|
|
|
|
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 76 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 10:51:42 AM | It might do many well to take a survival class.
When energy levels plummet in a ice cold, barren, winter wonderland, devoid of many edibles
some roasted critter on a stick fuels that internal furnace and stops the shivering.
Mental sharpness fades quickly without refueling, hindering your chances to survive.
I would challenge people to put their money where their mouth is
and then see ""how deep their conviction is. ""
Humility is a learned response - | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 11:57:48 AM | Wow... ignorance abounds.
OP, watch the documentary Foodmatters. Get a real education.
Would I eat animals to survive? Of course. Animals eat animals, this is how nature works. It's not immoral to eat animals. But humans are not omnivores. You can feed cows and horses processed meats. Does that make them omnivores? No. If you think you're an omnivore, then go eat yourself a live chicken and tell me how it goes.
In spite of you being such a strong advocate of biology courses, you don't seem to be aware of all the traits we have which are actually characteristic of herbivores:
-long intestinal tract, good for handling plant matter, bad for handling animal flesh.
-dually articulated mandible joint.
-hands without claws, good for grasping plants, not for trapping and killing live prey.
Carnivores have short intestinal tracts for a reason. The meat is mostly digested in the stomach. After that, the meat should be expelled in short order. The human body can't do that.
I assume you're aware of the human appendix and why we have it. What does it tell you? We evolved from animals that ate green plants.
Why do so many people today think that humans are omnivores? Because long ago, man discovered that he could eat meat, but he didn't know it was bad for him. Over the centuries, many periods occurred where only the rich could afford to eat meet on a regular basis. The lower class typically lived on healthier foods like grains but often had trouble meeting their full nutritional needs. In more recent times prosperity has become more wide-spread, and so now many can afford to buy or kill their own meat. Today we have many cultures that lack a lot of the fundamental understandings needed in order live healthy.
Maintaining a vegetarian diet that meets the nutritional needs of the human body should not be overly difficult for people living in 1st world nations today. For example, many body builders have demonstrated that vegetarian and raw food diets are ideal for building muscle mass and maintaining optimum health (if you don't believe me, go use a search engine). In fact, the plant proteins are not only abundant in such foods as hemp seed or spirulina, but better for the body because they don't leach calcium from the bones, like animal proteins do. The reason for this is because the sulfide of the animal protein gets into the blood. In order to maintain a rock steady blood pH--which the body does--it take calcium from the bones. This then results in protein-induced hypercalciuria, which is where your body purges unneeded calcium from your blood, which of course, ends with you pissing it out :). Plant matter also doesn't cause colon cancer, like animal meat does.
The trouble that vegetarians are faced with, is that the entire culture lives on and accepts a very unhealthy and unnatural diet and lifestyle. Avoiding meet is hard enough, let alone finding a decent vegetarian meal (depending on where you live).
If none of this information convinces you, then just ask yourself why so many men develop the so-called, beer gut. While vegetarians and especially people living on a raw food diet, typically remain healthy, active--even athletic, and free from disease well in into their 70's, 80's, 90's, and some, even over the age of 100.
Try reading some books on the subject so you can learn about it. One that I know of off-hand is, "Long Life Now". I haven't read it myself, but I've seen the author speak. He bases his conclusions on cultures that have the highest percentage of people living over the age of 100. He also makes examples of people, in their 100's, who are able to out-perform their grandchildren who are high school athletes. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 12:21:02 PM | You realize, OP, that you've postulated a situation where even if the vegetarian compromised, they would die a horrible death within 2 years.....due to lack of vegetables/greens/fruits?
Nicely ironic.....& I'm a veggie.
Have a banana!  | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 79 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 4:24:59 PM | Message 77 --back to high school biology-- taxonomy -- classifying organisms.
Plant eaters have chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it, they also chew cud.
Dairy cows spend almost 8 hrs a day chewing their cuds .
--Humans don't-- we are omnivores
Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material, get outside in the real world and watch animals.
| |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 7:50:37 PM | >>>I really see no comparisons here that reflect the nature of what I was discussing.
Its not a misdirection at all- if we are to take what you say as a moral standard, that if you are not willing to do something yourself then you should not have it done, then yes, the question of plumbing is certainly on topic. If I were to live by that standard, me and a great deal of other people who don't want to have to be exposed to plumbing and the waste that comes with it, the only way to keep up that moral standard is to have our plumbing removed, and set up an outhouse.
You want to to dictate a moral standard as "if you're not willing to do it yourself, then you should not have it done"- but the fact that you have, as far as I can tell, not removed your plumbing shows a glaring flaw in your logic.
Why is it that this moral standard only applies to one and only one situation?
>>>why are you attacking me for agreeing with part of their message?
Because organsations like PeTA condone and support terrorism. If someone were to come into this forum and announce that Al Quedia, despite its flaws, still has a good message, would you be equally shocked and appalled at the outrage that would flow in response to such a message?
>>> You sling statements around that are not even necessarily true
Care to present some examples?
>>>Are you going to blame that on PETA too?..... I guarantee I can find a radical, crazy, outspoken group that discredits your associations...
Well, I'm also blaming ALF and ELF for that too, but yea, I'm blaming PeTA. They are the largest and loudest organsation representing Vegans. And thats exactly the problem- normally, a radicals message would be drowned out by the message of moderates. In this situation, the opposite is true- the radicals are both the largest, loudest, and most violent representations of Vegans.
I'm not denying that you hold different ideals than PeTA and these groups. But at the same time, it is entirely reasonable for people to be threatened by Vegans when the largest advocacy groups for Vegans are phsyically threatening those who disagree. If you find this is unfair, by all means- create your own Vegan advocacy group, and hopefully reason will rule minds. But don't **** at me because I look to a group claiming to represent you as a group thats representing you There is no action I can take to rectifiy that situation- only you can help change.
>>>Discussion is far more productive than Debate.
Care to explain the differences between the two? Because its my understanding that they are synonyms
>>> People never "HAD" to kill their own meat in an agriculturally aware society.
Which, we should point out if not for no other reason as to stay honest to the facts, farming occured long, LONG after mankind killed other animals for sustainance.
>>>Native Americans prayed over every kill they made well before industrialization, and that is just one culture.
I love how you paint an vastly diverse people as a singular culture. Kinda like saying that Europe is a singular culture.
>>>From what I see of the PETA Organization, what they do isn't all good, and what they do isn't all bad.
And I disagree- they are *evil*- they support arsonists and terrorists, prey on children, maniplulate their supporters, associate people not wanting to harm animals to death threats and violence, and fight to violently enforce their morality onto society. Most ironically of all, for all your preaching for individual representation, PeTA's actions are opposed to that- the world most definately is Black and White to them and their supporters.
Can you honestly name any good that they do?
----------------
>>> they get people to talk about the issues through their media interactions (sometimes outrageous).
But do they actually help animals, as opposed to, say, the Humane Society? And aren't PeTA thereby taking the money that people normally give money to organsations who actually create a positive change in their community, like the Humane Society? Imagine how many animals would be saved if PeTA wasn't cashing these peoples checks to buy a billboard claiming that the New York mayors cancer is caused by drinking milk
>>> You have to admit that they are somewhat successful, everyone knows who they are and what they stand for.
No, they don't. For every hardcore PeTA member that I see who knows what the organsations goals are, you see people who have dozens of pets supporting the organsation(Pet condones the owning of any and all animals), or actually believe that PeTA helps saves animals(in 1999, PeTA conducted euthenasia to 2/3 of the animals it "saved")
People join PeTA not because they understand what they mean, but because a horrible mixture of self-rightiousness, compassion, and passion.
---------------
>>>But humans are not omnivores.
Yes, we are. Our dental records proves this. Don't whitewash the facts because it doesn't help your agenda
>>>Because long ago, man discovered that he could eat meat, but he didn't know it was bad for him.
Natch. I get it. Yer a cultist.
I suppose nutritionists who claim meat is part of a balanced diet are "in on it"
>>>While vegetarians and especially people living on a raw food diet, typically remain healthy, active--even athletic, and free from disease well in into their 70's, 80's, 90's, and some, even over the age of 100.
And the oldest person ever to live smoked for over 100 years of her 122 year life- is that proof that smoking will extend your life? | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 9:01:13 PM | if it's slow enough or dumb enough... it's dinner
So ... does that apply to a retarded person?? 
If you were stranded on a desert island, that had nothing but water supply, inedible trees and nothing to to eat but fish and seals, would you eat the animals or strave to death
I suspect the PETA zealot would cave ... and eat the animal rather than starve to death. After all ... isn't PETA ... "People Eating Tasty Animals"?? 
Eating another human being (starvation or not) is quite another matter. Same species just doesn't sound very appetizing. 
| |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 82 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 9:01:30 PM | As an avid kayaker--many of us paddlers study the ancient cultures near the sea.
I can't imagine having the coconut size balls to hunt a whale while paddling the ice cold ocean in my insignificant little kayak.
According to a customary Inuit saying
"The great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists entirely of souls."
By believing that all things - including animals - have souls like those of humans,
killing an animal is little different from killing a person.
All things had a form of spirit or soul (in Inuktitut: anirniq - breath; plural anirniit).
Take only what you need, avoid gluttony, everything in moderation.
It's a finite world, and everything has consequences.
Attempt to hold a live animal, and then kill it, eating the meat--perhaps then you'll understand.
It's easy to talk ______ if all is handed to you on Styrofoam and plastic wrap.
As humans worldwide we do many, many foolish things in pursuit of $$$$$ | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/20/2009 9:46:51 PM | >>I suspect the PETA zealot would cave ... and eat the animal rather than starve to death.
PeTA's already caved. As mentioned earlier, the senior vice president, Mary Beth Sweetland, is a type-A diabetic, and as of such, takes medication daily that was tested on dogs, and has some animal products in it.
Clearly that is the definative response to the question of whether or not a PeTA member would kill an animal if it meant staying alive- they already do.
The organsation that protects and supports arsonists who firebomb places where animal testing is conducted, while using the very benefits of animal testing to continue living to say such things as this;
"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA , Vogue Magazine
They're insane. Its the only possible answer. Scientology is tame by comparison. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 12:02:05 AM | I subscribe to the vegan philosophy and have maintained a near vegan (I don't see free range eggs as being morally worse than most other foods, but aside from that I am vegan) for about 13 or so years. Veganism is not enough, in my opinion: I am very concerned about human rights (fair trade) and environmental damage. I think PETA is a ridiculous organisation and I do not support them.
If I were marooned on a desert island I'd just want to die as fast and painlessly as possible and would figure out how best to achieve this. If there was no-one there to be bothered by it, small hope of me doing anything useful, and the people I care about already would think I was dead due to being missing in ridiculous circumstances I can't see any motivation for staying alive. This opinion is not related to the availability of food.
However, morally, I wouldn't consider it wrong to kill animals to survive in that situation, if survival is what you want. I live in a society where I have plenty of choice over what I eat: I can choose something that involves more exploitation, suffering and damage to the environment or I can choose something that involves less. To me that is a no-brainer. If the choice was unavailable, I was not marooned alone on an island but food supplied simply changed so that vegan food was not an option, I'd eat meat. However, we do have a choice. What's your reason, when offered a free choice of a wide variety of foods, to choose the one whose production involves more harm, suffering and damage than one of the alternatives that has fewer negative consequences to its production? | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 85 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 12:16:53 AM | The report below for 2001 -- Environmental Group Salaries--where does the money go ?
Dan Matthews DirMediaRel PETA $ 65,841
Marybeth Sweetland VP PETA $ 65,482
Jessica Sandler FedLiaison PETA $ 56,542
*****____2004 numbers---PETA was given $ 28,072,597 ______***
Dan Matthews MediaRelations PETA $ 73,362
Marybeth Sweetland VP PETA $ 68,257
Jessica Sandler FedLiaison PETA $ 62,466
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/05/12/watchWhogetsthemoney12.05.htm
PETA's low salaries are offset in part by an unconventional package of employee benefits
, including health coverage for gay partners and bereavement leave for deaths of
``companion animals,'' PETA's term for pets.
PETA settled in Norfolk because that's where it found the most affordable office space.
It acquired its four-story building for $2.2 million.
Animal Rights and Environmental Extremists.
http://www.rickross.com/groups/animal.html | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 1:43:20 AM | | I think in very extreme circumstances it would be acceptable to dispense with constraints our moral beliefs impose on us in more ordinary situations. In this case, I would kill in order to survive, but would try to dispatch the animals quickly and with a minimum amount of suffering and only eat enough to survive. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:08:56 AM | | As a vegetarian I would have no trouble killing another animal (including humans) and eating it if my life depended on it. I choose to be a vegetarian because my survival doesn't depend on killing and eating animals to live so I have the option of doing without meat. Now in the situation the OP describes that choice doesn't exist so my path and conscience is clear. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:46:04 AM | I don't understand why people have this need to corner vegans and vegetarians into admitting they would eat meat if they had to, what's the point?
If there was no other choice of course i'd eat meat. The point isn't if we would, it is that we choose not to, because we don't need to and we are making a stand on the ethical treatment of suffering animals that we use as the top of the food chain. Rune3 makes a good point that being vegan isn't enough there are huge environmental issues and human rights issues that one has to take into account when choosing a life style.
I think the OP's Question is irrelevant to being vegan. We do have choice, and that's what makes us think we are doing the right thing. If there was no choice there would be no ethical dilemma. Choice creates opportunity to do something better then we have done before. We have never had as much choice as we do now, so why just settle for what everyone did before us? Its clear where that's going to lead if you don't close your eyes while doing it.
-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.
I think if people have an issue with PETA take it up with them, not all vegans agree with PETA or support them in any way shape or form. My choice to be vegan saves as many animals as i would of consumed if i wasn't vegan that's all i can personally do. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 9:14:09 AM | Jiperly's idea of a discussion: You're wrong, I'm right. End of Discussion.
Interesting how he is still trying to say that I am pushing my ways on other people, while my original post was in "I" Statements discussing my practices, not attacking the practices of others as Jiperly is so good at doing.
Well here is your lesson on the difference between discussion or debate straight from the dictionary:
Definitions of debate: argue with one another; To engage in argument by discussing opposing points; To dispute or argue about.
Definitions of discussion: an exchange of views on some topic; Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation
So not only do you not know the difference, but you are also incapable of having a so called "Earnest Conversation". You cannot even accept factual information when it doesn't support your viewpoint or side. I fully expect you to try and convince everyone that there isn't even such a thing as a civil discussion. A discussion does not require the other party to be "DEFENSIVE". It is one of mutual benefit where all parties discuss the pros and cons of whatever the subject is, without attacking and defending. Debate means you must defend your position at all cost, with no consideration of the other side and what it might have to offer. I used to be on the debate team, I have an idea of the process!
But you just sound like an absolutist. You are not able to even look anywhere else but in the direction you are looking.
Reminds me of that saying: You are either with us or you are against us. Bet you loved the Patriot Act!
And I love how you use language in your posts that attack like 'we' and 'you'. Nice Touch... Makes people think they belong to your camp when reading it.
You stated that I want to dictate a moral standard, which is again misdirection.
You are really good at this slander stuff!
My moral standards are my own. I expect nobody else to live by them.
And who are you quoting when you say: "if you're not willing to do it yourself, then you should not have it done" YOURSELF????
In very different words than what you have slandered, what I said was strictly in regards to FOOD!!!!! Not a Philosophy to be applied to pipe fittings or surgeries ... I am talking about food, and how things might be approached differently by Americans if they had to kill their own meat. Why is that statement threatening to you? If you feel differently, then explain why, don't attack my statement and compare it to something completely erroneous.
Why not share situations where people might actually eat more meat because of an increased connection to where our food comes from and having to kill it ourselves.
I'm at least willing to hear your point.
But that is what happens when your argument is weak, you draw on anything said and slander it so as to try to make your argument. It's the weakest form of argument there is. How about something original of your own rather than just being a vampiric leech that just uses others statements to drive your posts.
Got anything to say worth saying other than slander?
In looking at your posts Jiperly, it seems you are a parasitic poster. You feed off of attacking other people's posts. You toss out exceptions and misdirections, while rarely really addressing the subject at hand.
For example: "And the oldest person ever to live smoked for over 100 years of her 122 year life- is that proof that smoking will extend your life?"
Perfect Example!
You use a ONE PERSON Example with a completely different premise to refute a study of an entire people/culture and their eating habits compared to our own statistics on our people/culture.
It sounds to me that Jipley has a position, and will say anything to defend it:
1. PETA is EVIL and beware Vegans and Vegetarians because they are all the same.
2. Anyone that doesn't say PETA is EVIL is suspect of being on the other side of his argument, so is the enemy and should be shot down statement by statement.
3. Anyone that doesn't agree with Jipley is subject to deconstruction.
Really, what kind of man wants anything to do with civil discussion when he says things like:
"Natch. I get it. Yer a cultist."
And for the record, if I was starving on an island and the only thing to eat was animal flesh, damn straight I would eat it. But then again, I never claimed I wouldn't if put in that situation.
And another for the record on Native American beliefs, don't pretend you are some expert either. Until you have sweat in a lodge, spent time amongst those people, or have their blood flowing through your veins, you are not qualified to tell me what they did or didn't believe. Yes, there are different tribes. Yes, their philosophies differed.
But as a whole, they had respect for the earth and it's inhabitants that is far greater than this current civilization has expressed since their demise.
What a petty argument that I'm grouping them altogether. So does that make my statement wrong? Are you stating Native Americans did NOT bless the spirit of the animal that they killed for food?
Again, Weak with only the intent to discredit and lessen rather than make your own good points. There is no doubt that some Native Americans practiced this, and according to what I have learned from the people themselves, it was the norm.
So overall, I see nothing but weak deconstructionist misdirections from Jiperly.
Nothing of value can come from such discussions.
Jiperly is not about solutions and living together in harmony or acceptance.
His posts are about being right, while everyone else is wrong. He is the
epitomy of what is wrong with today's society. Parasitic Survival of the Fittest,
Fight till the other Falls, Debate Don't Discuss, My Way or the Highway Mentality.
He cannot even entertain that a fragment of truth may have escaped from the posts of others that support such lifestyles. There is always a reason to not look at or listen to the information provided. Is he threatened only by himself and that which he has not yet found inside himself and sees in others, and therefore has to lash out at anyone that expresses such understanding so as to take it from them? Parasitic because he has not his own expression and is too afraid to find it himself? Threatened by any ideas that are outside his own? What drives the attacker? Fight or Flight...
PETA makes a nice posterboard example of an easy donkey to pin the tail on.
It's always nice to have a posterboard example of a negative form of something you fear or dislike. Things that represent something different from you. It makes it easier to attack anyone who might be "Guilty by Association".
Burn em' All Witch Hunts... They've got the pitchforks out, and want you to explain yourself in 30 seconds or less or you will be hung...
See, PETA's Evil, so must all of those Vegetarians and Freaks just like em'
Hang em' all up by their ears! They're all liars and cheats!
And when does one have time to even advise of a shared perspective as they are too busy defending the list of things that have been chosen to pick on like a vulture.
I'm just sick and tired of people that act this way in Forums. That is what ruins forums and makes them tiresome rather than a fun exchange. I guess if you are into Drama, it's fun, but I've never been a fan of arguing with no real valuable exchange of ideas. What's the point? So someone can rend your life energy from you through countless attacks?
Arguing is for the blind. Debate is for those that seek no solution, no common ground.
I hope you can see the difference one day.
Sincerely,
Done with this Post :-)
P.S> - Thanks to all who provided thoughtful insightful posts with meaningful expression and information, INCLUDING Those in support of Meat-Eaters!!!!!! | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 9:38:27 AM | ^^^Here here, and let the above post be a lesson to us all. Just because we are safe at home and do not have to face one another personally it is no excuse to be disrespectful or to speak (write) without listening (read), I am firmly including myself in this reminder. If you wouldn't say it like that to a person standing in front of you then don't say it at all.
As for Native North American widespread respect for nature. I remember watching a show where they were discussing the hunting practices of neolithic hunters across the plains... they found that a long time ago they used to run whole herds of buffalo right off cliffs to leisurly snack on them later. Apparently this was a practice that eventually was discontinued... leading to the hypothesis that the philosophy of respect and 'no waste' that we see almost universally in their cultures today was learned, probably during a period of famine (mini-ice age).
As for vegetarianisms, there are whole cultures that are vegetarian... it is something that a human body is generally able to do quite easily.
Another note... even people who would have difficulty suriviving without meat can enjoy (guilt free) the perhaps pound of bugs that they eat every year without knowin. mmmm protein.
Personally a I believe that a truly socially responsible diet would involve BUGS! Lots of them...especially grubs... easy to grow, easy to assimilate, insectoid protein. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 91 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 1:02:49 PM | The original post, I believe, involved true belief, conviction, principles.
It would appear many vegans have all the fortitude of a wet wishy washy dish rag.
They crumble like a deck of cards when their backs are up against the wall.
Entomophagy - beats the pants off vegan philosophy
Don't knock the bugs till you've tried them. Change your mental thinking.......
I've eaten a few kinds , deep fried in peanut oil and they are awesome.
The catch, in the USA, pound for pound , they are more expensive than potato chips.
All human cultures except the "western ones" eat insects as part of their diet.
Many species of insects are lower in fat, higher in protein, and have a better
feed to meat ratio than beef, lamb, pork, or chicken.
--Most people do not mind butchering insects.
--Raising insects is environmentally friendly.
--They require minimal space per pound of protein produced.
100 grams of cricket contains:
121 calories,
12.9 grams of protein,
5.5 g. of fat,
5.1 g. of carbohydrates,
calcium, phosphorous, iron, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin.
You already eat them daily if you like the idea or not.
Your insect consumption adds up.
Flour beetles, weevils, and other insect pests that infest granaries are
milled along with the grain, finally ending up as tiny black specks in your piece of bread.
Small grubs and other tiny insects can be found in your fruit and vegetables.
Insects are especially common in canned and other types of processed food, and even in certain beverages. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 1:08:50 PM | Note: I've accidentally deleted this post twice now...its starting to piss me off!
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...
Your claim is false because you have not taken into account certain points:
1. Storage capabilities of agrarian societies
2. Nutritional requirements for a more active people
3. The diversity of the food supply available to various cultures (i.e. supplements for meat such as nuts and legumes)
4. The availability for nutritional and vitamin supplements that vegans and vegetarians include in their diet today
5. Availability of food during those times even though there were farms, etc. Even in industrial times and today there are food shortages, let alone during the birth of agriculture
I think that's enough for now.
As for your claims of Native American spirituality, let's not forget the joys of cannibalism, or does that not count?
Also, they never restricted their diet for spiritual reasons. This is an important point, food restriction is rarely pragmatic, and that is the point.
Tomosama, you said: "Your beliefs also direct your behavior, for example lending support to PETA because you like part of their message." You never specifically answer this claim.
[quopte]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.
This is a mischaricterization of my claim. Here is my ACTUAL claim:
-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.
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.
Your argument questioning the necessity of it is irrelevant. This is about reality and the way things are, not about who you would like them to be. This is the way it is, and if you don't like it you have the option to try and change it. If you don't like it and do nothing then you can hardly complain with any hope of being taken seriously.
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.
Again, largely irrelevant to my point. Wish in one hand and crap in the other - watch which one fills up first. I agree that everything isn't black and white, and personally I choose to try and judge someone by their actions.
Your actions are apologetic to PETA, invoking the need for tolerance of their organization. Of the three positions available to you in regards to PETA and the sum total of their effect as an organization you have support, disapproval, or apathy.
Your claim is that you sort of support PETA and you sort of don't...but you never explained your position on your reaction to PETA's efforts as a net product. I like animals, I don't wear fur, but if I see a PETA supporter asking for donations I'll tell them exactly why their organization disgusts me.
I guess I can add a fourth position, you could be unsure, agnostic if you will. Still, if that is your position then why would you try and defend PETA's actions? Why not simply say you don't know enough about them to comment? Is honesty not a requirement of your spirituality?
Pigeonholing is bad to an extent, but it has a useful function. By organizing things by category it allows us to have a frame of reference for when we interact with people. While lumping all vegetarians together with PETA might seem unfair, its natural.
For example, the tone of your comments to me and others who are critical of your points has been the same, even though our content has been slightly different. You have, in effect, pigeonholed your opponents into a category of people with whom you address in a specific tone.
The style of your arguments to me implies that I was "pigeonholing" you, that I was making personal value-judgments of you, etc. However, I was pretty clear that I could care less about what you believe and that I was only addressing the claims I felt were erroneous or illogical.
Of course, I am not offended in the slightest, I am merely making a point that pattern seeking is a human behavior and thus an unfair argument to use. Unfair, and unreasonable. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 1:27:31 PM | I'm curious why people think that speaking out about PETA is my responsibility just because i'm vegan? Of course i don't condone the actions they take!!! What did that do? Nothing. There are laws and if they break them and are caught then they will be tried by their peers in the court of law.
The fact there there are extremists is because there is apathy. Proof of this is the amount of suffering that animals go through to make it to the dinner plate. It's not an easy topic to debate and the population of the world isn't getting any smaller nor is the appetite for meat. Who will speak up for the rights of animals? and why don't people consider that they should have rights? If we are going to mass farm our diet then we should at least make sure the animals at least have a reasonable life and that the process isn't cruel and doesn't damage the environment. I don't see that as asking to much. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 2:06:33 PM |
Posted By: crazylilting on 1/21/2009 4  31 PM Subject: Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Message: I'm curious why people think that speaking out about PETA is my responsibility just because i'm vegan? Of course i don't condone the actions they take!!! What did that do? Nothing. There are laws and if they break them and are caught then they will be tried by their peers in the court of law. The fact there there are extremists is because there is apathy. Proof of this is the amount of suffering that animals go through to make it to the dinner plate. It's not an easy topic to debate and the population of the world isn't getting any smaller nor is the appetite for meat. Who will speak up for the rights of animals? and why don't people consider that they should have rights? If we are going to mass farm our diet then we should at least make sure the animals at least have a reasonable life and that the process isn't cruel and doesn't damage the environment. I don't see that as asking to much.
All of these points were already addressed.
1. Speaking out against PETA is up to you, however by virtue of their organization you as a vegan are associated with them. You are free to do what you want, but the reality is that people can and will categorize vegans with PETA because PETA claims to represent vegans.
2. Animal rights has existed not only before PETA, but for as long as people have had compassion. While some people do not share this compassion, this is not a reason to advocate animal rights. Animals do not have rights because animals do not have responsibilities. However, raising awareness of animal cruelty is a noble pursuit, because humans as a compassionate species would not want to knowingly cause an animal to suffer. However, there is a limit, and that limit comes when you take into account human life. There is no animal's life that is more important than a human's. If you think animals are more important than humans, then remember that this includes you too. If it costs me 100 drowned puppies to save one small child, I'd drown the puppies myself...humans are more important, not just because I'm human but because humans care enough to form protest organizations against animal cruelty. When the squirrels start holding signs protesting other squirrels that chew power lines, then we'll talk about animal rights.
3. Extremism is almost ALWAYS a terrible thing, and apathy is not an excuse for extremism. PETA is so pro animal that they are ANTI-HUMAN....this is just patently ridiculous and I am amazed at the number of people who defend them.
4. People also associate vegans with PETA because of posts like this....when you apologize for their extremism taking the responsibility of their actions away from them you are in effect advocating them. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 95 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 2:16:59 PM | Eat the dead, eat the dead...bring out your dead, (ding)...bring out your dead, (ding)
Everything we eat is dead so get used to it, it's a fact.
Who bites a carrot while it's still in the ground, or bites right into a chicken ?
Nice - I love this
When the squirrels start holding signs protesting other squirrels
that chew power lines, then we'll talk about animal rights. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 3:11:54 PM |
Everything we eat is dead so get used to it, it's a fact.
Who bites a carrot while it's still in the ground, or bites right into a chicken ?
Hiya Soggy!
You know as well as I do that that carrot is still alive even after you pull it out of the ground. Ok semantics, but - - - What's with the squirrels? | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 4:20:26 PM | | LOL, glad you liked the squirrel-bit. I wish I could claim authorship for the inspiration though, I forget who it was that pointed out that rights imply responsibility but kudos to them! | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 4:34:18 PM | If PETA is so bad, yet vegetarians tolerate it, then why don't meat-eaters organize to change PETA's practices? Are you thinking they won't listen to you because you are a meat-eater?
Meat eaters have the MOST say in how food animals live and die. Your money directs their lives and deaths. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 5:56:27 PM |
Posted By: Ideoform on 1/21/2009 7  18 PM Subject: Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Message: If PETA is so bad, yet vegetarians tolerate it, then why don't meat-eaters organize to change PETA's practices? Are you thinking they won't listen to you because you are a meat-eater? Meat eaters have the MOST say in how food animals live and die. Your money directs their lives and deaths.
Meat eaters like myself are the reason that vegetarianism is still a "fringe" idea. As someone who is not represented by PETA, (an omnivore, pet owning, free rights activist, agnostic atheist) I do fight back against PETA. I inform people of their actions, confront supporters with scary facts, and above all I call my congressman if they try to pass a bit of shady legislature.
As for the animals...I don't have their rights as my top priority. I believe that over legislation is a bad thing, and that especially extends to giving animals rights. I'm all for animal testing for science for medical and safety purposes for human beings. I do not eat veal because that's just unnecessary (all the cruelty adds FLAVOR!!! ). I keep a dog as a pet, he's adorable and I take care of him as best I can making sure he's well fed, groomed, and trained (poor training can lead to a dog dieing if they run out into a road or run away). | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:30:14 PM | I do fight back against PETA. I inform people of their actions, confront supporters with scary facts, and above all I call my congressman if they try to pass a bit of shady legislature.
You can't be very effective at what you are doing to combat PETA then Tomo. That is the bottom line. If you were, then you would have been able to instigate change.
Yet you find it so easy to impel others to take that same ineffective approach. It would suggest to me then, since so many meat-eaters are threatend by PETA and are willing to take an aggressive stance against them, that the passive/moderate vegetarians could expect no greater result than you yourself have achieved.
Which is apparently squat......
Reading some of the responses here would actually compel me to send a cheque directly to Ingrid Newkirk, rather than convince me to do anything otherwise.
| |
|
|
| Page 4 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 
