Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 57
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...Page 3 of 43    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
Dear Jiperly,

You are very young. You can take all the risks you want with your food. You will live forever for sure, at least for now.

Someday you might feel differently.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 58
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 8:38:22 PM
I don't understand Ideoform- you claim you're all for freedom and letting people decide with their wallets and that people have an inalienable right to decide what they put in their body- but you're equally arguing that people need to be protected from themselves, that people should not be left to decide things for themselves, and that the individuals freedom to decide what they put in their body is irrelivant when it comes to their health.

Which is it? Do you respect each persons ability to decide for themselves, or do you think people should be protected from themselves? Why all this talk of having "the true cost reflect the price"? Isn't that maniplulating the costs to force a healthy standard, rather than allowing people to choose their own healthy standard? Are you honestly saying your stance has no victims?
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 6:06:43 AM

I would have to agree with the poster who said that living on a raw food diet would lose your excess fat. I was overweight for some time, tried every diet imaginable, nothing really helped. Finally I decided to give the raw food diet a try. It was a huge adjustment for me, as it meant giving up ALL refined/processed foods, but it definitely does work in losing body fat. If you follow a raw food diet consisting of beans, fruits, vegetables, tofu, etc., you WILL lose your body fat. I did also include a lot of avocado in my diet, which is considered a high fat, and that didn't cause any weight gain either...perhaps because it is digests easier? Not sure. The only time I showed any sign of gaining back weight was after I began to slip from my eating habits and re-introduced breads and sugars every so often. That's what causes my body weight to rise; otherwise, I could live on a diet of raw foods - consuming as much as would fill me - and I would not gain.

Again, this is anecdotal evidence, so its not conclusive. I also never said it couldn't be effective, just that it isn't 100%. Quite frankly, the reason you lost weight was because limiting the food you ate limited the number of calories you consumed and forced you to pay close attention what it was that you were eating. On top of that smart money is that you don't lead an inactive lifestyle.

Calories in - calories out.
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 60
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 10:19:45 AM

"A vast majority of produce, fruits and vegetables are truly quite dead by the time most Americans eat them.
Top 10: America's Healthiest Grocery Stores..."

I guess I have it pretty easy. I live within 10 blocks of two stores that sell whole foods.
I've seen that Woodman's has a big section of organic foods and other health foods, and their prices are very reasonable. I don't know if there is one in your area.

15 years ago there were only two stores in the entire city. We used to have an in formal food buying group. A bunch of us moms got together and pooled our grocery money together and got a truck to come from the warehouse with an order every month. We also bought shares from local farmers directly for produce.

Before that, I had a garden. They used to call them Victory Gardens. There was this really cool organic gardening magazine that was really crazy and funny and I miss it.

I was at an economic development planning meeting at our city last night and I met a Master Gardener. He was a retired lawyer, and really good at it. There are people like us just don't hear about it because we are usually pretty low-key about it. In my area there is a big group that is into buying all their food locally. They have a "challenge" to eat only food produced within 50 miles of where they live. Its not easy to do, but that's kind of the fun of it. It stretches your abilities, and makes you unhook from your old habits a bit. Its not like they are going to change the world, but you can change your part of the world...
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 61
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 10:37:50 AM
I won't deny that it wouldn't be difficult, but I'm a writer that works from home. Back then I was burning only enough calories to survive, I only started losing weight when I started exercising.
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 11:03:15 AM
Hey, cool that you have a house rabbit. I really don't know anyone else who has a house rabbit. I learned about it from a home health aide I hired for my Grandmother a long time ago, but her's died (was 18 years old!) and I haven't kept in touch with her. Everyone else locks up their rabbits in cages most of the time. I hate seeing animals behind bars. Its feels like they committed some crime, or are slaves of us or something, when what crime did they commit except by being our pets?

There's a website about house rabbits where I learned how to take care of one before adopting a rabbit. I have learned some things on my own, though, too.

I think caring for and living with pets teach tolerance and understanding to children. (If you teach it to them, that is.) It has helped my Autistic son learn to be gentle and understand other creatures better. Autistics have trouble with body language with people. Animals have only got "body language" so it forces them to relate on that level.

"btw, monkeys and armadillos are eaten by humans as well...some humans ..."

I put that comment in there because armadillos are known to be one of the few sources of leprosy. And leprosy is still incurable. And monkeys, gorillas and bats have been the suspected source of the Ebola virus disease that is also almost impossible to treat or to survive.

People don't read things here that carefully (I think a lot of us are at work and get a lot of interruptions) and I didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea that I was somehow advocating that people could eat any living thing at all --just because we CAN as omnivores.

There is also a really good reason to avoid cannibalism. Any animal that eats its own species is at risk for Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Mad Cow disease (prions--which are indestructible by normal sterilization methods such as cooking, radiation.) This is controversial, but might have some truth to it because almost no species regularly eats its own. Its possible that it causes more problems than it helps with survival.

"Plants breathe, metabolize, and grow--hence they DIE once pulled from the ground..."

I love that you brought this up because I get to use it as an excuse to brag about my senior high school science project. :)

I cloned carrots. It was fun. I duplicated the original cloning experiment. The procedure basically involves taking a really fresh carrot, slicing it up into very tiny bits, then keeping it in a sterilized rotating growth medium for a month. Each cell then turns green and can be grown into an identical carrot plant to the original. This I would hardly call "DEAD" material.

My mom wasn't crazy about my experiment sitting rotating in her kitchen for a month though.

"Calories in - calories out."

^^^The above statement is "scientifically" true in a chemistry sense. But this is a phrase that I believe was used by lobbyists for the food industry to protect their businesses from the problems they think would happen if everyone knew that food grown in one place is not identical to food grown in another place. You see, when the scientists who drew up the calorie content for various foods tested food, they simply burned them and found out how much carbon each food contained. To test for nutrients is more difficult, but was done. However, many of these tests are very old, and done on plants that were grown differently than they are today. Food grown in one type of soil can have significantly different levels of nutrients than one grown in another. Witness the Vidalia onions. They are only able to be grown in a certain place. The same has been known to be true for centuries with grapes used for making wine.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 63
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 11:25:01 AM
>>>This is controversial, but might have some truth to it because almost no species regularly eats its own.

What about Spiders? And Snakes? I know for a fact that Praying Mantis's and Black Widow Spiders conduct in cannibalism.

A brief check at Wikipedia reports that over 1500 species are cannibalistic. Apparently 90% of aquatic species are cannibals.
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 64
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 11:31:08 AM

" Are you honestly saying your stance has no victims? "

Sigh... Jiperly;

If you go looking for victims, you will always find them, because they volunteer themselves.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 65
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/23/2009 12:18:12 PM
Yea, those poverty striken people who would not be able to afford food because you arbitarily raised the price of it to 'help' them- they're victims by their own choice.

Raising the price of food makes it so not everyone can afford food. You cannot ignore that simple fact- your moral stance that cost of food should be raised to reflect the healthiness of food will kill people. You want to raise the price of normal food to make it on the same plain or more expensive than organic foods, thereby attempting a form of social control- that you are so certain you are right that you are willing to play games with peoples lives.

In short, you're aware of the flaws in your beliefs in organic foods- that its inefficent, and more expensive- and rather than either accepting them or recifying them, you wish to force those flaws onto all foods everywhere, thereby giving your prefered food a chance. You wish to pretend you're helping people have more healthy options, but in reality, you're giving them less.
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/24/2009 12:17:38 PM

"I don't understand Ideoform- you claim you're all for freedom and letting people decide with their wallets and that people have an inalienable right to decide what they put in their body- but you're equally arguing that people need to be protected from themselves, that people should not be left to decide things for themselves, and that the individuals freedom to decide what they put in their body is irrelivant when it comes to their health.

Which is it? Do you respect each persons ability to decide for themselves, or do you think people should be protected from themselves? Why all this talk of having "the true cost reflect the price"? Isn't that maniplulating the costs to force a healthy standard, rather than allowing people to choose their own healthy standard? Are you honestly saying your stance has no victims?"

So you want to know what my agenda is--what my bias is--because then it would be easier to research things to refute everything I am saying. I didn't answer your many earlier questions based on every line of my postings because your posting style leads me to think that you aren't really looking for the answers. You are looking for holes in people's arguments.

If by saying that you don't understand Ideoform, you mean for me to explain myself to you, then I have to say that I don't owe you an explanation of myself, but I will tell you, anyway. (Even though I don't think you want an explanation really, but more things for you to refute. And to use that to promote your own agenda. Which is fine, but it isn't really on-topic for this thread, which was about what goes into vegetarians' thinking, not about organizing vegetarians to take action. )

If you really want to organize vegetarians to action, that would be a really good idea for a new thread topic.

I like ideas, and I like putting them into form. (Hence, Ideoform.) I like listening to other people's ideas, collecting various bits of information, and studying topics like philosophy, science, ethics, and human behavior in some depth. I play around with the ideas, and after turning them around, inside out and upside down, I act on what I have learned and concluded.

This changes. Over my lifespan my values have changed. I have learned from this process. I have changed. I also know what works for me and what doesn't. I have seen these ideas play out over time. And seen the effects of my actions. It is one of the main benefits of growing older. Reflection.

I think that sometimes people think that the best judge of their own arguments is how firmly they can keep to their original conclusions. This negates the value of the argument that includes learning from experiences--including those of others. You can always go and check people's facts. (This is one of the main fun things about debating on the internet. You can fact-check almost immediately--WHILE you are arguing.)

If you are debating strictly as a scientist, then any discussion is not really an argument or a debate; it is an exchange of facts (or pseudo-facts.) If you think that all opinions are moot unless they are based on the current body of scientific evidence that has been researched and so-called "peer reviewed," then your bias is going to eliminate ALL OPINIONS. Because a fact is simply a fact, not an opinion. Plus, you will miss all the debate, feelings, motivations, problems, pressures, and emotions that go into forming what scientists choose to study, and how they formulate their hypotheses so that they can learn more about the universe.

I think that you have judged me as someone who attempts to maniplulate the facts to push an agenda. You want me to just present my sources. You have lost all interest in people's stories. You believe I am a cultist. You think I thrive on telling people reality is the opposite of what it is.

You say you entered this topic to encourage people who were outraged by people assuming that a violent organsation represented them, to create a counter organsation that promotes peace, tolerance, and acceptence of all people reguardless if they eat meat or not. And you admit it sounds like you are against "harmony and acceptance."

I am not outraged. I don't have that level of passion about PETA. And so far you haven't convinced any vegetarians that have responded to become outraged by them attempting to represent them. It seems as though YOU are the one who is outraged. Outrage is a pretty strong emotion. (Not very scientific at all. Not very objective.)

You accuse all vegetarians of supporting by default an organization 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 "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

Are you saying that if we aren't against PETA we shouldn't be vegetarians to avoid association by people like you who would connect us, like McCarthy, to a terrorist organization even though we are not its members?

You say that if a vegetarian posts on this thread defending the way they eat, that it is as a bad as if we 'came into this forum and announced that Al Quedia, despite its flaws, still has a good message.' And you are 'surprised that someone was shocked and appalled at the outrage that flowed in response to such a message.' You say that there is no action you can take to rectifiy that situation- only vegetarians can help change it.

I think that there are lots of things you could do--here's one you probably won't do, but it would work if you care so much about this as your words say you do. You could become a vegetarian--or even PRETEND to become a vegetarian, and then organize a group to protest the tactics that PETA is doing. Or you could just organize vegetarians directly as a meat-eater. You could write letters to your representatives, do political advocacy yourself, to ban the political action practices PETA is using so no other organization that is advocating even worse ideas can try to use them.

I think that we can all be grateful that PETA is ONLY promoting not eating meat, or not hurting animals. How they are doing it can hurt some businesses, I haven't heard of any person being bombed by them.

I think you want to "get a bead on me" so you can tailor your arguments based on other people's arguments debating various political issues. You want me to fit into one of two "camps" that you present me with, like it's a war, like who I am is a black and white thing. You are either for this one group or against this one in-between. Or I must join or create a different group to justify my eating habits to others.

So here is my position: I'm posting on this thread because I have been both a vegetarian and a vegan for a very long time in my life, I have seen starvation caused by human intervention in a population's food supply in person, I keep an animal as a pet that I would probably not eat myself if I were starving, I have also fasted for a very long time (24 days) so I know what not eating feels like. I also studied ethics and philosopy in college where the issue of the ethics of food was discussed in depth. I have experience doing political advocacy for 8 years, so I understand some about what PETA is doing/trying to do.

The OP's question was an ethical challenge to vegetarians, involving starvation, and most of the posters used PETA as an example. I think the OP's question could be re-phrased as something along the lines of:

"Are you a vegetarian because you believe animals more important than people?"

I don't think animals are more important than people.

I became a vegetarian after reading a book. My 19 year-old self was so impressed by the facts presented, the morality proposed, and the arguments used to back them up that I acted on them right away.

It goes to the kind of person I am. I made a committment to myself when I was very young to try to live my values. Whatever I valued, whatever made sense to me, whatever grabbed my heart, and my gut instinct, and inspired me, that is what I would do. I wouldn't just talk about it, and think about it. I would start to do it--take some kind of action--that same day or as soon as it was relevant. I've been doing this for almost 30 years.

Live rewards action. Worrying, wishing, wanting, all help people to learn what it is they really want in life, and they are clues as to where our lives need change or effort or action. But life, politics, culture, posterity, fame, fortune, whatever you value--rewards action.

For example, I have "a few extra pounds" on my profile. I gained most of them during a stressful time when I was sick. I now go to the gym every day and I dance on the weekends, and take yoga for flexibility. Thinking about doing it won't help me loose the weight. I have already lost 25 lbs. This is very hard to do for a woman my age.

Once I became a vegetarian at 19, I felt healthier, and I noticed that most people like me had become a vegetarian for health reasons. It's all over the literature about it, the cooking books about it, and when people talk about it.

At the time, when I was young, I sort of thought that what appeared to others to be an obsession with health at that age was a little weird so I didn't talk about it much. As I have aged, though, and lost people I loved to cancer, the health benefits of anything have become very important to me. Particularly since I have had children, and my motivation skyrocketed to try to keep them healthy because their health was completely dependent on what I did, or did not do for them.

Having kids you cook a lot. I learned to cook for 4 picky people (my ex was one of them.) After learning about cooking, watching lots of cooking shows and practicing a lot, I have become a very good cook. I can cook lots of different styles. I learned to cook meat for my husband because I DIDN'T want to try to CHANGE him or CONVERT him.

I didn't become a vegetarian because someone converted me or tried to change me. Posters have mentioned vegetarians being "wimpy." Or in other words, "bleeding hearts."
Nobody saw a wimpy fool and then came to my door and tried to convert me to vegetarianism like it is a religion. My professor in college didn't teach me ethics to convert me to anything. We discussed about a dozen different religions in that class and I didn't convert to any one of them. In fact, at the time, I was an agnostic.

I didn't become a vegetarian because I was "against something" I became a vegetarian because I was "for something" that I was really very impressed by; which was a certain type of ethics and quality of ethical debate which I could not, in my own conscience, ignore. Once you know better, you do better. Once you know, you don't have the excuse anymore of not knowing about something. I chose to risk my current lifestyle to put it more in line with my values. If someday PETA does something I feel the same way about, then I might take action against them. For now, they seem to have the same reasoning that came from the book I originally read, but they are using political tactics that are both aggressive and a bit funny, but not on the level of the kinds of things I advocate for right now. In fact, I think the best use of my time right now is to promote the healthiest, sanest, most compassionate lifestyle for myself, my family, my community and my planet that I can.

As you have said that you don't "believe in" vegetarianism, you must be someone who does eat meat.

So from what I can read, you are on this thread only to attack the arguments, motivations and reasoning of any vegetarians that respond to the OP's question--which was aimed at vegetarians.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 67
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/24/2009 3:51:57 PM
First and foremost....your responses confuse me......So if I respond to your most recent post, you'll respond to my response to your post from several days ago? I mean, if you don't want to respond to my posts I can respect that....but this method is simply confusing....

>>>You are looking for holes in people's arguments.

I am. If I feel your reasoning has flaws, I will present them.

Would you rather I accept that you are promoting flawed reasoning to others?

>>>If by saying that you don't understand Ideoform, you mean for me to explain myself to you, then I have to say that I don't owe you an explanation of myself, but I will tell you, anyway.

Actually, I mean I discovered a contradiction in what you are saying, but am not willing to write it off as simple hypocritical thinking. Yes, I am asking you to elaborate your beliefs in light of critisism, but no, I do not demand you respond.

>>>You have lost all interest in people's stories.

I don't recall saying that in this thread. I have mentioned it in another, yes, but that was essientially because the user refused to present any evidence unless I listened to his story and accepted his interpretation of the story- basically trying to dictate my thoughts for me. I didn't appreciate that, but then again, that has nothing to do with this topic nor does it have to do with my conversing with you. I've noticed you've gone into great detail with another user with stories about your rabbits- I neither critizised nor objected to these stories.

>>>You believe I am a cultist.

No, I believe the user EnragedLlamas is a cultist. He stated that eating meat is "bad for you" and unnatural to humans- all the evidence and all the history of mankind counters this. Thus, I found it to be along the same lines as the kind of ideas fed to people by cults.

As far as I can remember I never accused you of being a cultist.

>>>You think I thrive on telling people reality is the opposite of what it is.

No, my argument was that you claim to support one thing, but equally support the polar opposite- I'm not saying you are saying reality is the opposite of what it is- I'm saying your opinions are contradictory.

>>>And you admit it sounds like you are against "harmony and acceptance."

And that was sarcasm, Ideoform.

>>>It seems as though YOU are the one who is outraged. Outrage is a pretty strong emotion. (Not very scientific at all. Not very objective.)

Outrage is certainly an important and powerful emotion. If not for outrage, then there would be no change- Patrick Henry("Give me Liberty or Give me Death") was outraged by King George the Third, so he helped lead and inspire the American revolution- Spirit Mediums broke Harry Houdini's heart, so he made a career out of disproving them- Ayn Rand was outraged by Communism, so she wrote Atlas Shrugged- Martin Luther King was infuriated by racism, so he led the fight that changed the world.

And me, personally? I'm going to really make a stand that rarely few people dare to make- yes, terrorism pisses me off. I veiw organsations like ALF and ELF, like the FBI, as ecoterrorists, who assault and threaten people and damage or steal their property. They hand out death threats and firebomb places who have the adacity to have their own opinion. I veiw organsations like PeTA as terrorists, since they do things such as pay to keep convicted and admitted arsonists on the streets, and promote ignorance and hate.

And yes, I am outraged by Vegans and Vegatarians, although for different reasons- I'm outraged that these people, who often reach their beliefs on a basis on grave respect for people and animals, and are themselves peaceful and tolerant, allow themselves to be maniplulated by these intolerant, violent psychopaths, and by a lack of response, allow PeTA and others to be ipso facto Vegan representation group.

It was Martin Luther King who said, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

>>>You say that if a vegetarian posts on this thread defending the way they eat, that it is as a bad as if we 'came into this forum and announced that Al Quedia, despite its flaws, still has a good message.'

I believe you are taking my statements out of context. I'm saying that if a vegetarian defends PeTA that it is relative to someone defending terrorists- defending the beliefs of general vegatarianism doesn't fit the analogy- defending the beliefs of these eco-terrorist organsations, however, does.

>>>You say that there is no action you can take to rectifiy that situation- only vegetarians can help change it.

Exactly- I do not expect someone who is deeply indoctrinated by PeTA to listen to me saying that violence is wrong- and reguardless, they do not claim to represent me, so I can only act in a third party mode, claiming to represent vegans- in order to defendthe belief that vegans are not represented by PeTA, the only method left to me is to do exactly what I condemn PeTA for doing- claim to represent Vegans.

You see my engima. I cannot destory PeTA without becoming a hypocrite and promote more misrepresentation. If you do not believe PeTA represents you, then it is you who must act- not I.

>>>You could become a vegetarian--or even PRETEND to become a vegetarian

How could taking on morals I do not believe in be considered moral?

>>> I haven't heard of any person being bombed by them.

Rob Coronado is an infamous example. Rob set fire to the research facilities of Michagan State University, caused over $125,000 in damages, and destoryed 32 years of research data.He admitted to it as part of a plea bargin- theres no doubt he did it.

Because PeTA is a tax-exempt non-profit organsation, where their money goes is a matter of public record. And PeTA gave him $45200- money donated by countless number of animal lovers who assumed their money would be going towards helping animals- to help Coronado's legal case, and help get that arsonist back on the street.

Which he was for a while- recently, he taught people how to build a pipe bomb, and through that knowledge some people turned around and caused over 50 million dollars in damage to a Hillcreast apartment complex.

Last Christmas, he was released.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 68
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/24/2009 9:18:28 PM
While I was a vegetarian for three years and deplore cruelty to animals, life feeds upon death and death feeds upon life.

We are not set a part from the animal world except in our minds. Animals eat animals; if they have the same "rights" as do humans, then we need to save birds and mice from cats, rabbits from coyotes, and every other prey from its predator. However, we need to get chimps off bicycles, etc., until they can sign the contract.

If I were in a situation where the only option for survival was to eat another human, I wouldnt do it. I would rather die than cross that line.

You only think you wouldn't cross that line. You don't know what you would do until you find yourself in that situation.

A civilized man I have lived, and I would prefer to die as one.

How do you define or qualify a civilized person? Humans have been eating humans since before we were humans. There is evidence that most, if not all, cultures practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice. Do you say that the Aztecs were not civilized because they ate other humans?
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/26/2009 11:09:42 AM
Why do people always focus on cherry-picking an item without placing it in context? Calories in and calories out is the simplified formula for losing weight. If you go back to my original posts I explained that other things will have an effect on weight loss, sure, but the biggest determining fact is calories in - calories out.

The type of food can matter, but it will NOT have a larger effect than the number of calories you have burned compared to the number you have consumed. Nutritional content is not as important in this regard. Sure, eat cow dung, paper, crude oil, or whatever other ridiculous example you want in there and you will find that should the number of calories you consumed be less than the calories you took in then you will have lost weight.

And vegetarians CAN be grouped....the category of vegetarian is INHERENTLY a grouping. While there may be some deviations from the norm, there are certain assumptions that can be made with a high chance of being correct.

High value for animal lives.
Diet consists of little to no meat.
Prone to spirituality.
Prone to environmentalism.
Prone to recycle.
Prone to Liberal as opposed to Conservative politics.
Expresses a philosophy of "non-violence".

I think you get the idea. While all of these cannot be said to be true for ALL vegetarians, I'd be willing to put money on the probability that one or more of those would be checked off by every vegetarian on the forum.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 70
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/26/2009 9:09:37 PM
>>>Are you assuming that all vegans and vegetarians are manipulated so easily, as you have stated?

Yes, I believe they are- their ability to allow their emotionalism to drive their day to day functions allows this. Reguardless, I think the numerous vegan organsations that maniplulate people is a testiment to this belief of mine. Any other group of people who allowed such acts of violence in their names would either abandon their group or fight to fix it- instead, we see the violence and intolterance escalating.

>>>that would be a rather huge assumption and generalization of people who have simply chosen a certain lifestyle for themselves, and that assumption would be based upon fallacy and ignorance.

Howso? I do believe that numerous vegatarians are peaceful, yes, but their support, whether directly, indirectly, or simply agreeing with the principle, enables groups like ALF to act- its the silence that allows these things to happen.

If there were no one supporting these groups, they would fail to exist- and these groups look to vegans, vegetarians, and animal lovers for support to continue their violent acts.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/27/2009 12:10:01 PM
Here's the problem with your argument crazylilting...meat eaters don't need organizations to represent them, nor are there any "omnivore" social club because there is no cultural identity to it. There aren't any generalizations you can make about people who include meat as a part of their diet - it is completely different from vegans and vegetarians. With vegans and vegetarians there is an identifiable sub-culture, a set of ideas and morals that are generally consistent from one herbivore to the next.

Whether you know about PETA, approve or disapprove on a personal level is not the issue or even the point. The main idea here is that PETA CLAIMS that they represent the sub-culture that you belong to, they are acting as your defacto representative - and it doesn't matter to the public if it is with or without your approval.

Other groups who have encountered this situation, for example Libertarians who find out that many white-supremacists, Ayn Rand cultists, and conspiracy theorists also share some of their views are quick to distance themselves from such associations. As a libertarian, I do not want people associating me with racists, bigots, and nut jobs that also cling to libertarian ideals. I actively work against those groups in the effort to demonstrate that all libertarians do not belong in the same category as those "fringe" or "extremist" groups - if I didn't then I wouldn't have room to complain when someone rolled their eyes and said "Libertarians..." under their breath as if I had just revealed that I was a Raelien.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 72
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/27/2009 6:52:29 PM
>>>As far as i know PETA is an animal rights group, whether they are vegan i don't know...

Then you clearly know very little- PeTA isn't an animal rights group, they are an animal LIBERATION group- meaning they think that eating, owning, or profiting off animals are wrong- this includes cows, dogs, and even fish and bee keeping.

So yes, PeTA is a Vegan group in that they follow the creed of Vegans- do not eat meat nor use any product that comes from an animal- only they believe that it shouldn't be voluntary.

>>> I don't belong to any 'vegan' organizations, do meat eating folk join some meat eating club?

It doesn't matter if you are a part of PeTA, because PeTA claims to represent you(as well as every animals everywhere)

If that fact offends you, take it up with PeTA- don't berate me because I'm simply repeating what they claim.

And Tomo, please, PLEASE, ignore Llama. No good can come from challenging the beliefs of a cultist.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 73
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/27/2009 7:30:12 PM
You cherry-picked the phrase in my post, when I clearly was using the calories in -calories out example as the punctuation mark for my entire point. Are there other factors that can be taken into account with dieting? Yes. What is the biggest determining factor for weight loss? Calories consumed versus calories burned. If you disagree with this statement in the context that it is framed, please provide evidence other than trying to mischaracterize my claim.

Here's a crazy notion, it seems your idea of countering a claim is to make assumptions about a person rather than directly attacking their claim. Let me break it down for you to make it easier:

1.) Vegetarians CAN be grouped....the category of vegetarian is INHERENTLY a grouping.

2.)While there may be some deviations from the norm, there are certain assumptions that can be made with a high chance of being correct.

Do you as a vegetarian/vegan have a High value for animal life? For example, are you apathetic, giggly, or appalled at the idea of kicking a puppy?

Does your Diet consist of little to no meat?

Does your life contain a spiritual component?

Are you positive about environmentalism or "green" movements or apathetic?

Do you recycle?

Are you a Liberal or Conservative?

Is your personal philosophy one of "non-violence"?


There, those are my claims. Are there any vegetarians/vegans that wouldn't identify with at least one of those items?

Now, let's take a look at your claims, even the personal ones!

You accused me of being prejudiced because I stated some broad generalities that I believe most vegetarians would fall under. Well, I tell you what, you check out the statistics and show me that my generalizations are incorrect, and I'll admit to being a prejudicial-bigoted-moron, deal?

Of course, I might have to call you a hypocrite because you painted the "cultural norm" for Indians as vegetarian. Since I assume we are talking about people from India, I would like to point out that a mostly vegetarian diet means that you still eat meat, so you could argue that the norm is to eat some meat or frequently eat meat - that describes roughly 3 to 4 fifths of the Indian population - which makes your claim fallacious. However, let's say that mostly vegetarian still counts as vegetarian, that still leaves about 30% of the population that eats meat regularly... I'm surprised that something "outside the norm" would still be so wildly practiced.

As for your "refutation" of my "liberals v.s. conservatives model", I assume you are talking about my generalization that vegetarians/vegans are more likely to be liberal rather than conservative...that was just a guess honestly. I completely made up that statement off of classical stereotypes...*shrugs*, I've got a hunch I'm right though. LOL, I won't be too disappointed to find out that most vegetarians are actually conservatives, since if I was really that curious I'd just look up a few studies and surveys and see what they had to say. Although....most "green" advocates are liberal, so the stats ARE on my side.

However, you blatantly make assumptions based off of your prejudices. While I agree that our country is supposed to operate as a constitutional republic, I do not agree that everyone who is educated is going to come to the same conclusion as you. There are very strong arguments for socialist and communist models, anarcho-capitalism, and even NWO style oligarchy's. Just because you think you are intelligent and have come to a certain conclusion that most of your peer-group agrees with doesn't mean that other intelligent people won't come to a different conclusion. That's pure arrogance and centrist thinking, and betrays an assumption that your view holds a monopoly on the truth. I won't go any further because its off-topic, but I think I made my point.

You claim that I see vegetarians as different from me and likely not as intelligent or knowledgeable. Well, let this serve as an example of why assumptions make you look like ....well, I think we all know the phrase.

I was actually a practicing vegetarian for a year, and have even considered it an option recently with my new found desire to get back into shape. In my opinion, there are two reasons that vegetarianism was a viable option for me - the diet restriction and the forced focus on nutrition. I happen to know other folks who have chosen to be vegetarians because they don't feel right about eating an animal, they are good friends of mine and I admire the way they act on their convictions. I also try not to make assumptions about intelligence mainly because I don't like to make assumptions...I prefer to be as accurate as possible. I certainly wouldn't make an assumption about the intelligence of a group of people who may have made a decision based on personal morality. While I do feel that the idea that vegetarianism is somehow "superior" than a balanced diet is ridiculous in light of the evidence, I do not assume that all vegetarians use this as their reasoning for their diet.

You claim that vegetarianism isn't a subculture.
The title of the article is "The Importance of Vegetarian Culture". This isn't a Q.E.D., but if you deny that there are certain generalities that can be made about vegetarians as a group, they you are ignoring the mountain of evidence that is parked right outside your door.

Also, you brought up a Nazi reference, so I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. You're done son, you're done.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 74
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/27/2009 7:33:05 PM
Oh snap- looks like I spoke too late. lol.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 75
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/28/2009 7:18:58 AM
Here's the thing though, let's take your example of the government. I would agree that the government is not currently a true representative of my values, and certainly George Bush isn't. However, is it really unfair to say that to the rest of the world what our government does isn't representative of Americans?

I'm a libertarian activist, I try to promote, educate, and generally be involved with the political process because of this fact.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/28/2009 10:33:05 AM
Ok, let's tackle this "vegan culture" issue right off the bat. Veganism and vegetarianism are a social culture in as much as they are style of eating. You only have to type in vegan culture in a google search to find tons of sites specifically dedicated to vegan or vegetarian lifestyles. How is this NOT a culture? That was my point, whether you identify with the culture or no is a non-issue, the fact of the matter is that a culture has sprung up around this dietary choice.

As for your evidence, I'm curious as to where it is. Its not been posted in this discussion, rather you made comparisons of paper and cow dung and geocentric thinking. Your "refutation" is that the type of food matters, and evidently you think the nutritional value of the food is more important to weight loss than the calories in the food. Again, I agree that the quality of the food plays a part, but the most important factor is the amount of calories in the food (I use the word food here so you won't use another appeal to ridicule...really? Crude oil?). If you have a number of studies which support this I would love to see them, however the consensus leans towards caloric intake v.s. calories burned as being the determining factor.

Also, I never said EACH of my generalizations, I said AT LEAST ONE! Seriously, did you even bother reading my post? I basically pasted the same thing twice, and both times I indicated that every vegetarian or vegan would likely agree with at least ONE thing on that last, if not more. Tell me, as a vegetarian, does your diet NOT consist of little to no meat? Was I wrong to assume this? Are you one of those rare meat-eating vegetarians I hear so much about?

As for the sample size, let's say a random sampling of 20-30, and you use the questions from that list to conduct your survey. Just post the raw data and I'll do my own calculations and you can do your own, deal?

Now, to address your questions on the "Indian topic"....sorry, I wanted to say "Indian incident because it makes it sound mysterious, lol...but to answer your questions , yes...yes it does. After all, the very nature of your question implies that their lives contain a spiritual component - and that's one of my generalizations, so they already fit into that category of "1 or more", don't you think?

However I would also agree that they aren't a part of the "vegetarian subculture", which I think of as purely a western phenomenon apart from organized religious beliefs. As I've said before, I know that there are many reasons people may adopt a vegetarian lifestyle (remember, I'm a former vegetarian and have considered it again recently), but that doesn't mean there isn't a vegetarian/vegan culture. It also doesn't mean that you can't make generalizations or categorize them because they are a category which inherently means that you can make generalizations!

So yes, I can agree with the possibility that there are more vegetarians because of upbringing than there are because of the rise of this sub-culture, but that doesn't change the fact that non vegans and vegetarians will make generalizations about them that include support of PETA because there is no voice of dissension from vegans and vegetarians.

That's the point, there isn't a vegan voice vilifying the vicious actions of PETA. In your tomato example I'm sure Jiperly would denounce your accusations, and that would fulfill the parameters that he had set in his initial claim. PETA is an organization, to match the voice of that organization you need the voice of another organization, not the whispers of a few individuals as they waffle over whether they support PETA or not. Seriously look over the posts, there aren't many vegetarians decrying the actions of PETA, rather what you see instead is borderline support and even partial advocacy. That seems to be an active acceptance of PETA's representation rather than just an apathetic reaction to the claims they have made.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/28/2009 12:01:43 PM
No worries, I've misread things before too, it happens. So yeah, I'm willing to fore-go the survey, lol.

And for your second statement, I completely agree, but that wasn't the point which was raised. What was raised was one of practicality.

People make generalizations, you can't stop that from happening.

Association with PETA as it is the largest organization which claims to represent vegetarians is something that will happen as a result of the human proclivity for categorization.

While there is no burden for vegetarians to "speak out" against PETA if they disagree with them, that has no bearing on the generalizations people will make. If you don't want to be associated with people like PETA then arguably the most effective course of action is forming a vegetarian organization which does NOT support PETA but rather denounces their actions.

So, in the tomato example, Jiperly doesn't HAVE to create a movement equal in size to the one you created, but if he wants to avoid that association it wouldn't be a bad idea. However, if that association is unimportant to him because for whatever reason then he can just ignore it, or even agree with certain points and appear to advocate it if that's how his mood takes him.

Hehe...Jiperly the tomato-bigot!
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 78
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/30/2009 3:34:56 AM
We have no idea who or what you are responding to.

To answer the question I can answer without a point of reference, ALF, or Animal Liberation Front, is a violent eco-terrorist group- they firebomb labs, attack farms, and send death threats and letter bombs.They're eco-terrorists.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 79
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/31/2009 10:28:10 AM
>>> Luddites were a 19th century movement against the growing ravishes of the industrial revolution. They would sabotage machinery to achieve their goals of a fairer workplace. Guess what... minimum wage, thank the luddites.

Not true at all.

The main objection Luddites had, as it was a revolution against more modern textiles, was that through technology skilled textile workers were not required, since many of the looms could be run with little or no experience. They would destory and attack places that had these modern building devices, until the British Government cracked down, going as far a transporting prisoners to Australia and executing 17 men.

It was a revolution not against the wages or the dangerous equipment, but rather, it was a revolution against more effective technology. Hence why Luddite is now a term for someone who fears or is threatened by new technology

Luddites had no involvement in the advancement of the minimum wage, nor did they act because of unsafe work enviroments- thats nothing more than a fabrication . Minimum wage in the United Kingdom, where the Luddite Revolutions took place, didn't appear until the Trade Boards Act of 1909, while the revolution you are attributing it to took place in 1811-1813.(although some municipalities regulated the wages as early as 1524)
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/2/2009 2:29:57 PM

Posted By: susieb on 2/2/2009 126 PM
Subject: Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Message: I'm very 'puzzled' as a uk citizen/supporter of peta/various other vegetarian/vegan organisations - where is all this coming from?

Well, it's a matter of looking at the facts Susie. As a supporter of PETA are you against:

-Animal testing for medicine
-Animals as a source for medications
-The rights of people coming before animals

PETA essentially wants to legislate their morality for the whole world, and they support violence in the cause of that action. I don't know if you bothered to read the whole thread, but we've had quite an in-depth discussion about this. I'm not going to go over what is already posted, you can read that for yourself. However, I will bring up something to consider...

A.) You serve as evidence for many of the points made by Jiperly, myself, and Raziel in this thread.
B.) You have managed to anthropamorphize animals to the point that you place human children on equal footing with baby cows.

What conclusions you can draw from this are your own. Allow me also to answer your questions:

1.) Compassion for others is fundamental to creating a better/more equal society/world. Why should that begin and end with humans?

Compassion for humans and animals is wonderful, however compassion for other humans is fundamental for human society to function - not so with animals. It is not a matter of equality, but of nature. Human beings have adapted to this world because of our ability to harness resources, including other animals. Other animals aren't on the same level as humans because they aren't - when was the last time you saw a compassionate "Save the Gazelles" movement sponsored by lions? We are the dominant species, while it would be great to treat animals with compassion, it is a mistake to think that we are obligated to. Animals and plants are resources, living resources that we shouldn't take for granted, but resources nonetheless.

2.) Why should we feel differently towards the young child/the calf/the lamb? What is the difference? Why should we feel differently towards the older person/the cow/the sheep? What is the difference?

The difference is that in general we don't eat other humans. It may be convenient for you to look at "peaceful herbivores", but you are also using a domesticated species as an example - a species that wouldn't exist without humans in the first place. Extend your example to wolverines, tigers, and sharks and it sort of falls apart. We don't eat wolverines because they aren't delicious, we don't often eat tigers because they are endangered (and we know this because we care, not because tigers save people from burning buildings), and we DO eat sharks because they ARE delicious and because they take a few of us from time to time. It's the circle of life...

3.)Do you imagine that the cow whose calf is torn from her at birth feels any differently to the woman whose child is taken from her?

Yes, yes I do. While a cow can feel sadness, and arguably even go through depression, it might "behoove" you to consider that the woman usually only has 1 to 3 children in her life-time, whereas that cow will often have many more. A woman has hopes and dreams for her child, and looks forward to her future grandchildren and the stories she will be able to share with her family.

The cow is also only alive because it makes baby cows, if it didn't do that we wouldn't bother keeping it, caring for it, and in general making sure it is well fed and fit-enough to reproduce. It's sad its baby is gone, but what plans did it make concerning the calf? What sort of cow-dreams are now crushed because that calf is gone?

I partially disagree with Raziel on this point - the cow doesn't feel emotions like humans do, because it isn't capable. While I would agree that they have the same emotions that humans have at the base level, they do not have the cognitive capacity to experience the range and complexity of emotions that humans do. It has to do with the structure of a cow's brain compared to a human - which is what sets us apart in the first place.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 81
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/2/2009 3:41:34 PM
Nah! It was James who said the instinct thing, not me :D As they say, the devil is in the details, nyuck nyuck!

I can agree with your "right to life" argument, but I think that's just because EVERYTHING has a right to live, but some species are more capable than others of surviving (us). It is our ability to survive that sets us apart in a very real way - just as****oaches are set apart as well. That doesn't mean we are obligated or are more deserving to life in any way, it just means that we can.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >