farmer doesn't equally act in that manner when ending the life of a cow, or a pig, or a chicken? I don't assume that all act in that way, but some may- why is it moral for you to kill fish so long as you respect the animal, but the farmer who respects his livestock when he kills it is immoral?

>>>It is intolerant in some ways

In some ways? In what ways is it not? You examined your life and made moral choices- and thats fine, because they are your own- but these people want the same freedom you coveted to make your moral choices in life to be illegal- that no one is allowed to slaughter animals for food, that no one is allowed to own a cow, a dog, or a fish(well,except for them)- They examined their morals and came to their own conclusions, and their conclusion is that no one should have the freedom and dignity to decide their own morals, but rather should be forced to accept the morals of others. And you say that it is intolerant merely in some ways?

There is no two ways about it- PeTA IS intolerant. Their entire organsation is based on not giving people the freedom to make the choices both you and I have chose.

>>>They just either cannot understand, or are uncomfortable and quietly are threatened by my lifestyle and therefore have to continuously make fun.

Can you blame them?

Do I have to put this in bold for you to comprehend what it is like from the meat-eaters perspective?

The Largest Vegan Advocatacy group exists solely to threaten the livestyle of anyone who is not a Vegan

People are threatened by PeTA because PeTA threatens them. And thats not even touching organzations like ALF and ELF, who are phsyically threatening and assaulting people and firebombing their property. A wonderful example is Ted Nugent- an avid hunter- who was told by animal rights activists that they would kill his children on the way to school because they eat pheasant.
 rogerrabbitrr
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 42
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 4:18:28 PM
"No, I'm asking that those who disagree with the intolerant philosophy of PeTA,"

If I understand correctly, you are saying you object to the MEANS employed to obtain the ENDS by PETA et al.

I agree with you regarding the MEANS. The point I'm trying to make is that consequences of the ENDS weather met by peaceful acceptable or violent unacceptable MEANS will be disasterous.

You don't seem to speak to that point or even agree to disagree.
 Bright1Raziel
Joined: 8/20/2005
Msg: 43
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 5:27:15 PM
My Vegitarian friend has just decided to go vegan part time. She is ging to be eating vegan one week and loading up on vegatable nutrients and protiens the next, because she knows that she can not get a full and healthy diet from being vegan, but feels better health wise when she is.

And why are there so few vegitarian men? In my expierance it seems like around 80% of vegitarians are women and I haven't met any vegan men yet. Is this common?
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 44
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 10:13:57 PM
If the whole world was vegetarians, we would die of oxygen deprivation, imagine all the biomes ruined because the plants that produce the oxygen they rely on have been eaten up.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/16/2009 11:10:21 PM
Hehe...speaking of PETA and you nasty fish-eaters, have you heard about sea kittens?

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/

Yeah...they want to rename fish "sea kittens", and they are spreading propaganda to our children. Granted, I laughed and laughed until I didn't, but this is pretty twisted. Criticizing ideas because of the ludicrous assumptions they are based on isn't bad - people who take offense are people who can't take argument.

When it comes to survival, I'd eat whatever I could metabolize, period. If it was a human, I'd eat one of you vegans or PETA members first. A PETA member I'd figure out how to fry in fish oil, just to add insult to injury. I'd be a fat, full man on that island, eating sea kittens as often as I could!
 CheshireCatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 12:07:33 PM

No, I'm asking that those who disagree with the intolerant philosophy of PeTA, ALF, and ELF to stop letting them represent their ideals. By standing by and allowing these psychos to represent them, they are doing themselves a grave disservice, and really have no place to complain that people project PeTA's ideals onto Vegans in general when they allow these organsations to represent them.


How would the average vegetarian disassociate themselves from a radical organization? Billboards? Newspaper ads? A website? I never contracted with PETA to represent me, and I'm not a member, so your thought process doesn't compute.

Are you suggesting that by merely leading a vegetarian lifestyle one can be interpreted to bedfellows with PETA? Why cannot someone lead a quiet existence eating what they wish, as does truthseeker333, without someone else getting offended by it? I can’t see a single objectionable statement in his posting. Yet, for whatever reason, there are those folks who feel compelled to pick apart a thoughtful, non-offensive posting and pretend that a swarm of locusts may darken the sky and the rivers might run red with blood because someone avoids eating animal flesh.

Namaste.......
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 12:22:59 PM
I think that's a mischaricterization of his argument cheshirecatalyst.

Here's a question for you: what determines if an organization is "radical"? If their actions are extreme and on the fringe, right? Well, if that IS the case then he has a valid point, because vegans who express yours and truthseekers beliefs (moderates if you will), are in the MINORITY. Statistically speaking it is perfectly valid to assume that you are "bedfellows" with PETA. You support much of their dogma and ignore the rest.

Also, just because a posting is thoughtful and non-offensive doesn't mean that it should be held above criticism. Ideas which are not rational can be VERY dangerous, so its important that ALL ideas are subject to the same rigors of common sense and evidence that we would apply to anything in life. Wouldn't you rather know the truth of an idea rather than wallow in ignorance?
 CheshireCatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 12:45:31 PM
Seriously, you're telling me that "moderates" are in the minority? So, societies are generally made up of completely batsh!t crazy radicals? I'm beginning to doubt that we took the same Statistics classes in Uni........

So……….who is radical in this posting? I initially posted remarks that did not bash anyone, and I was confronted as a “hypocrit” (sic). Criticism is GOOD, attacking and bashing posts out of some misplaced sense of fear or misunderstanding is not.

I might also remind you that you very facetiously joked about frying up vegans in oil. Would you classify yourself as a moderate or a fringe element based on that remark alone?

I have to be honest here, that remark is not exactly the “gold standard” of moderacy now, is it?

Tootles......
 Kelley-1989
Joined: 11/20/2008
Msg: 49
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 2:02:29 PM
Your premise is totally false. People will eat to keep from starving.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 3:25:21 PM
Another mischaracterization of an argument cheshirecatalyst.

Let's break it down so we're clear:

-PETA is the largest vegan organization on the planet.
-When people make associations of vegans to a representative organization, are they going to associate them with the largest or the most moderate? I posit that they will go for the biggest and most active organization.

Now, that doesn't mean that all vegans are radicals, or even that MOST vegans are radicals, it means that they are associated with radicals, not with moderates. That's the point, and as a vegan I would think that you would want to consider that. This is the same thing as people assuming that Al Sharpton represents black america. Many people think this way - it may not be true, but nonetheless Al Sharpton is considered the "voice" of black america to many.

Bottom line: The voice that represents you to many is PETA, if you don't agree with their views and you don't think they are representative of "vegan culture" AND you want your version of vegan culture represented then you should speak out against the views that you don't agree with from PETA. You don't have to of course, but if you don't than PETA will continue to be the defacto voice for your version of veganism to the non-vegan world.

As for my jokes...they are jokes and whether you can base the content of my character on what I find funny or not is immaterial to your argument about vegans.

Toodles!
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...