Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

Login/Join to Participate
Page: ......
PsyriSILVER Member
artisan
1,576 posts
Location: Berkshire, UK


Posted:
I would just like to mention out of general irritation that some veggie friends give me. They always ask how can I have a clean conscience because I eat meat? Uusally giving me a long lasting lecture also about how much healthier it is. I have no rpoblem with the healthy part. But I would like to inform you that plants have feelings too. If you have come across kirlian photography (aura photography) you can see strands coming from them. Well we know plants are alive of course but what about other tests that have been undergone? Plants react to the atmosphere around them eg music, smells, people talking.

Albeit they are a different form of life I just wish some veggies would stop taking the moral highground because I like meat.

All I can say is I appreciate every morsel of food that passes through my lips and I wonder where it came from and how that piece of food lived.

Views people?

Heres some linkage to show I aint a complete raving loony

linky link

Oh and if there are any fruitarians about who can give me a kick up the bum then go ahead.... I respect that you try not to harm anything to get your grub.

StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Jeff, you said "Feeling victimised doesn't change whether or not your lifestyle causes unneccasery harm or not."

That’s crap. It’s not about feeling victimized, it’s about changing peoples attitudes. The guilt approach does not work.

Unnecessary harm could mean many things to many people. If you want to stop unnecessary harm then you had better start at the top, and teach human beings to respect each other first. When humans have evolved enough to respect each other and stop killing each other. Then perhaps they will respect the environment as well as other species.

frown

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
redface and I can side that one aswell...

Victimizing others doesn't change a thing to the better.

Feeling victimised doesn't change a thing to the better.

Respect - on the other hand - changes a lot. Nobody wants to be beaten into submission (outside S/M wink ) And personally I prefer ppl who come from the source of free will. Anything else I have experienced as phoney and only lasting as long as the back is turned on them.

And to add one more thought: It's much about respect for each other. Some species/ ppl are willingly giving their lives for others (that's called devotion), it's just up to us whether we abuse this for the sheer satisfaction of a superficial and fake need, or whether we (as a species) finally grow up and stop to ridiculously force ourselves upon each and everything else here on this planet.... Do I make sense to you?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Stone


Jeff, you said "Feeling victimised doesn't change whether or not your lifestyle causes unneccasery harm or not."

That’s crap. It’s not about feeling victimized, it’s about changing peoples attitudes. The guilt approach does not work.



frown



Jeff pointing out that it's quite possible to have a lifestyle that does cause harm and yet feel victimised when someone tries to point that out.

From a buddhist perspective, I'd say that it's actually quite common.

From that perspective, most who cause harm do so through ignorance, rather than intent.

And, when someone tries to address that, the ego defends itself by throwing up feelings of righteousness followed by feeling victimised.

Clear examples of historical figures include Hitler, who clearly did cause actual harm, yet throuhgout felt victimised (by jews).

 Written by: Stone




Unnecessary harm could mean many things to many people. If you want to stop unnecessary harm then you had better start at the top, and teach human beings to respect each other first. When humans have evolved enough to respect each other and stop killing each other. Then perhaps they will respect the environment as well as other species.

frown



I agree that what constitutes 'unnecessary harm' is often open to interpretation.

Buddhism has a long standing tradition of vegetarianism- however, many buddhists are not vegetarian: that particular choice is one that, in buddhism as a whole, seems to be fairly open to interpretation.

However, other activities are not so open to interpretation-

'Right livlihood', one of the strands of the buddhist 'eightfold path' requires that you do not engage in work that clearly causes harm.

A common example given to illustrate this is the arms trade.

If someone makes their living selling land-mines, they are not buddhist.

Those who sell land-mines, from the buddhist perspective, do cause unnecessary harm- it's not open to interpretation.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Good points Dave. I agree with the ego thing, though I still think there is something is missing in this debate. You could call it victimization, but what I object to is the way vegetarians take the high moral ground in these debates.



The Middle Way sets a path through the two extremes of indulgence and self-denial. It could be construed that the hard-line attitude of many vegetarian / animal rights campaigners looks a lot like self-denial, and is in many ways indulgent. Enlightenment cannot be reached by a person who is not calm and at ease, or is so exhausted by hunger and thirst that their mind is unbalanced.



I also find the concept of right livelyhood difficult to understand. Many caring professions can also cause harm. Politicians who put re-election over the well being of their constituents, lawyers who defend guilty people, chefs who cook meat, Doctors who rely on animal testing.



You are right of course; the greatest battle is conquering oneself, besides which conquering others is simple and ultimately purposeless.



cheers smile

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Stone



Good points Dave. I agree with the ego thing, though I still think there is something is missing in this debate. You could call it victimization, but what I object to is the way vegetarians take the high moral ground in these debates.







You mean some vegetarians, yes?



I would say probably the majority of vegetarians do not take a moral high ground or try to victimise meat-eaters.



Of course, a minority do, but I'd put that down mainly to human nature/personality characterisitcs, than anything to do with being veggie.



Personally, I've met as many meat-eaters with a real bad attitude against vegetarianism- always goading for a 'debate' (generally = argument).



That doesn't mean meat-eaters are assholes; rather, some assholes are meat-eaters (or indeed, veggies).













 Written by: Stone







The Middle Way sets a path through the two extremes of indulgence and self-denial. It could be construed that the hard-line attitude of many vegetarian / animal rights campaigners looks a lot like self-denial, and is in many ways indulgent. Enlightenment cannot be reached by a person who is not calm and at ease, or is so exhausted by hunger and thirst that their mind is unbalanced.









Yes, but let's be realistic, barring that minority of individuals with genuine medical conditions, a vegetarian diet in no way leads to disruption of the mind, hunger or thirst, does it?



As you know, many practising buddhist sects are and have always been, vegetarian- vegetarianism is every bit as much the 'middle way' as is a diet including meat.



Most vegetarians are far from 'deprived'- entirely the opposite.







 Written by: Stone



I also find the concept of right livelyhood difficult to understand. Many caring professions can also cause harm. Politicians who put re-election over the well being of their constituents, lawyers who defend guilty people, chefs who cook meat, Doctors who rely on animal testing.









In the case of politicians who put re-election over the well being of their constituents- that is a clear case of not having 'right livelihood'.



Others aren't as clear-cut- but then, few things in life are.



Buddhists just have to do their best- assess, as well as they can, the consequences of their work and take it from there.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


daphnePLATINUM Member
member
91 posts
Location: dark sun, Germany


Posted:
I just saw this thread and I want to say a few things as well.

I've been a vegeterian for 8 years now. (I drink milk, and I eat yogurt, cheese..). All these years I've never tried to convince anybody into becoming a vegeterian. I've never even judged them. I believe that it's my right to make that choice as it's their right to choose to eat meat.

Occasionally people ask me 'why?' there is a number of reasons that led me to that decision and among them is my inability to kill an animal. It's like letting someone to do all the dirty work for you. Yes maybe if I'm stuck in the middle of nowhere and I need food, I will hunt for it, but in the current condition of our society i find it totally unnecessary.
Some people respect my choice, some even understand it. But there is a large number of them that practically laughs at it. Acts is if I'm a naive person that lives in a dreamy world. (well I believe that it's up to each one of us to make a difference). Very often I hear all these comments... "You're still a vegeterian?!?!" "and how do you live without meat?!" "You know, it wont kill you to take a bite"... A lot of them act is if i'm going through a phase that I'll grow out of.
I find all that insulting to my personality and I feel that they show complete lack of respect.

I think that in both sides there are people with terrible attitude. But the whole problem starts with the fact that there are sides. This is a personal choice and should be treated as sush. It's not about wrong or right. It's something completely subjective. After all, the importance of reasons making someone a vegeterian is different even among vegeterians. So, I really think that this conflict is pointless.

peace, love and hug

I'll tell you this...
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. "Jim Morrison"
****
"...but I, being poor, have only my dreams
I've spread my dreams under your feet
tread softly because you tread on my dreams..." Yeats


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:




 Written by: daphne

It's not about wrong or right. It's something completely subjective.





err the damage to the environment is not subjective. Unless you think the depletion of fish stocks is just purely conjecture and no-one really knows how many fish there are anyhow? Then discomfort to the animals in intensive farms is subjective I guess...to them? Would it be subjective if it were people in there? Is it subjective in Guantanamo bay? In refugee camps? is their suffering just take it or leave it up to the individual to deny or not - no facts involved? whats this subjective mean anyhow?



if you feel guilty for doing something wrong it means you are doing something wrong that you as a good person dont really want to stop doing, but know you probly should. thats what guilt is for. Bad people try to use it as a weapon - but come on - no one is denying the facts - this leads to conclusions which are uncomfortable.



If you really want to live guilt free (tricky as a white westerner) theres either a long road of denial ahead or a long road of healing.




EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1172063358)

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


daphnePLATINUM Member
member
91 posts
Location: dark sun, Germany


Posted:
You should understand that I obviously don't think the environmental destruction is subjective. After all I am a vegeterian. But this is the right choice for ME. With my principals, my moral values and my way of thinking.
As for the guilty part, I don't feel guilty about anything. I'm happy with my choices.
I believe that most people aren't even informed to make a decision. They eat meat because everybody else does. But I can't pass judgement on anyone for this. Maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't. I don't know, but I try not to judge people in general.
And the proof that it's something subjective comes from the fact that there are varying opinions on the subject of eating/not eating meat.

I'll tell you this...
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. "Jim Morrison"
****
"...but I, being poor, have only my dreams
I've spread my dreams under your feet
tread softly because you tread on my dreams..." Yeats


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
the guilt part wasnt aimed at you daphne, it was aimed at those who 'are sick and tired of being guilt tripped by vego-nazis'. Just pointing out that guilt is something good people feel when they knowingly do something wrong.



I agree that there are many things that we shouldnt judge people for that fall into the realm of personal preference- eg the colour T shirt they want, whether they prefer mornings or evenings, classical over rock, what colour they want to dye their hair, etc



however when it comes to matters of harm - especially to others then we do need to make judgments. If a person goes out and shoots someone, we judge that to be wrong, and as a society we dont generally tolerate it. But if that person behaves in a way that is very harming, but distributes the harm over the whole world (like illegally releasing CFCs from old fridges into the atmosphere - something that has a known widespread damaging effect) we dont seem to sanction them anywhere near as much, because there is no obvious victim. Still we sanction them with a fine or something. same as White collar crime vs Theft, steal $100,000 from 100,000 people and you wont get the same punishment you would if you stole if from one person.



One thing we seem to be completely unable to grasp as a society however is future harm. People are doing things right now that are definitely going to harm the lives of future generations. No doubt about it. And there are no sanctions for that.



In this early morning rant, I've not even addressed the rights of animals, or the environment.



I accept your point about people not making the right choices because they dont have the best information - I think we all fit in that category, but what about people who do know the information, but still choose to go on doing what they are doing?



ie - if someone trips over a dog at a BBQ, and accidentally stabs someone, we call it a shocking accident, however if someone drives over to someones house in the middle of the night and knowingly stabs them, we call it murder. The law certainly makes a distinction.



I'll go back under my rock now.



Josh

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Good points Dave. When it’s all said and done I suppose it comes down to having to give up something.



Dave you asked “You mean some vegetarians, yes?”

No, I meant guilt tripping vego-nazis wink My eyes roll over when people get on their soap-box and start moralising. It always ends in tears. I’m with daphne. “It's not about wrong or right.”



Old Zen Poem (I love this one, so I keep dragging out)



The perfect way is without difficulty,

Save that it avoids picking and choosing.

Only when you stop liking and disliking

Will all be clearly understood.

A split hairs difference

And heaven and hell are set apart!

If you want to get to the plain truth,

Be not concerned with right or wrong,

The conflict between right and wrong is a sickness of the mind.



Have a good one



Tree hug2 ers



wink

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
(from under the rock)

zen seems to be about destroying consciousness...yes?

I cant see how someone who is conscious of their actions would think its better to not concern themselves with the wrongness or rightness of their actions...that sounds extremely chaotic. I mean I guess it works for non-conscious beings...

Do you think it means what will be will be, and so dont waste time thinking about it?

I think I get the bit about only when you stop choosing will it get easy.

along the lines of "The only things you keep are the things you give away" or "He who has the least possessions is the richest man"...

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Pyro, I really can't follow up on what you're putting out here. Without condescendence, I gain the impression you're cought up in a black and white pattern (BAD white, GOOD black - or vice versa, depending on the situation)...

Much has been said already and even though I can understand, I do not support that guilt pattern put on meatlovers, neither I do support the ignorance them choose to live in.

Personally I do eat meat occasionally. It's not the main part of my diet, but it's a part of it. And no, I do not feel guilty for it. Why would I? Because I didn't kill that chicken, or caught that fish myself? Tell you what, I don't work in the sewers, yet I do go to the 5hitters, and what's wrong with that? I'm taking myriads of lives, when driving a car at sunset and whenever I sit on a motorbike, hitting a butterfly I feel sorry for it. But that's the way it is - to me.

I try to minimize my impact on the environment, society and the planet as a whole - this too does neither turn me into a saint, nor does it make me a "good" person (whatever that means and whoever defines that).

I only know one thing: I recognised that I was in a powerstruggle on and off with myself, when I used to judge upon any stereotypical part of society: the rich, the polytrickians, the industrial responsible, the stupid, etc. *fill in appropriate group*

So, slashing out to any of "those" says more about myself, than it does about them... at least IMHO

Hence I do well understand your rant, as it sometimes is very frustrating if one has seen "the light" and nobody else around can really notice what one perceives the truth to be.

I would just prefer to have a biased argument and to see the "lefties" stop the fighting as much as they want this anyone else to do.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
A few thoughts on the 'guilt trip' that is being brought up many times in this thread-



1. are there any actual examples in this thread of this kind of behaviour from vegetarians?



If so, how about posting a few quotes so we can get an idea of what meat-eaters perceive as attempts at laying on guilt.



2. Is some of this down to being a bit sensitized?



ie, if someone points out that there is plenty of evidence showing that the meat industry causes substantial environmetal damage- it's a safe bet that they're simply posting that as a straightforward factual matter.



Is this what meat-eaters are seeing as being attempts to provoke guilt feelings?



3. As adults, isn't it the case that if someone's trying to put guilt feelings on to us, it's our choice as to whether we're going to take that on?



If you genuinely believe you've nothing to feel guilty about, then, assuming that you've got a decent grip on yourself and your life, i don't see how a ranting veggie can have much effect.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Even if this void has been in this thread so far, OWD - I guess Josh just filled it wink ubblol help hug

I quite like the idea of a "ranting veggie" - as in an angry zuccini... wich would then be a "zickini" (excuse, german insider-joke)... ubblol

And this brings us straight back to the initial topic. umm

I just love your posts OWD... ubblove hug

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
ah yes the old - "but we cant completely fix it so lets ignore it and stop talking about it" attitude. or - we all do what is in our ability to do, but many people simply dont have much ability to think about the damage they are causing....

I dont buy it - until we as a race wake up and start taking some responsibility for this mess, we are going to be in deeper poo than we already are.

and nobody wakes up to this stuff til its too late. ie - if youve noticed the Geese flying the wrong way in the winter, its probly too late to do anything about their impending extinction or about the global warming thats caused it.

And besides, from your aircon home to your aircon office to your aircon shopping mall in your concrete city I dont see how you'd particularly notice this stuff yourself. how are you going to wake up?

I've never claimed to have seen the light, I've merely pointed out a few _undisputed-on-both-sides_ facts and tried to lay out an argument based on them.

Yes I understand that perhaps it might make people unhappy to realise that they are contributing to extinction, de-forestation, global warming, and any number of other blights on the planet we all depend on and 'love'.

I dunno - I think I'd rather be unhappy but know whats going on and be trying to help, than be happy in ignorance.

and besides...



Bluecat started me off back in the down the rabbit hole thread so its his fault! bloody hippies and their green-memes! smile hug

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
:reads above post and notices three sentences started with 'and':



yeah - definitely a rant. does that make the facts or logic faulty tho?



Wheres Jeff? I need my logic checked.. wink

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
This thread's a little shy in the guilt thing, but a good example might be a meat is murder bumper sticker. ( I saw one of those yesterday, and thought of this thread )

But one thing's for certain on this thread...nobody's trying to justify that their obviously environmentally hostile consumption of meat is somehow making them a better person like was tried on the flying thread.

We all pick the ways that we willingly destroy the planet in pursuit of our desired mindsets. Ignorance might not really be the issue here as much as apathy is.

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
ubblol I like your attitude, Josh - no question. But I doubt that climate change can be traced back to a BBQ wink

I can't see that the consumption of meat is hostile to the planet. IMHO it's just in the way that animals are treated. Many persons (whilst being farmers and butchers, etc) do forget that they are actually dealing with a living (and conscious) organism... one thing that frightens me most about mankind is the potential to deprive others from their born rights. meditate

Personally, I am okay with my diet - without denial, ignorance and without guilt... at least IMHO.

Back to the topic: It's interesting how meatlovers get all defensive about their "habits" - guess that makes them prey wink IMO two wrongs don't make a right. So, if one's not happy with what they do (as you already put it, Josh - and also OWD): go and do something about it! shrug

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
it's interesting how vegetarians get defensive about their habits...
i've been attacked by every veg i have met in person...one time in response my museum friend and i had a barbecue...childish i know
the guilt comes into play in this thread with "think how the poor animals are treated" or "it destroys the environment with over grazing and flatulence." Whether it is a fact or not does not mean it cannot be used as a guilt trip.
Those vegetarians worried about the environment should consider where there food comes from too though...as I showed with my strawberry article. it's not about being a vegetarian, it should be about where your food comes from

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: stout



This thread's a little shy in the guilt thing...





Glad someones noticed smile

It's more than a little shy- as far as I can tell not a single vegetarian has attempted to put guilt on a meat eater.

This is in noticably sharp contrast to the number of meat-eaters complaining about vegetarian harrassment- this thread is far from 'a little shy' in those...

Like I said before, most vegetarians are OK- as long as meat-eaters refrain from trying to push their views, or use logically falicious arguments to justify/promote meat, then they'll pretty much keep to themselves.

There is a minority of very active and very vocal militant veggies who make a nusience of themselves and, even then, it's not so much that they're vegetarian as that they are mouthy, militant, 'chip-on-shoulder' types.

Now, what about reverse harrassment- do you all think it's particularly pleasant for those chilled-out veggies making up the veggie presence in this thread, to be encountering every third post, comments about how nasty and aggressive vegetarians are?

It's not pleasant, not polite and not particularly conducive to a meaningful disscussion.

I think we're all aware now that most meat-eaters here have encountered some militant veggies and we do sympaphise- it's just that it has no connection with the vegetarians here.

So, could we stop bringing it up, or at least reduce the frequency to, say, every 10th post? smile

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by:


the guilt comes into play in this thread with "think how the poor animals are treated" or "it destroys the environment with over grazing and flatulence." Whether it is a fact or not does not mean it cannot be used as a guilt trip.




Yes, the treatment of factory farmed animals and the effects on the environment are facts.

As such they are not only totally acceptable in a discussion including vegetarianism, but actually essential.

They can, as you say be used as part of a guilt trip, but that's a matter of the way they're presented and the tone they're presented in.

In this thread, as far as I can can, they're not been put forward as guilt trips, but as factual parts of reasoned POVs.

If you still feel that talking about the facts of animal suffering or environemtal damage, inflicts guilt; then, do you have suggestions as to how vegetarians can engage in debate without this happening?

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
it doesn't for me but it probably does for others, i think it just needs to be met as i did saying that being veg also causes damage
our existence causes damage

i don't fly that much, i am conservative with many other waste producing aspects of my life, i will eat meat. i've bought rainforests, and land for an elephant conservation. i have not said that these veg's have attacked me but i think we meat eaters have in this forum, i have said that in person, they make faces and say inappropriate things, like "ewww, how can you put that disgusting thing in your body" which i find sort of funny that it is disgusting but anyways...

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
I can count the times I've personally had a "problem" with vegetarians using the fingers one one hand, but, as OWD points out, it's the activists that cause all the polarization between meat eaters and vegetarians.

One comes to expect vegetarians to immediately seize moral high ground, and a visit to some veg websites where they outline the meat industries practices only serves to prove this point. Why else would this information be there if not to reinforce the "we're superior" mindset that underlies the motivation behind becoming a veg in the first place. That frutarian website I linked to in the first page of this thread serves as an example of this going to far with the suggestion that one can be ethically superior even to vegans by switching to their diet.

Vegetarians are right about the animal suffering and environmental damage though and those topics do belong in a discussion about vegetarianism It's only natural for meat eaters to see them as a guilt trip and go on the defensive, much like the frequent flyers did.

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Stout



I can count the times I've personally had a "problem" with vegetarians using the fingers one one hand, but, as OWD points out, it's the activists that cause all the polarization between meat eaters and vegetarians.









I wouldn't actually say that activists cause all the polarization between meat eaters and vegetarians.



There are agressive activists in all areas- they only cause people to polarise to the extent that those people are prone to polarization, or who want to be polarized.



For some reason, many meat eaters seem prone to categorising all vegetarians as being extremist.



This is something that's been happening in this thread, where, despite the fact that there have been no instances of vegetarian extremism or aggression, the majority of meat eaters here are complaining repeatedly about vegetarian extremism/aggression.











 Written by: Stout







One comes to expect vegetarians to immediately seize moral high ground, and a visit to some veg websites where they outline the meat industries practices only serves to prove this point. Why else would this information be there if not to reinforce the "we're superior" mindset that underlies the motivation behind becoming a veg in the first place.





It's not about establishing superiority, it's about spreading the facts about meat industry practices.



The aim is enable people to make rational decisions about their diet- this can only be done if they know the facts.





 Written by: Stout



That frutarian website I linked to in the first page of this thread serves as an example of this going to far with the suggestion that one can be ethically superior even to vegans by switching to their diet.











Fruitarianists are not particularly close to vegetarians in their views.



Whereas vegetariansm is a non-extreme diet firmly established by medical science to be healthy, fruitarianism is,in contrast, in the eyes of medical science, not adequate to provide the nutritional requirements of humans and not a healthy diet (except in the very short term).



It tends to attract far more cranks and mentally unstable individuals than vegetarianism.



(Much like a slightly less-extreme version of the 'light-food-ers' who believe that humans can live without any food or water whasoever).



What a fruitarian site says about any kind of dietary ethics has no bearing whatsoever on vegatarians.







 Written by: Stout







Vegetarians are right about the animal suffering and environmental damage though and those topics do belong in a discussion about vegetarianism It's only natural for meat eaters to see them as a guilt trip and go on the defensive, much like the frequent flyers did.





Personally I don't think it's at all natural for a group of people to get defensive about facts.



Facts are the last thing you want to be having problems with if you're wanting to reason things out and come to decisions smile

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


iansmithmember
90 posts

Posted:
I'm a meat eater, and I have no problem with most vegetarians. The overbearing, preachy minority don't do any favours to the cause of vegetarianism. Here's my response to two arguments regularly spouted by the zealots - #1 "Humans aren't designed to eat meat. Our teeth don't have pointed incisors like cats and dogs". Indeed we don't - that's because (unlike the aforementioned cats and dogs) we don't use or teeth when trapping and killing prey. If you speak to the world's leading scientists they'll tell you that man is an omnivore, eating both meat and vegetables in his natural enviroment. #2 " Yes, wild animals eat each other but humans eating meat is cruel...humans have a conscience and are able to make an ethical decision.." Dosen't say why eating meat is cruel, though! I've heard these arguments many a time but haven't articulated a reply till just now when I started reading this thread.

StoutBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada


Posted:
OWD, I don't agree with the "want to be polarised" idea because it's something that simply just happens, whether one is looking for it or not. A case in point may be a meat eater going out to dinner with a group of vegetarians. How is that meat eater going to feel about placing his/her order for say veal, rare ? Would the meat eater simply assume that the vegetarians won't mind and go ahead,,or temper their order to something that's more socially acceptable for the moment ? Would said meat eater feel he/she was pressured to make a choice... I think so.

Maybe meat eaters perceive the facts as a threat. if so, then maybe they should get over it.... especially in light of the 18% percent of greenhouse gasses....and the IPCC report that just graduated global warming from "issue" to "crisis" and just admit that eating meat is bad for the environment. I could try a defence, that I only buy local meat ( which is true ) but I don't expect it to hold much weight. One thing I don't understand..if a person becomes a vegetarian for animal cruelty reasons, then why not go vegan ? because unless you have Bossy the milk producing cow living in your backyard, a vegetarian consuming commercially produced dairy is just as guilty of perpetuating "the industry" as a meat eater

OK. frutarians and breatharians are nutcases....I'm still wondering about raw foodists and their claims that cooking food destroys it's "lifeforce"

inasmith..interesting point about humans not using their teeth to kill things..I hadn't thought of that.

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Stout


OWD, I don't agree with the "want to be polarised" idea because it's something that simply just happens, whether one is looking for it or not. A case in point may be a meat eater going out to dinner with a group of vegetarians. How is that meat eater going to feel about placing his/her order for say veal, rare ? Would the meat eater simply assume that the vegetarians won't mind and go ahead,,or temper their order to something that's more socially acceptable for the moment ? Would said meat eater feel he/she was pressured to make a choice... I think so.




Most people eat meat; vegetarians are in the minority.

I know that vegetarians get at least as much prejudice, misunderstanding and hassle, from meat-eaters, as meaters do from veggies.

Given the absolute lack of victimisation from veggies on this thread, i'd suggest it's time to stop going on about it so we can focus on the real issues?







 Written by: Stout


especially in light of the 18% percent of greenhouse gasses....and the IPCC report that just graduated global warming from "issue" to "crisis" and just admit that eating meat is bad for the environment. ............

.......One thing I don't understand..if a person becomes a vegetarian for animal cruelty reasons, then why not go vegan ? because unless you have Bossy the milk producing cow living in your backyard, a vegetarian consuming commercially produced dairy is just as guilty of perpetuating "the industry" as a meat eater





Partly cos many are intimidated by the thought of going vegan- it's seen as more extreme and potentially health-threatening than going veggie.

But you're right- much of that 18% you mention is produced by dairy cows as much as meat animals.

Given that this idea of the meat industry being a major cause of environment damage is fairly new, I expect one of the issues that is about to become more important is working out the relative benefits of veganism to vegetarianism to the environment.

Personally, I support an overall reduction in all animal produce, not just meat.

This is partly because much of the health benefits of cutting out meat are neutralised if it's simply replaced by loads of cheese/milk etc- as is the reduction in environemtal damage.

I don't particualrly think people should be pushed towards being 100% veggie or vegan (unless, as in some people, they actually find it easier to go 'all or nothing' rather than have to set their own arbitrary limits).

The important thing is that, overall, humanity tends to rely a lot less on animal produce- not for reasons of abstract morality, but for the totally practical one that, if they don't, humanity is going to suffer considerably as a result.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
First of all I would like to issue doubts whether or not animal farming is de facto responsible for 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Would you be so kind, OWD, to - if you haven't so far - provide sufficient evidence, that proves this?

As far as my informations go, the entire farming sector might be responsible for 14% of all carbon emission. I will try to dig out sources who prove this information I recently came across.

On the other hand, the conversion of - for say rainforest - into agricultural land - for say in Brazil - to produce soybeans, is highly contributing to the rise of CO2. Whether or not these soy beans are exclusively used to feed farmed animals - I can't say.

Human teeth are not pointed? Well I do not know about yours... even in a babies mouth, there are teeth that are called "canine" (I'm lacking the English expression right now, but from the middle, it would be the third from the middle line, dentists give it number 43) - these particular teeth are somehow looking like a soft version of fangs (?) to me shrug

I would also not claim, that vegetarians are a minority (worldwide) - as (for instance) Indians (to my personal knowledge) are predominantly Vegetarians, if not Vegans.

The underlying guilt pattern put on meatlovers, in the face of 43 BILLION animals killed for food in 1999 alone, is undeniable.

Whereas this thread points at the fact, that vegetables indeed do have a consciousness and feelings - one fact that vegetarians usually deny, because this would diminish their "saint pattern".

Ultimatly - if one really wants to liberate ones self from that karmic pattern - indeed is to eat fruits and (artificially) substitute the lacking elements... IMHO

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom



First of all I would like to issue doubts whether or not animal farming is de facto responsible for 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Would you be so kind, OWD, to - if you haven't so far - provide sufficient evidence, that proves this?







Check my earlier posts where I put up some links to articles.





 Written by: FireTom





I would also not claim, that vegetarians are a minority (worldwide) - as (for instance) Indians (to my personal knowledge) are predominantly Vegetarians, if not Vegans.









I wouldn't claim it either, I was referring to the fact that, in our culture (UK/USA/European), that vegetarians are still a minority.









 Written by: FireTom



Whereas this thread points at the fact, that vegetables indeed do have a consciousness and feelings - one fact that vegetarians usually deny, because this would diminish their "saint pattern".









It's also been shown in this thread, that the existence of plant feelings is far more a moral issue for meat eaters than it is for vegetarians.



This is because meat production involves far greater plant fatalities than does vegetarianism.



A vegetarian meal involves a given quantity of plant deaths- the equivalent meat-based meal typically involves ten times that amount of plant death, due to the fact that the animal consumes vegetation throughout it's life.



Vegetarianism is not only better for animal suffering, it's also better for plant suffering smile

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Yes right, but it bases upon the way animals are farmed for food. Life depends upon each other - one on the other. Man has replaced most of the natural threats (to for say cows).

Milk and milk products in general are nothing that create suffering. It's the fact that cows are constantly kept pregnant for this purpose. Modern industrialisation has perverted much in the natural system.

Man has replaced the otherwise natural predators. - and what's wrong with that, as long as we come back to the natural essence and treat the lifeforms we depend upon more nicely...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Page: ......

Similar Topics Server is too busy. Please try again later. No similar topics were found
      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...