|
|
|
|
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 4:26:50 PM | >>>How would the average vegetarian disassociate themselves from a radical organization?
Organize and Discredit them. If you do not believe the majority of Vegans follow their beliefs, prove it- make an organsation that doesn't fight simply for your morals but one that respects the right to choose your own morals
>>>Are you suggesting that by merely leading a vegetarian lifestyle one can be interpreted to bedfellows with PETA?
Yes- not everyone can know everything in the world- so anyone who is ignorant to Vegans and Vegetarians would be powerless to assume that the 3 largest vegan advocacy groups represent Vegans. It may not be true, but is it unreasonable that they would look to the loudest, most active, and largest organsations as a representation of the beliefs of Vegans?
>>>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
Could it be because I find an objectionable statement in his posting?
Of course you don't find anything objectionable in his remarks- you agree with him.
>>>pretend that a swarm of locusts may darken the sky and the rivers might run red with blood because someone avoids eating animal flesh.
I never made any such a claim. But there certainly are flaws in his logic that can be found- asking others to consider his beliefs based on logical fallacies and misconceptions isn't helping anyone | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 5:02:59 PM | Tomosama sayeth:
-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.
Why do vegans or vegetarians need an organization to represent them? Do you, as a person of apparent Hispanic extraction (according to your profile anyway), have an organization to represent you? Do you think that everyone must have a special interest group to represent them? That’s where you logic first starts to get really faulty. Plus, you want to politicize an individual’s diet where it’s not necessary.
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.
Well, let me starting by correcting an assumption on your part - I’m not a vegan. The simple declaration that I eat fish would preclude that. You are incorrectly assuming that anyone who doesn’t eat meat is automatically a vegan - that is a mischaracterization on your part. I don’t consider any one individual to be the voice of black America, or Italian Americans, anymore than I consider Hamas to be the voice of all arabs. It also doesn’t enter my mind that all Hispanics or even some of them are illegal immigrants either. As an Hispanic person, I would think that you would want to consider that. Because, according to your logic, that would be a perfectly natural practice.
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.
The only words that represent me are the ones you are reading on this page. PETA exists whether I agree with their tactics or not. So does the Westboro Baptist Church, Scientologists, Branch Davidians, white supremacists, NAMBLA, George Bush and Ted Nugent. I don’t particularly like any of them, but we’ve got to pick and choose our battles. I don’t have the time or the inclination to organize a counter-measure for every single group I disagree with. Do you?
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.
No. My secondary argument is that individuals in this thread do not understand what is debate and constructive commentary, relative to an ad hominem. Boiling vegans - meh....... I’ve got an equally adolescent sense of humour myself, which I know you’ll appreciate. I think it'd be funny to suggest that you forgo the fish oil for your vegan-stir fry and use the oil in your hair instead? Whoop! Ouch! I kid, I kid! But I know that, because you can dish it, you can take it, right?
Jiperly sayeth:
Organize and Discredit them. If you do not believe the majority of Vegans follow their beliefs, prove it- make an organsation that doesn't fight simply for your morals but one that respects the right to choose your own morals
Organize? Why? Because YOU don’t understand something? Can I just not send them any money? Will that work?
Yes- not everyone can know everything in the world
From the mouths of babes…….
Tootles! | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 5:27:41 PM | LOL, much to much to quote cheshire!
Again, you missed the point...that was his argument, one I happen to agree with, and those were the basic claims being made.
-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.
Much of your argument is irrelevant because it does not address these particular claims. For example the necessity of such a representative organization is completely irrelevant because it EXISTS.
The fact that you are in fact some sort of fish-eating vegetarian is irrelevant - while I appreciate the correction this fact has absolutely no bearing on the claims made above.
As for your argument that is relevant to my second claim, That you disagree that representative organizations of a particular group do not speak for individuals, that is straw man, and largely irrelevant to my point. While individuals will often vary on particular beliefs individuals also generally generalize based on association. This is a fact, it's not a statement of absolutism but of generality, and it is a generally factual statement. Just because an organization doesn't speak for your individual beliefs doesn't mean that by virtue of those shared beliefs that you will not be judged and associated with that group by others. This isn't a choice, this is an inevitability of the human condition - generally speaking.
Which leaves us with your secondary argument, erm...which I don't necessarily disagree with. SURPRISE! I would agree that there are some who think they are clever because of their funny ad hominems, which are largely irrelevant to the topic. Wow...I used irrelevant a LOT in this thread... .
Tootles! | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 5:38:32 PM | >>>Why do vegans or vegetarians need an organization to represent them?
They don't- but that doesn't denounce the fact that they exist. If you disagree with how these people represent your beliefs, the weight is on your shoulders
>>>I don’t consider any one individual to be the voice of black America, or Italian Americans, anymore than I consider Hamas to be the voice of all arabs.
And do you honestly believe that everyone in the world shares your veiwpoint? I find it funny that you complain that we don't accept that all vegans don't think alike, but at the same time you equally assume the whole world thinks identically to you. Some people in the world look to organsations as a representation of the thoughts of how people in a sect believe- and in the case of Vegans, it just so happens that that role is taken by PeTA. If you don't like it, by all means, change it.
>>> Because YOU don’t understand something?
I understand it well enough. But you are the one complaining that people don't understand your beliefs, and they misconstru PeTA's beliefs as yours. The solution isn't demanding the world stop connecting vegans beliefs to a vegan advocacy group- its that you represent your own beliefs, rather than leaving PeTA to represent it. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 6:29:08 PM | Re: Post 28 Jiperly
Vegetarians outlast the general population by perhaps as much as ten healthy years."
--Michael Greger M.D.
The most data arises from a study of 1904 vegetarians over 21 years by the German Cancer Research Center (Deutsche Krebsforschungszentrum). The study's results:
Vegetarian men reduced their risk of early death by 50%
Women vegetarians benefit from a 30% reduction in mortality.
Research a Vegetarian diet
Medical research demonstrates that a Vegetarian diet provides protection against several diseases and the top three fatal problems in the United States; heart disease, strokes, and cancer. Those who follow a Vegetarian diet have fewer instances of death from heart disease. According to the latest medical research, Vegetarians run a risk that is 50% lower than that of meat eaters of developing heart disease. Generally Vegetarians have healthy cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and are less at risk for developing hypertension, diabetes (type 2), and colon and prostate cancer. Similarly, Vegetarians are at a 40% lower risk of developing cancer. Meat eaters are also 9 times more likely to have weight or obesity problems as compared to Vegetarians.
I put the reference to coconuts into parenthesis because it was intended a side-comment, not a twist.
Peter Singer's book was used in our Philosophy class as an up-to-date issue in ethics, not a way to promote politics---because at the time, PETA did not exist. PETA was founded in 1980. So I became a vegetarian before PETA existed, and so I was also not doing it for political reasons.
It simply wasn't a political issue at the time, it was more of a "lets adopt Eastern practices" kind of thing at the time. The health benefits had been well-known for decades before that in America because of the Seventh Day Adventists. And it had been promoted as a cure for mental illnesses in Sweden and Denmark before that, and was a spiritual-based practice in India for long before that.
Peter Singer is a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective.
In an article for the online publication chinadialogue Singer called Western-style meat production cruel, unhealthy and damaging to the ecology. He rejects the idea that the method was necessary to meet the population’s increasing demand, explaining that animals in factory farms have to eat food grown explicitly for them, and they burn up most of the food’s energy just to breathe and keep their bodies warm. That loss of total energy has been verified in multiple studies, and the Nov. 2006 UN FAO Report states as much.
If cows were still fed grass and hay then your "inedible by humans" would be true, but cows are given a lot of corn and grain--human food--because it makes them grow faster, and get to market quicker--so they don't have to be fed and watered as long, which is expensive.
We did evolve from omnivores (if you believe in evolution) that ate mostly fruit and vegetables. Apes were considered omnivores because they ate a small amount of insects. Not much meat.
You say animals will eat other animals to extinction. Well, they don't. They would have all killed each other off long ago, then, way before we even got here. Animal predators don't generally kill any more than they can eat in one session. If you mess with their ecosystem, like say, a volcano erupts and their hunting grounds shrink to almost nothing, well then, yes they might.
Heroin will not improve your health. Trust me.
And generally heroin will not be a valid higher purpose for someone. Unless you call addiction a higher purpose. Or you call selling addicting illegal drugs a higher purpose.
"Hell, I imagine that living for your own happiness rather than living through the happiness of others is a far greater moral action."
Living for your own happiness--by itself-- is not a moral action. It is usually just called survival. Morality generally implies at least the consciousness of other's existence and well-being. Living for your own happiness, is however, an economic principle of capitalism based on the concept of greed being used for the common good. Greed is generally considered a bad thing, morally, but is being utilized by a political system for its own purposes.
It is interesting to note that you started your sentence about living for your own happiness with the word "Hell." | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 7:24:44 PM | >>>(stats)
Still doesn't prove me wrong- Vegatarians live longer not because their diets are healthier- its because they keep a closer watch on what their diet needs- if vegetarians don't keep such a close watch on their health, they can quickly become unhealthy because only a few certain vegetables can offer the nutritional necessities that meat offers in large doses.
A person taking care of their diet can live long regardless of whether or not they eat meat. The key to a healthy and long life is control and moderation, not fruits and vegatables.
>>>because at the time, PETA did not exist.
But the idea that killing an animal to eat it as being immoral has been around for well over 2000 years. I am arguing your professor used a philosophy class to impose his morals onto the class.
>>>explaining that animals in factory farms have to eat food grown explicitly for them
Exactly- they are fed food not intended for human consumption.
Funny how you focused on only one issue I brought up, though- what about the fact that, in order for what you say to be true, it'd have to negate the entire concept of individual ownership, since at the end of the day its the farmers choice, not all of society? The only way what you say could work is if everyone owns the cow- communism- otherwise it would be up to the farmer, and they could choose to offset the cost of raising a cow by the increased earnings- their choice. And what about how not all land currently used for livestock could be replaced by crop farming?
One question that never seems to be brought up and is often ignored by vegatarians- what happens to the cow if your ideal world is accepted? Should the farmer bear the costs of raising such an animal for decades simply because the thought of him selling it for slaughter offends your morality(not his)? And what happens 100 years from now? All this talk of extinction doesn't negate the fact that vegatarians would rather have cows, chickens, and pigs go extinct than be raised for slaughter.
>>>We did evolve from omnivores (if you believe in evolution) that ate mostly fruit and vegetables. Apes were considered omnivores because they ate a small amount of insects. Not much meat.
But we did eat meat. Homo Sapains evolved into tribes of hunters-gatherers, who farmed, gathered edible plantlife, and, yes, ate other animals. You cannot white wash our history because you feel its better to push an agenda.
>>>You say animals will eat other animals to extinction. Well, they don't.
Yes, they do. For one species to cause another species to go extinct is an entirely natural process. It happens when there isn't enough predators to keep all animals in check. Are you actually living under the delusion that Man is the only animal to ever, ever cause another species to go extinct? There are more ways for an animal to go extinct outside of man and natural disasters.
>>>Heroin will not improve your health. Trust me.
I never said it would. I said the opposite is true. My point was that a person having common interests isn't always a positive thing- people having the common interest of heroin use being an extreme example.
>>>Living for your own happiness--by itself-- is not a moral action.
I disagree, but its completely irrelivant. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 7:31:09 PM | I'm sure we could go article for article forever, but here's an article from a "vegetable enthusiast that rather nicely sums up the scientific consensus along with some of they false assumptions that have been made in this thread.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/vegan.html
The best summary of the article is his conclusion, "I gave up vegetarianism because I found that commitment thereto meant surrendering the objectivity that is essential to the personal and professional integrity of a scientist. As a health educator, I feel I have an obligation to endeavor to stick to whatever unvarnished facts scientific research uncovers. I can support pragmatic vegetarianism, but I believe that crusading vegetarian ideologues are a danger to themselves and to society."
Many of the assumptions about the "benefits" of vegetarianism come from a confabulation of the actual data and what these studies actually demonstrate. Also...evolution isn't a belief...it's a scientific theory that has withstood the rigors of inquiry for about 2 centuries by scientists bent on finding a false premise. It is an accepted theory, the highest form of proof that we have in science, on par with the theory of thermodynamics, gravity, planetary motion, nuklear fusion, etc. etc. Sorry, bit of a soap box there, I just hate to see people trivialize some of the most important discoveries and advancements that the world has ever seen.
Also, animals can and have killed each other to extinction, it happens alot but thanks to natural selection, as you said, those animals that are fit to survive are the ones that can avoid extinction due to hunting. However, nature does this all the time - it isn't just humans. When a new species is introduced into an ecosystem, if that ecosystem is not prepared for it than it can wipe out competing plant and animal life within the area. In fact, this is one of the main problems that humans cause - introducing new animal populations.
However, humans are a part of the natural world, and the things we do are similar to other plants and animals. Humans modify the environment for their survival. So do beavers, moles, termites, squirrels, and plants. Humans kill other animals for sport. So do cats and dogs. Humans kill each other for various reasons. So do deer (very territorial), lions, birds, etc. Humans encroach on the territories/domains of other animals....do I even need to provide a counter example? We just happen to be good at all these things because of our ingenuity. We are a highly adaptive species, one step below bacteria.
Let's not romanticize things - the world can be brutal and we humans are just a few chromosomes away from many of the animals that we cohabitate with on this blue world of ours. We aren't much better, but we certainly aren't worse. You won't find a version of PETA in the animal kingdom, and if all humans were to be wiped out by our evolutionary superiors the bacteria, there isn't one species that would be trying to figure out how to bring us back. They're to busy trying to survive to care. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 7:55:03 PM |
>>>You say animals will eat other animals to extinction. Well, they don't.
Yes, they do. For one species to cause another species to go extinct is an entirely natural process. It happens when there isn't enough predators to keep all animals in check. Are you actually living under the delusion that Man is the only animal to ever, ever cause another species to go extinct? There are more ways for an animal to go extinct outside of man and natural disasters.
I'm curious as to which animal species (aside from Man) has caused another animal species to go extinct? Actually I'm not challenging this statement; I'm just not aware of an animal species that has caused another's entire extinction and am curious to know. The only threat of extinction that I'm aware of between one animal species and another has happened when an animal has been introduced into a non-native habitat...by Man...thus disrupting the balance of nature. In such a case the extinction would be a direct result of Man's interference.
So has there been evidence of one animal species, in it's natural habitat, that has caused another native species in that same habitat to go extinct? | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2009 8:24:37 PM | Off the top of my head I couldn't give you one, and that would be a tough one to research given your parameters.
This is a very difficult question to answer for even a non-lay person, think about it. You are asking for an example of a species that was not reproductively successful due to predation of non-human origin. The very nature of the question requires an environment and/or time without human influence but with sort of evidence that the creature was existed and then exterminated. Examples that fit this criteria must be inherently inconclusive, such as the Dire Wolf or the Saber Tooth Tiger, after all a lack of human influence implies an inability to directly observe. Really the only evidence I can give you is inference. Animals migrate to new territories. When humans introduce an animal to a new territory that animal either integrates, becomes extinct, or causes the extinction of another species (like the dingo v.s. the tasmanian wolf). As these things happen independently it is not far-fetched to assume that it is possible for them to occur at the same time in a given region causing the extinction of a species without the aid of humans.
Any other example I could give you will likely cause someone to point out in some way, shape, or form that humans are indirectly responsible. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/18/2009 12:32:17 AM | The OP's question is whether vegetarians are willing to let themselves go extinct to allow for fish and seals to survive.
If every vegetarian were to be faced with this dillema, and they were the type of vegetarian that became that way for moral reasons, (not just health reasons) then this philosophy--or rather--constraint, would succeed in doing what you want to be done to PETA. Vegetarians would go extinct. It is a non-survival based strategy. That only a human can or would do.
A scientist would say that any strategy that does not have survival as its most basic tenet is an un-truth. The mere existence of even one human who would give up their life for an animal is antithetical to that. And yet, in our city, someone just died last month going back into their burning home to rescue their cat. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/18/2009 1:54:04 AM | "I think that's a mischaricterization of his argument cheshirecatalyst. ..........
Also, just because a posting is thoughtful and non-offensive doesn't mean that it should be held above criticism. . "
Finally someone on this thread who understands rhetorical discourse and knows how to debate. Thank you Mr. tomosama!!!!!! Thank you Ms. Ideoform !!!!
The general jist of a lot of postings here focus on the unfairness of being stereotyped along with PETA. OK so you guys don't agree with everything PETA supports. That still doesn't prove your position as correct. Try supporting your position with logic & or reason and heaven helps facts. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/18/2009 8:38:16 AM |
But you are the one complaining that people don't understand your beliefs, and they misconstru PeTA's beliefs as yours. The solution isn't demanding the world stop connecting vegans beliefs to a vegan advocacy group- its that you represent your own beliefs, rather than leaving PeTA to represent it.
They don't- but that doesn't denounce the fact that they exist. If you disagree with how these people represent your beliefs, the weight is on your shoulders
I ‘m not obligated to take any action against PETA, anymore than I am obligated to take action against radical feminists simply because I am female. Similarly, I’m not accountable to explain away anyone’s faulty reasoning. Otherwise, I would have to give up my job and start wearing a sandwich board around town.......
I don’t carry water for PETA and neither have I ever given them a cent — but clearly this is the only strategy you have left. But making groundless claims of PETA worship is boxing a straw man. The devil’s advocate would say - why should PETA water-down their message if that is what they actually believe, just as radical feminists should not make their message more palatable because of some utilitarian argument about small goals versus larger, revolutionary ones.
I agree with PETA that humans should treat animals better in a broad sense, but PETA's extremist and often criminal actions make them as alien to moderate vegetarians as they are to meat-eaters. I’m also not obligated to take up the mantle for vegetarianism either, even if I had incontrovertible proof that, from a utilitarian perspective, it left a lighter footprint or guaranteed health. I’m not obligated to do so even though anecdotal evidence suggests that many people who adopt this kind of lifestyle find their lives to have greater meaning and purpose, compared to when they were not vegetarians or vegans.
You are within your rights as an individual to pollute your body as you see fit, and there is no moral responsibility for me to advise you otherwise from a broadly consequentialist perspective.
I'm sure we could go article for article forever, but here's an article from a "vegetable enthusiast that rather nicely sums up the scientific consensus along with some of they false assumptions that have been made in this thread.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/vegan.html
I think you would run out of articles before I would hehehe………. While this article started off fairly well, it disentegrated into a morass of information about Seventh Day Adventists - an extreme organization.
The evidence supporting healthful and or moralistic vegetarian diets is in abundance - from the Canadian Dietetic Association, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Center for Disease Control, and numerous philosophers, and so it goes. One might think that suffering and death is justified because we need to eat meat and other animal products, but, clearly, nobody needs to eat meat to survive. Vegans are direct proof of that.
You claim that our ancestors ate meat in order to survive and we've inherited their place at the top of the food chain. Ah, the good old naturalistic fallacy. Being natural or traditional doesn't make something legitimate. This is especially true about eating meat, because the context of dietary decisions has changed dramatically in recent years. Our ancestors didn't have access to modern soy protein, vitamin supplements, and the like. Meat was often their only option.
I’m also not sure what “evolution” per se has to do with vegetarianism. You do understand that the basic tenets of evolution are common descent, gradualism, selective breeding, natural selection, and genetic mutation. Not quite sure what eating vegetables or meat have to do with it other than to keep us alive long enough to propagate our genes.
And do you honestly believe that everyone in the world shares your veiwpoint? I find it funny that you complain that we don't accept that all vegans don't think alike, but at the same time you equally assume the whole world thinks identically to you. Some people in the world look to organsations as a representation of the thoughts of how people in a sect believe- and in the case of Vegans, it just so happens that that role is taken by PeTA. If you don't like it, by all means, change it.
If you are using critical thinking, you will arrive at the conclusion that you are applying a series of logical fallacies to your thought process. Otherwise, you’re falling back on the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy……
There are THOUSANDS of animal rights and vegetarian organizations throughout the world. The wiki entry on “Animal rights” includes far more references to Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Schopenhaer and ethics in general than it does references to PETA. In many universities, animal ethics is a required course for philosophy students, so if you’re in a philosophy stream, your professor WILL LIKELY LECTURE YOU ON ANIMAL RIGHTS, and it will be part of your education, rather than some sort of devious indoctrination.
The general jist of a lot of postings here focus on the unfairness of being stereotyped along with PETA. OK so you guys don't agree with everything PETA supports. That still doesn't prove your position as correct. Try supporting your position with logic & or reason and heaven helps facts.
Got it! In a sea awash with suggestions to boil vegans, and responses to simple anecdotal posts with cries of “hypocrite,” you would like to see facts……….
The proposition by the OP is reliant, for the most part, on the anecdotal experience. But I’m glad the message has been received and apparently understood, by way of example, that the aforementioned comments are not conducive to debate. Sad that I had to make a remark like that and attack him in a way that was not fun for me, in order that he see the point.
Be well.......... | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/18/2009 9:25:35 AM | *Sigh* Oh Cheshire....so many words to wade through ;).
You've made another mischaricterization, implying that we are saying you have some obligation. Au contraire, all we're demonstrating are the consequences of your actions or lack thereof.
"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."
That was the comment that started it all, it had a whole lot of other stuff with it, but obligation was never part of it. The point is that people will associate vegans/vegetarians with PETA because it is the largest organization in the world that represents this culture, for the lack of a better word.
If you don't like that, you can either do something or do nothing. If you do nothing, then nothing will change (i.e. the Vegan-PETA association will continue).
If you do something, that might change (i.e. the Vegan-PETA association will not continue).
It should be noted that you doesn't mean specifically you unless you are classified as a vegan/vegetarian, however if you COULD be classified that way then the association will still likely be made.
As for your next point, I'm sure you DO think that I would run out of articles, and you might be right. There are a lot of pseudoscientific crack-pots out there who write scientific sounding literature masquerading as actual science. Let's move the parameters from articles to peer-reviewed evidence and once again the advantage falls to my side.
As for the evolution stuff, the song -"You're so vain comes to mind"
I actually wrote that part referencing Ideoform's comment about evolution and the likelihood that animals could cause the extinction of other animals....it had nothing to do with our discussion on the Vegan-PETA association. So again, you mischaracterized my argument. I was merely demonstrating why it's a slippery slope to imply that humans are all that's wrong with the world because we do things that other species don't do, when in actuality its not that they don't do them, but they don't do them as efficiently.
Going back to what was germane to our conversation, I never claimed that eating meat was necessary, and neither did the article I give you. Likewise though, eating vegetables isn't necessary either...behold the miracles of modern medicine. Just as it is quite possible to eat a vegan diet and get everything you need to survive, you can eat a carnivorous diet and do the same thing - except that broccoli isn't fluffy and cute and it doesn't have organizations backing it up.
And *sigh* not to belabor the point, in reference to your claim of argument from ignorance, you mischaricterized his argument and failed to address the specific claim. What is the loudest and largest organization that claims to represent vegans and vegetarians? That is the point. That's great that those other organizations exist...really. Still...I've never heard of them, but I HAVE heard of PETA, and that's what we're trying to point out. If dissent does exist between these organizations, it is not expressed, so other views (like yours) are not heard. It's not unreasonable to infer that these organizations are aligned with PETA, not at odds with it. As a result, PETA appears to get more support and vegans/vegetarians will get lumped into those associations as well. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 64 | |
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 11:28:43 AM | ^^^ You'd prefer to see people kicking their dogs? Or the slaughterhouse slowly bleeding animals to death rather than killing them outright? How about shampoo do you think it would be better to test them on rabbits or cell cultures? Puppy mill? There are alot of issues where an animal rights angle is neccessary, for the good society.
Vegans are just people who choose not to use animal products. It is not a political platform and thus I don't see where the hypocracy is.
Animal rights is neccessary in a world that makes use of animals.
Just like Robotic rights will be neccessary when our machines become sentient.
Now there might be some mentally ill people in the mix... (but that goes with all groups) | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 11:36:00 AM |
..How about shampoo do you think it would be better to test them on rabbits or cell cultures?...
Well if there are no Dr's squirting shampoo into a bunny's eyes, how will I know what shampoo to squirt into my bunny's eyes? | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 67 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 4:19:02 PM | A long term, strict vegan diet is likely to lead to the development of
nutritional deficiencies and significant health problems for most people.
Simply put - can you actually STAY on the diet - that means NO CHEATING !!
-Lassitude or "being hungry all day" and "not feeling satisfied,"
-Poor sex drive or poor-quality sleep
-Behavioral effects such as not being able to get one's mind off food
-The yo-yo syndrome of not being able to stay on the diet consistently due to cravings
-Emotional effects such as a vague, nonspecific loss of zest for life
-Actual deficiencies in some cases.
Most people who try vegetarian diets usually do not stick with them
for a long period of time, and go on to something else.
Many more people are ex-vegetarian than currently vegetarian.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml
The Cholesterol Myths
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics
http://www.thincs.org
Meat and dairy products from grass-fed ruminants are the richest
known source of good fat called "conjugated linoleic acid" or CLA.
CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer.
In laboratory animals, a very small percentage of CLA—
a mere 0.1 percent of total calories—greatly reduced tumor growth.
There is new evidence that CLA may also reduce cancer risk in humans.
In a Finnish study, women who had the highest levels of CLA in their diet,
had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels.
Meat from grass-fed animals has two to four times more
omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain- fed animals.
Omega-3s are called "good fats" because they play a vital role
in every cell and system in your body.
Vegans have shrinking brains and mental power...hence the decline of proper thinking.
The human species evolved into a powerful mental animal from MEAT .
Orthorexia is the colloquial term for an obsession with eating only healthy foods.
It is motivated by a desire to feel healthy, natural, and "pure"
-- as opposed to anorexia, which is motivated by a desire to lose weight.
The psychology of fasting is consistent with Asceticism (self-denial).
Ascetics find pleasure in pain. Ascetics love to give up things.
Mental Illness = Asceticism - look it up
| |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 6:02:04 PM | Ok. I think that the OP's question was a good one for people to get started on the ethics of what people eat. But it seems as if many subsequent posters are really interested in debating with/refuting claims of PETA members. No one posting has so far admitted to being a PETA member, so I decided to represent their case, just for fun. I have to say though, that I am currently not a vegetarian or a member of PETA. But I suppose I could join and infiltrate their camp and get some inside information...then again, no.
I think the reason so many vegetarians don't organize to try to get PETA to be more mainstream-friendly, is that it is already accomplishing something for vegetarians. It is getting them publicity, perhaps some recognition, and even some information about what they are doing. It makes it a little easier to be a vegetarian when you aren't always having to explain what a vegetarian is to everyone.
There is a reason you have only heard of PETA and not much about the many other vegetarian organizations. They seem to be organized specifically to get media attention to their concerns. They take a reasonable issue, which admittedly is rather bland--i.e, not eating something--and push the edges out until it looks a little extreme, and then take some outrageous action or make some outrageous claim or create some way-out advertisement to get attention. This works.
In the dating scene, this is called "drama." And if drama didn't work for people, then no one would do it. In the newsroom they have a saying; "If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead."
When I first became a vegetarian 25 years ago, I was worried about looking too weird so I didn't talk about it to other people much, unless they asked me. And people did react funny to me at times, (remember PETA didn't exist yet, there was this "Anti-Vivisection Society" at my University), but the main reactions were religious in nature. Which is funny to me, because a lot of vegetarians are so because of ethical reasons.
I will share with you an interesting story from 25 years ago about what it was like back then to be a vegetarian. I was hired to work for our local utility company to be their "Executive Waitress" which included planning menus and cooking and creating a big buffet for the top exec.'s every week, as well as personally serving them in a special dining room on Wegewood china every lunchtime.
This worked out fine for a while, until when I was eating, the woman who hired me made a comment that she had noticed I never ate any meat when I was eating my own lunch. She wanted to know why (I guess perhaps she thought I didn't think the meat was good enough or something like that) and she sort of challenged me to tell me why in a confrontational kind of way--like I was making some kind of passive-aggressive statement or something. Maybe since I had very long hair she thought I was a hippie or something (I wasn't.)
And I told her I was a vegetarian. She then got very preachy with me and even got a little angry about it, even though I was trying to minimise my personal investment and interest in vegetarianism (I wanted to stay working there!) She acted like I had given her a personal affront. She said God had put meat on the planet for us to consume and it was a slap in the face to God that I was throwing His food back in His face by rejecting it!
I had no idea people felt that strongly about what I chose to eat or did not choose to eat. I had never mentioned it to anyone at work. I had no idea people were actually interested enough to WATCH what I was eating or not eating during my own personal lunch time and break time. And also to take so much interest as to even lecture me about it....I thought that it was none of her business.
So, I guess, I kind of like PETA for throwing it back in their faces a bit. That intolerance. That meddlesomness in people's private lives. That "I know best what is good for you" kind of attitude.
If you do anything against the norm, you are asking for people to push you back to the middle again. Perhaps if all of you non-vegetarians were to become vegetarian for a while (come on, it won't kill you) then you would see what we are talking about. You would get what we get from people and you would know why we aren't stopping PETA, even though we would individually never go that far or be that outrageous.
Now, if I were organizing a vegetarian group, I would run it differently myself. And this is not a frivolous statement coming from me because I already am a trained political grassroots organizer, and have done organizing for many years. I just haven't organized around the issue of what I eat. I feel there are many other more important issues to organize around than that.
My favorite methods of organizing people are those promoted by Martin Luther King, who advocated a policy of non-violent political action. This is what inspired me to post this today, on his birthday. Dr. King was a student of the political action style of Ghandi, Leo Tolstoy, and in America Henry David Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience (Thoreau was mainly a vegetarian.)
Boycotting is one of the non-violent methods of changing things. So perhaps some people think of vegetarians as people who are boycotting meat. I used to work for an Economist at my University. He told me that people in capitalist countries "vote with their dollars." In other words, whatever you pay for you get more of, and whatever you don't spend money on goes away--or there is less of it produced. Its "the invisible hand" of economics.
If you don't like Coke, you buy Pepsi. It isn't passive-aggressive, it isn't a boycott of Coke. Its the American Way.
If you don't like Coke because they get all their high fructose corn syrup from a communist country, then that's a political statement (if you TELL someone.) If you don't buy Coke because you like the taste of Pepsi better, then that is a personal preference. But the economy doesn't know WHY you aren't buying Coke unless you tell someone, or organize/influence others around your choice. If you personally want to vote with your dollars for whatever you like or don't like and never tell a soul, then the economy still works just as well as before. They just sell a little less of one thing and a little more of something else.
So I guess there will be a lot fewer cows around if a lot of vegetarians organized to try to influence other people to stop eating meat. This would be sad for the cows, if you think that living to only be one year old is living much. Is this better for the cow? If he/she/it is never born because it isn't being bred, then I guess there just will be fewer cows, but those that are still around won't have much of a change, unless people who EAT MEAT organize to make their year-long stay here more pleasant, or longer. It is people who pay for meat that will have the say in that.
This is what I currently do. I buy meat from farms that raise cattle differently. I like that my food is treated well before I eat it. (Is it too silly to say I like to eat only happy food?)
Well, actually, the energy I get is from the sun. This energy gets captured by very industrious plants and converted into chemical energy. Then a hard-working farmer feeds it to the hopefully happy cow, or buffalo, that kindly processes my plant food for me, by digesting it really well through two stomachs, creating muscles that I can get really good concentrated protein from. Hopefully, its death is quick and relatively painless, so I don't injest tons of andrenaline from the terrified dying animal.
I hear that if you buy Kosher products, there is some religious person who periodically inspects slaughter houses to make sure the animals are killed relatively humanely.
I have no reason to stop eating to save the earth. To live here on Earth, something must die, be it a plant or an animal. The only question is if we have the luxury of deciding how the food is produced, cared for and dispatched. I don't even get to decide when I will die.
Have you noticed that carnivores don't make good eating? That is because you are eating too high on the food chain. The solar energy degrades too much, the contaminants get more concentrated after being condenced by an animal. So almost no carnivores are eaten on a regular basis. I know people say crocodile and bear taste good, though. So, this means that I will make a bad food choice for a predator. Vegetarians, on the other hand, are what every carnivore usually eats.
Food is a good topic for a discussion of ethics and economics because A. Everybody eats, and B. A large part of most people's spending is on food. So your food budget influences people around the world. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 6:33:47 PM | Now that was a mouthful Ideoform!
To be fair, I only attacked the claims I felt were fallacious or illogical, unless its personally effecting me I couldn't care less what you put in your mouth.
_>
Ummmm, anyhoo, I can understand your position to a certain extent, but there is a moral factor involved. For example, as an agnostic/atheist I get my share of people trying to "convert me for my own good". Even when I was unsure of my beliefs I would have the beliefs of others crammed down my throat, which is why I'm so outspoken now. Like you, I just got tired of it, and to top things off I see political and social decisions being made because of those belief systems, and those are decisions that ALSO effect me...talk about frustrating!
However, if there was an organization that was basically the PETA equivalent to atheism (HA! Finally an example of what a REAL militant atheist would look like!) I would feel compelled to speak loud and long about how that group was in now way representative of my personal attitudes.
Why?
Because even though they may be doing a good job of "sticking it to the man" it in no way absolves them of the fact that they fund terrorists, advocate violence against people, and try to subvert the rule of law so that it aids them when it should not...under the guise of freedom of expression.
Incidentally, if you DO infiltrate PETA, see if you can steal me a few sea kitten tshirts and stuffed animals...those things are a riot! | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 70 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 9:35:09 PM | """Have you noticed that carnivores don't make good eating"""" ????????????? Huh
Fish, squid, waterfowl, frogs, whales, etc, etc. are carnivores --they sure aren't vegetables.
Carnivorous animals are just too expensive to farm economically.
I've wondered if and when some aliens come to earth in the future :
-will they eat the best cuts from young people raised on a pure Vegan diet,
especially if they could be certified as Organic....lol
Do the homework--don't get led around like sheep......eat meat in moderation to be well.
Natural food raised the old fashioned way tastes awesome compared to factory farm mush. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/19/2009 10:36:52 PM | >>>You'd prefer to see people kicking their dogs? Or the slaughterhouse slowly bleeding animals to death rather than killing them outright? How about shampoo do you think it would be better to test them on rabbits or cell cultures? Puppy mill?
And what, exactly, is PeTA doing to stop those?
They're press whores who send whats left of their budget to terrorists and arsonists. They don't hit the trail and save animals- they protest, and promote violence towards people who do not accept their worldveiw. The Humane Society saves far, far more animals from cruelity than PeTA ever will.
>>>Animal rights is neccessary in a world that makes use of animals.
Protecting animals from cruelity is neccessary, yes- giving animals rights? Thats bull.
In order for animals to have rights, they have to have consquences- I can only have rights so long as I do not infringe the rights of others. But animals? They would be instantly arrested for trespassing, stealing, killing, and walking around nude while nailing other animals infront of school children. The concept of giving animals rights falls apart the very instant its institutionalized.
-----
>>>So, I guess, I kind of like PETA for throwing it back in their faces a bit. That intolerance.
Wait wait wait
So an organsation fights what they preceive as intolerence.....with intolerence.....and they have the gall to name their organsation ethical?
Its an unfortuant story that you had, but then again, people all over the world are being confronted by they psychos with death threats, and arsons. Lets be perfectly clear- people are going to die because of organsations who think that its perfectly ethical to fight non-conformity with violence.
You stories unfortuant- but what about the people who were given PeTA pamplets with a picture of mommy chopping a cat to death on the front page? What did these children do? What about PeTA comparing Meat-eaters to Nazi's. You cannot simply scoft at these horrible acts and say they are justice because one time you met someone who didn't accept you for who you are.
>>>Perhaps if all of you non-vegetarians were to become vegetarian for a while (come on, it won't kill you) then you would see what we are talking about.
What purpose would that serve? I don't hold your morals- I find slaughter to be perfectly natural, and I choice I both choose and live with every day.
Thats like telling an athist that they should just 'pretend' to pray, and they might feel better- its completely ignoring the philosophical reasons to make a decsion solely because you think it'd be cool if we did. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 9:37:47 AM | Response to Jiperly's questions...
--Me = If Americans had to kill their own meat, most would become vegetarians.
Jiperly-->>>"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."
You are comparing the taking of life to plumbing and outhouses? Really?
I really see no comparisons here that reflect the nature of what I was discussing.
Just misdirection and attack to distract from the real discussion.
Your position would be much stronger if you just said: I disagree, I think
most people would eat more meat because.....
My quote: -- When I kill a fish myself, I bless the spirit of the animal and thank it for sacrificing itself to give me life.
Jiperly-- >>It is intolerant in some ways
Jiperly: >>>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.
***Again, why are you attacking me for agreeing with part of their message? I agree with some of the points they make in the efficacy of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, but not with the ways they use to pursuade people or their desires to make it a legal issue, or any arguments to take away the rights of another individual to eat meat or not.
Without PETA, we already have laws to protect some kinds of animals in some situations. Protecting animals was an idea that pre-dates PETA. They did not create that one, nor did they create the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. It is merely something that is new to this country and has been adopted from other cultures that seem to have longer life spans than Americans. So some curious individuals decided to try it for themselves.
Yet you launch into a diatribe of attack trying to make me seem... Well, whatever it is your aims are? You sling statements around that are not even necessarily true, and are honestly just as guilty for mudslinging as they are.
My quote:-->>>They just either cannot understand, or are uncomfortable and quietly are threatened by my lifestyle and therefore have to continuously make fun.
Jiperly:-->>>Can you blame them?
*****Please explain. You agree that my lifestyle is threatening. Why? Why are you so threatened by my lifestyle? Are you going to blame that on PETA too? Or are you just threatened by people like me? Am I one of those people you put into "GROUPS"?
Do you call people like me a "LIBERAL" or a "RADICAL"? What pre-judgements do you make?
--continued'
Your quote:-->>>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.
***You act as if there are not radicals everywhere in every camp. What political party are you from? Who represents you? I guarantee I can find a radical, crazy, outspoken group that discredits your associations...
The main point I want to make here in this post is that these forums become monotonous attack and defend diatribes in which people waste tremendous amounts of energy defending different sides of a position, while never really discussing anything. What's the point of a forum if it's a debate center. Discussion is far more productive than Debate.
But there will always be times in the lives of people that do not understand what it means to communicate in such a fashion assumedly because they never learned that in life through family growing up, or maybe their lives are just in such turmoil that they feel they have to counter-attack. Maybe that is their learned response. I respect that right, but it certainly doesn't make the forums productive or much fun. An attempt at asking previous posters questions about their perspectives, or validating assumptions about their perspectives might be a good place to start. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 9:53:31 AM | One man's meat is another man's poison.
I myself was vegetarian for many years (with excellent health) I started eating meat because I like like the taste of it (my health is still good).
I know some people who are following strict vegan diets and they are in excellent health.
I know some people who tried to do the same and became very ill.
I don't believe that there is one best diet... everyone needs to expiriment for themselves.
You got it right PETA are media entities, they get people to talk about the issues through their media interactions (sometimes outrageous). You have to admit that they are somewhat successful, everyone knows who they are and what they stand for. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 10:06:59 AM | Personally I don't see the point in discussion without passion, and debate is discussion WITH passion.
Ideas in themselves do not have a moral value, either there is supporting evidence or there isn't. As morality is a fairly subjective decision it is immune from rational criticism until it makes specific claims, predictions, or tries to inflict itself upon reality, which other people have to deal with.
I don't really care if you bless a fish before you eat it, or if you believe in Santa Claus, or if you think that an animals life is just as important as a human beings. You could just as easily say that you believe Elvis is alive or that slime creatures from outer space live inside your brain and I wouldn't care. Except....
Belief influences behavior. That behavior can have an effect on my life, so if you believe in fantasy, then it is possible that your belief will cause you to take actions which will effect my life.
Let's be clear here, I'm a radical when it comes to rationalism. Why? Because there is no problem that has ever been caused by an over-abundance of rational discourse. The worst thing I am ever going to do is talk you to death based off of my belief - this is how my belief directs your behavior.
Your beliefs also direct your behavior, for example lending support to PETA because you like part of their message. While I can accept that you wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, let us consider the fact that you are lending support to PETA (an organization which endorses and has funded murderers/soldiers) because you like part of their message.
I am not hearing anyone say that PETA is a good organization, only that they like some of the things they say. However, what is the net-effect of PETA's existence as an organization - is it pro-humanity or anti-humanity?
If the answer is anti-humanity, then as human beings we should be concerned about this organization - after all, they are anti-us. It is irrelevant that they say a few nice things or that they have done some good, that doesn't make their actions any less reprehensible. To defend them in part is to support the whole, because evidently those beliefs you share can be held by non-anti-humans (I am presuming that you don't hate humanity).
Its not a question of animal rights, which as has already been said ridiculous because then by necessity they would also have responsibilities. Compassion for all creatures existed before animal rights and before PETA, and if PETA were to be gone tomorrow this compassion which fuels the ideas of animal rights would still exist.
The point is that PETA is the radical organization in your camp and you not only defend them, but they claim to represent you and your views. The silence your argument takes in this regard is deafening.
This is my humble opinion based off of the evidence available.
Oh, and actually there were less Vegetarians around when people HAD to kill their own meat. It is only through manufacturing and industrialization that people have the ability to be picky and "spiritual" about their food. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 10:51:09 AM | People never "HAD" to kill their own meat in an agriculturally aware society. (Non-Hunter Gatherer) There are cultures that have eaten little to no meat for centuries because their diet contained foods that would provide them with what their bodies needed. The idea that Industrialization gave us the opportunity to be picky would only make sense to me in that we can eat a more diverse food supply and have made available to us more species of plants. But the spiritual part, really? :-) Native Americans prayed over every kill they made well before industrialization, and that is just one culture. Perhaps you meant that Western culture never bothered to care about the spiritual aspect of an animal until enough food types were made available to supplement the non-meat diet and therefore allow for contemplation of the spirit of an animal? Other than that, you lost me...
Tomosama, you said: "Your beliefs also direct your behavior, for example lending support to PETA because you like part of their message."
1. The idea of: Vegetarianism is Positive did not originate from PETA!!!!!!!!
Seriously, when is this going to end? Why is it people must be thrown into categories? Is that so we can bash them for being associated? So we have something to mudsling about? If I say that I do not support PETA, but I am Vegetarian or Vegan, does that mean it doesn't matter what I said, I'm still for them? If I was a certain color of skin, does that mean you automatically profile for certain behaviors?
How about judging based upon individual action. Why do so many minds need camps and groups to put people in rather than attempt to grasp the complexity of interwoven perspectives that is the human race.
From what I see of the PETA Organization, what they do isn't all good, and what they do isn't all bad.
Guess What, Life isn't Black or White!!!!!!!!
We don't all belong to one side of the fence or the other.
Why do you think there are tens of thousands of different sects of Christianity?
Because from every perspective, there is another element that can be argued by
anyone.
Pigeonholing is there so people can continue to mudsling.
No other reason than to line someone up to fire at them. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 42
|
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, 42 |
|
Home
login 
