In modern society, where most of the population is concentrated in cities, humans live distanced from nature. In our little cubicles of concrete and forests of asphalt, we segregate ourselves from the plant and the rest of the animal kingdom (with small exceptions for close companions). Fewer and fewer of us know how to produce our own food, clothes or whatever and what it takes to produce it. With our incredibly demanding routines, we don't have time to stop and think about things that we take for granted. We mindlessly walk through supermarket isles throwing into the cart whatever is at a wallet's length, unconsciously trusting its source and method of production.
Becoming a vegan is a dramatic life decision. The conscious decision to live according to compassionate values with the aim of reducing suffering requires a radical consumption and lifestyle change. You find yourself learning about nutrition and reading through countless product labels for the 100% cotton jumper or egg-free falafels. You find yourself defending your plant based packed meal and explaining why dairy is actually detrimental to the absorption of calcium. You find yourself caring. You find yourself justifying where you get your Protein, Iron, Calcium, B12, Omega3, calories and hugs from. You find yourself making posts like this. You find yourself being shouted at, being called an extremist, a hippie, irresponsible, a snob, stupid, retarded, judgemental, a weirdo, obnoxious, lazy, prick worthless, coward and accused of forcing your views on others. Simply because you chose not to harm other beings, you find yourself.
Please feel free to share the conscious lifestyle changes that had an impact on the way you see the world and your social life.
Edit:
It still amazes me that a post which was originally meant to be about what makes people to stop and think, turns out to be yet another personal "shut the fuck up vegan" contest. Instead of trying to "educate" me on the "acceptable" way of bring up a subject that makes you uncomfortable, why don't we try to: 1) stay on topic and share any major awakenings in your life or 2) if we're going to talk about veganism let's talk about the 60 billion animals being tortured and murdered annually for human enjoyment unnecessarily just because we can, and not the vegan who just doesn't learn how to be polite, which will end up being a waste of everyone's time Or option 3) ignore this thread completely if this topic upsets you.
I don't know if this counts as a conscious lifestyle change, or decision, but when we decided to have children it's certainly changed everything. I changed considerably. I have been thinking about my kids and how they will have even less of a connection to farming etc. than I did growing up. My grandparents on my father's side raised chickens and had a large garden. in fact this is all my grandfathers doing. On my mothers side they had chickens, goats and a large vegetable garden. I was always surrounded by food that had been raised and grown by my family. My grandparents are older now and no longer farm. My kids will have to be taken on field trips etc to witness farming. We can have a small garden here at my house, but because of the dense tree cover it will prove difficult. Times, they have changed. But I agree that it's important for people to know their food source.
Also, regarding you being persecuted by people, I have to say that you bring much of this upon yourself. I saw that earlier you posted a cartoon in response to someone's discussion of Amish meat. It's super passive aggressive and had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. There's a time and a place for certain things, it's social etiquette and when you ignore that, people get pissed. I'm glad that your lifestyle change has been a positive thing for you. This post is exactly the RIGHT context for such conversations.
It certainly does count. I have no children and the thought of being responsible for a totally dependent and defenceless, small human is pretty scary. I admire anyone who has the guts to have children. I understand that very well. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest and it saddens me that people see a simple sign post asking to be kind to animals as something rude and unappreciated. It's like walking into an anti-gay protest and say "please be kind to gays". I don't understand what is so wrong with bringing up the discussion about discrimination, regardless of context. I won't apologise for not respecting the animal rights taboo. If I'm going to wait to discuss animal rights when I'm given a window by those abusing animals, I'll be waiting forever. Social etiquette does not trump discrimination in my books and I will be breaking social etiquette for as long as there is animal abuse.I don't know if this counts as a conscious lifestyle change, or decision, but when we decided to have children it's certainly changed everything. I changed considerably.
Also, regarding you being persecuted by people, I have to say that you bring much of this upon yourself. I saw that earlier you posted a cartoon in response to someone's discussion of Amish meat. It's super passive aggressive and had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. There's a time and a place for certain things, it's social etiquette and when you ignore that, people get pissed.
This is the core of the problem. We've had your discussion about animal rights, we'll probably have it again. However This space isn't just yours, and other people want to do things with it that have nothing to do with your cause/concern. This makes them angry. Because you have been given your space to say what you want, and you aren't giving others the same courtesy. It's not what you're saying, it's when.regardless of context.
You didn't have to post here, you could have ignored me. What should I do? Apologise for making people angry for pointing out something they do? Thank you but I kindly decline your polite request to ask me to shut up. For as long as there's animal abuse, there will be people pointing it out. 
Isn't this the crux of everybody's argument when you start pushing your agenda when they make a comment related to animals and have no interest in debating you?You didn't have to post here, you could have ignored me.
I'm all ears regarding your or anyone's perspective. I'm yet to read one regarding animal rights.
I have every interest in debating. Do you see anyone raising any valid arguments for eating meat? Or do you see a bash the vegan fest, yet again? Also, what agenda is this that you mention? 
Now, caelum19 has taken part in many conversations on Hubski and is an amicable person. Should caelum19 take it upon them to talk to me about veganism, in a thread that was appropriate for that, I would listen. But your cartoon and video dropping in threads that have nothing to do with veganism do nothing. Literally, they have the opposite effect of what you are hoping for. That is, unless you are hoping that we all strengthen our resolve to continue to eat meat, in spite of you. You can keep it up, I can't stop you but my guess is that you're literally hurting more animals because of it. No joke.and I will be breaking social etiquette for as long as there is animal abuse.
-And will thereby accomplish nothing except to stroke your own ego and feel like you are making a difference. In fact, you are likely making people less likely to hear the points of view you'd have them embrace even at a future date when you are not involved. In short, you are hurting your own cause.It's like walking into an anti-gay protest and say "please be kind to gays".
-NO. NO IT'S NOT. The way you do it, it would be like walking in to a conversation about Tennis, which tangentially mentioned Martina Navratilova and then randomly posting a cartoon saying, "please be kind to gays."
You are right, this has become an ego battle but not just mine. Please ignore me, or block me but to threaten to do more cruelty because I'm asking people to refrain from hurting others unnecessarily is twisted. Please tell me what harm have I caused to the conversations I interrupted other than some inconvenience? And how does that inconvenience compare to this? Can you not see the disproportionate reaction of outrage to my method of calling attention to the issue and the complete complacency to the unnecessary suffering of farmed animals? Which is more important?
I didn't threaten to hurt more animals, I'm saying that I wouldn't be surprised if your method of communicating your beliefs, which is to essentially drop annoying, not particularly clever, video's or cartoons on random comments you aren't involved in, will spur people to solidify their meat eating convictions. Is that what you want? If not, reconsider your methods. If you actually care about animals quit doing that. No joke. You won't though, because it's not about the animals with you, I think it's about the attention. Otherwise, you'd recognize that your obnoxious trolling isn't helping. If you really, and truly actually want to help the animals, show people how easy it is to be a vegan, show people the great food they can eat that doesn't contain animal products. Instead of dropping annoying vids in response to peoples #grubski posts, why not enter the challenge but post a vegan dish? -Chances are, if it's a creative and delicious looking dish, someone will try to make it. Maybe that night, they made YOUR DISH instead of the chicken they'd normally eat. -Maybe you WIN the grubski challenge and then the next challenge is titled The Grubski Vegan Challenge and we all get a chance to see first hand what vegan cuisine is all about.... All of that is WAY MORE PRODUCTIVE than your lazy attempts to sway opinion. I guess that's what's the most annoying about it, it's lazy. But you'll not do this.
In my previous post I asked very clear and pertinent questions which you chose to ignore. Instead you carry on with personal attacks and insults, when I've shown no disrespect to anyone. There's no point engaging in conversation while you're talking at me, not to me. I've updated the original post with your new insults.
(my interpretation of thenewgreen) Be proactive, not reactive. Become a positive role model, not just in veganism, but in life, so that others respect the way you conduct oneself and are drawn to follow your way and voice because they look up to you, and not because you have browbeaten them. I mean, sorry eightbitsamurai, but if we're going to bring up the metaphor that came up earlier: Be fuckin' MLK, don't be Malcolm X. (It's pretty extreme, I know. But MLK inspired people who had never experienced racism to join his cause because they respected and admired him; Malcolm X intimidated people who could have been his allies and drove them away.) Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
(from Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People) The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
Buddy, seriously, you're doing 2-3 of these, they're the last 2-3, and you need everything else that comes first. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
Begin in a friendly way.
Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
Appeal to the nobler motives.
Dramatize your ideas.
Throw down a challenge.
Please can you show me where I have: Disrespected anyone's opinions.
Where have I been "wrong"? And who defines what "wrong" means?
Where have I started in an unfriendly manner?
Where have I stopped anyone from doing a lot of the talk?
Where have I stopped people from feeling their idea?
What makes you think that I'm not seeing things from a meat eater's point of view? I was a meat eater, I know how I used to think. Was anyone ever a vegan to understand how I feel?
I'm sympathetic with meat eaters desires to a certain extent but I cannot in any way endorse it or there would be no disagreement.
What more noble motive than wanting to reduce cruelty, suffering and death do you want?you're doing 2-3 of these, they're the last 2-3, and you need everything else that comes first.
OK. You wanted an analysis, you're getting an analysis. 1. This post is begun by casting yourself as an outsider of society. You paint yourself as apart, maligned, different. What is friendly about that? It alienates everyone, including you. 2. The below quotes are not friendly. They do not respect others' opinions. You do not try to see alternative points of view. You are not sympathetic. These quotes are representative of your entire tone. Your entire exchange with 8bit exhibits all of these issues, rampantly, throughout. You never say "you're wrong," but you imply that your way is the only correct way, the moral high path, and all other paths are wrong and should be held in contempt. 3. Here's my favorite point. Y'know that whole "If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically" ? Well, multiple times in this thread multiple users have tried to share with you their opinion that while your motives are understandable (that would be them showing respect for your opinion), they don't agree with how you are carrying it out. Now, I get ignoring ONE person who tells you you are doing something in a way that not only turns others off, but doesn't help you. I don't get ignoring THREE, or FOUR, or FIVE. Considering the number of people in this thread you've got a majority that disagree with your methods (though they aren't arguing much about your ethics because we're willing to leave that alone) and instead of hearing, "Hey, maybe you are going about things wrong," you thrust your fists against the posts and still insist you see the ghosts. In other words when faced with a commonly held reality you stand there and go "NO! NO THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IS!" How many people need to tell you you are coming across as aggressive before you believe it? - Wait - I am pretty sure you will never believe it, or never care. That's the thing. No one who really cared how they were coming across would demand, insist, even, that other people demonstrate and explain exactly why they are coming across that way without pausing and examining their own behavior, preferably first, at least at the same time. You know you are being antagonistic and you don't give a shit because you think it's worth it for your Cause, while at the same time you hide behind faux innocence and martyred airs. "This thread became about veganism when it didn't have to!" WELL WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASK "HOW DID YOU FIND YOURSELF' AND THEN POST A RANT ABOUT HOW VEGANS ARE OUTSIDERS? You literally laid bait for this discussion. If you had even simply told the story of how you decided to become vegan, a) you would have been a shit ton more sympathetic to us because we could've related to you, and b) a metric SHIT TON LESS of users would have commented on it (veganism, how you practice it, etc). But no - you set up a fake post designed as an arena upon which you could play out your fantasies of martyring yourself, at least among our public opinion, for your Cause. 4. The other half of this statement is implied. If you allow another person to talk, that means you are supposed to listen. Moreover, if you listen to people, you will better learn how to appeal to them and their personal foibles/strengths/weaknesses/passions/whatever, thus making a more effective argumentative attack. However, a person who has spent an entire thread denying that their conversational techniques are offensive/irritating/ineffective despite being told the contrariwise, over and over again, clearly isn't listening to his audience. 5. That means you should have tried to lead us to the concept that veganism is better. You could have found out which one of us is staunchly concerned with climate change and begun slowly, inexorably, reasonably built on that concern and lead us to the conclusion that it is better to eat less meat due to methane emissions and so on. You could have found the person who cares about heart health and slowly brought them to the conclusion that eating less meat might be a good way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and trim waistline. You never brought a single person to the conclusion that veganism/vegetarianism might be better because - to put it in a metaphor from your perspective - we are all at the starting line and you are at the finish. Instead of heading to meet us, at the start, or half way through, and helping us run the race by pacing us, pointing out pitfalls, and offering us water, you have stood at the finish line this entire time screaming about "Why aren't you guys here yet the finish is clearly here and that's the only place anyone in their right mind would want to be!" _ - Brah you ain't interested in a discussion and after collecting these quotes I ain't convinced you're really sane. Bet you a dollar you refuse to see the truth in any of the statements I make in this post. I see straight through your "oh who me? I'm going to argue what 'aggressive' really is because I can derail this conversation via SEMANTICS instead of acknowledging that I railroad conversations in order to jam my big fat dick of a personal mission down people's throats while they're talking." I will tell you one thing - I AM THE DARKNESS I AM THE NIGHT AND I DEFINITELY AM EATING MORE STEAK TONIGHT BECAUSE OF YOU Also, I'd totally try horse some time, if I could.By the way, do you have a valid argument to justify the billions of animals currently being cruelly imprisoned, abused, rapped, mutilated and murdered for no other reason than human enjoyment?
Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?
this has become an ego battle but not just mine.
you carry on with personal attacks and insults,
I shall add this one to my list of insults. What have I done that is so repugnant?
I'm sorry if you find me inconvenient, but that's not going to make me stop.
Where have I stopped anyone from doing a lot of the talk?
Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
Lovely ending, I hope you let it all out of your system.
It's hard to listen to other people when you don't like what they say.
Well, sure. OrganicAnt, for example, will steer any discussion towards "meat is murder" within 500 words and then steadfastly refuse to acknowledge or entertain any other aspect of the discussion (even if it's about Smash Bros). One can safely ignore anything and everything he has to say even if you agree that meat is murder for the simple reason he's adding nothing to the discussion. HOWEVER you need to listen to him enough to appreciate he's got fuckall to say before you can go about your business ignoring him (like I did about four months ago). It's like the first time you get a new HD tuner. You need to flip through the channels at least once to determine which ones show old TV shows you like and which ones are nothing but the Home Shopping Network overdubbed in Korean.
I think you're confusing this entire thing as a conversation about veganism vs. meat eating. It's not, it's a conversation about how to have social etiquette, about how to best convey your thoughts and ideas in a way that will garner the most favor and effect your desired outcome. For someone constantly asking people to "listen," you ought to try it too.
We're going around in circles. I already explained what I thought about social etiquette: I don't have anything new to add.I won't apologise for not respecting the animal rights taboo. If I'm going to wait to discuss animal rights when I'm given a window by those abusing animals, I'll be waiting forever. Social etiquette does not trump discrimination in my books and I will be breaking social etiquette for as long as there is animal abuse.
Remove the words "social etiquette" from my last comment and then reply. Your motive is sound but your methods suck. EDIT: So what I'm asking is this: Do you actually think that the best way to help get people to become vegan, or to become more sympathetic towards your beliefs is to post cartoons and videos in comment threads that you're not participating in and that have nothing to do with the topic of health, diet or animal rights?
No one is forcing you to put up with my "obnoxious" and "lazy" rudeness. If you or anyone feel so strongly against my methods why don't you ignore me, block me? That's what kleinbl00 did. It'd be a lot easier and healthier than having both our blood pressures raised. And when you finally decide to block me, ask yourself if you're doing it to avoid me or the subject at hand which deep down actually troubles you. Edit:
My honest answer to your edit is, YES, I do think this is the best way of calling attention to a crucial subjected that is regularly ignored, dismissed, smacked down. If nothing else for the historical record. When future generations researching the internet archive can see that not everyone stood placidly by while billions, BILLIONS of creatures were being abused just because, well they taste nice. Because let's be honest that is what it stems down to, putting our own pleasure ahead of another species well being and the stubbornness of the human ego to admit it. And then I'm the unreasonable, inconvenient one. Let the future judge that.
ANSWER THE QUESTION: Do you actually think you are changing hearts/minds when you do that? If not, what is the motivation? Attention? Do you think there are better ways to achieve your ends? If you don't answer the actual questions above, it will speak volumes.
_refugee_'s analogy is pretty spot on. I'm not trying to insult you, and I'm not kidding when I say this, I'm trying to help you. It's obvious that you care deeply about this, and there is some truth in what you say and it can be hard for some people to hear. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be saying it, in fact it probably means the opposite. But it's all in how and when. Try a new approach. There's more than one way to skin a cat. -sorry, I couldn't resist. --what an odd phrase though, does anybody know the origin?
Stackexchange also wonders. Best guess: cat skinning (alive v. dead) was the subject of popular horror in 1832. It was used in Westward Ho! in 1840 for shock value as a consequence, then used by Mark Twain in 1890 as a conscious or unconscious homage/allusion. Connecticut Yankee is very much a downy-homey adventure in Camelot and Twain probably liked the shock comparison. Meanwhile, most readers of Twain didn't know his allusions and references but he was much beloved during his lifetime, so he gave the term legitimacy, much like Li'l Wayne and "no homo." Meanwhile the original meaning was lost. This is how people think "calling a spade a spade" is a racist comment, despite dating back to Plutarch.
Yes, only an idiot wouldn't plan out such a large decision. Seriously, an idiot. That would be extremely irresponsible, especially given all the many, many birth control methods available. We waited till we had the time and resources available. We are older parents, I suppose, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
You will discover that when you have kids, all the assumptions you had about what it would be like to have kids are correct. They are approximately about as much work, every bit as fascinating and just as much money as you predict. Anyone with a moderate amount of self-awareness will come into parenthood fully cognizant of the challenges and rewards.
Who wants to talk about the ethics of eating meat? thenewgreen started a dialog for that purpose and it is almost entirely about organicAnt. I would like to discuss the subject rather than discuss the discussion. Hubski has shared a few rich, detailed perspectives: Meriadoc celebrates hunting but also has "conflicted feelings on eating meat." pseydtonne suggests that we "Create a positive movement -- that diverse food high in fiber is cheaper, easier to spice, and feels good." nowaypablo should tell us the story of hunting a wild pig. elizabeth has been "making an effort to eat less meat lately." BLOB_CASTLE gives reasons for having "cut back significantly" on eating meat. organicAnt describes experiences leading to a vegan lifestyle. mknod points out that there is "very little choice except to eat meat" in Alaska. rob05c says "I don't eat much meat, and when I do, I feel bad." bioemerl feels "zero guilt about eating meat." caelum19 explains why "I've been vegan my entire life." b_b has mixed feelings about using animals to benefit humans, but has the good sense to stay out of a contentious debate. Most of the calmly-expressed opinions I have found seem to go against eating meat. Can anyone provide additional perspective for the other side? Here is my view, and the reasons I have been reducing my meat consumption: 1) Most of the meat that we eat today is produced in ways that causes significant suffering. 2) Choosing to eat less meat is a realistic way for most people to reduce suffering in the world. 3) Therefore, most of us should choose to eat less meat. 4) The logical end point is that most of us should not eat most animal products, except in unusual circumstances where making that choice would arguably cause human suffering outweighing the non-human suffering (such as people with little access to plant food, hunters who love their sport, perhaps also people who love the taste of meat and choose sources that minimize animal suffering). I will also mention that I think human suffering is more important than non-human suffering, and when a living thing has a primitive or no nervous system the word "suffering" may not even be meaningful. And I do not blame people who don't have the luxury of spending time online discussing this subject for making choices without weighing all the implications.
Off the top of my head, there are four reasons to "eat less meat": 1) Health. Lots of red meat is not healthy and many of the ways we prepare meat increase carcinogenic load. 2) Expense. Beans will always be cheaper than chicken or steak unless there are powerful subsidies at play. And there are powerful subsidies at play in the United States so this is a muddy one. 3) Social concerns. Meat has a higher impact on the environment than vegetables, from a greenspace perspective as well as a greenhouse gas perspective. Additionally, industrial agriculture produces pretty tremendous runoff waste. 4) Ethical concerns. If you're going to eat an animal someone had to kill it. The level of acceptable suffering caused by one's diet is certainly a contentious subject. These are four complex problems with many different solutions and nobody is going to come to the same conclusions as someone else. Someone may come to completely different answers at different times of the year. All my vegetarian friends gave up on eating vegetarian in Asia because it simply can't be done. Every time a person reads a little more about food, their perspective on the debate shifts. It's very much a moving target. And that's why my discussions with vegetarians tend to be nuanced and focused on recipes. I eat vegetarian. I eat vegan occasionally. But I also really cherish a good heritage turkey and even if I cut my bacon consumption way down, it's never going away. I'm fully aware of many different aspects of the issues with meat-eating and have come to my own conclusions. I am comfortable with them at the moment and when that changes, I know ways to return to my comfort levels, be that eating less meat, avoiding certain meat products, etc. There are many dimensions to the subject and a wide-ranging solution-space. "But have you thought about the ethics?" There will always be a vocal vegan or vegetarian on public forums that will ignore this dimensionality. They will presume that people who eat meat simply haven't considered the ethical impact of their choices, or are naive to the suffering that eating meat causes instead of recognizing that others have, to coin a term for pure shock value, a higher "threshold of evil". Thus, the discussion devolves into the righteous vegan berating everyone else for their moral failings and everyone else telling the vegan to fuck off. A tiny percentage of vegetarians wish to hit their conversational partners over the head with their moral choices. A less tiny percentage of vegans do but it's still a small number. An intelligent conversationalist quickly realizes that a conversation about whose lunch choices are more on the side of the angels only serves to piss everyone off and enjoys their salad in peace. So I'm not sure that an ethical discussion is all that useful - it's a tough conversation to have without debating who is more moral and why. The mechanism of exercising those morals falls by the wayside unless everyone is really careful to keep to the high road and I think this particular subject has been dragged through the mud too much at this point.
This is as sensible and balanced a perspective as one could ask for. Thanks. All four of those items are complex and worthy of discussion, but #4 seems to generate most of the vitriol. I suppose it is understandable. We can have a civil discussion on music piracy without implying that almost everyone is guilty, and the consequences to artists do not merit comparison to atrocities. With the meat issue, one side feels justified in using any means necessary to raise awareness, while the other side performs extraordinary contortions to avoid the question. It is a tough conversation to have, and I found it very difficult to enter without diving directly into the mud. (I even laid groundwork for a slam-dunk slavery analogy that would have settled the issue, in the alternate reality of my imagination.)
I agree. The animal kingdom, as such, is a completely agnostic in its definition toward sentience. I once asked my cousin, a vegetarian for twenty or so years, whether she had any moral qualms about eating an anemone, for example, a creature that likely can't feel pain in any way that we would describe as pain, given that it lacks the mechanisms to do so from a neurobiological point of view. She told me yes, but couldn't articulate why. Not that her opinion isn't valid, but it perhaps points to a critical lack of knowledge of how organisms interact with their environment, and how pain is processed. In my world view, the grey area is around birds and mammals. That is, I have no objection whatever to boiling a lobster.[W]hen a living thing has a primitive or no nervous system the word "suffering" may not even be meaningful.
I was with you up until your last sentence. My partner identifies as vegan and has done for more than a decade. By way of background, she has a PhD in animal ethics and has worked as an ethicist for research institutions. She and her vegan friends have no problem eating bivalves: mussels, oysters, abalone. There seems to be widespread agreement among vegans that they're about as sentient as a flower. I'm very happy to agree. *Edit: Updated the link because the DFW article is such a good read I decided it deserved its own Hubski entry.
Yes I threw that in to be intentionally provocative. The lobster obviously has a nervous system. It lacks, however, anything like the pain processing and memory mechanisms that mammals and birds possess. I shall respond more fully after reading your link.
The Major awakening in my life came about 6 years ago, when I first had the inkling that I was transgender. It took me 4 years and change to accept it, and another year to get on the road to HRT, but here I am now, the happiest I have been in over a decade, maybe... ever? The awakening came when I realized I didn't want to be with the vocal majors at my music school, I wanted to BE them. ---- but now, onward to you. Frankly I'm concerned, because - in this persona, anyways - all you talk about is your veganism. It is all that defines you, and not in a good way. It seems obsessive, as if you see it as the only important side you have to show the world. I see that as pretty unfortunate.
Yours are colourful, nice. By the way, do you have a valid argument to justify the billions of animals currently being cruelly imprisoned, abused, rapped, mutilated and murdered for no other reason than human enjoyment?
Nope, not really. It's just not really a cause that I invest much time in, oooor even care about, to be honest! I'm super into race relations, though, as you might have seen here on hubski. But I know people can find that grating, which is why I try not to constantly bring it up. Sometimes it's hard - there are lots of instances where I feel like race could be mentioned in a particular conversation, but then I step back, think, "would this further progress in what I feel is an important issue?", realize that doing so would be detrimental, and then let it go. Because there'll be another day for that conversation to occur. I mean it's muthafuckin Black history month, bruh. I might NEVER shut up this February. But imagine if I followed you around from comment to comment going "THIS IS THE WHITEST SHIT EVER"to everything you said, then linking to a bunch of Black Panther videos? It'd probably bother the shit outta you. (and by the way, just as a personal opinion, veganism is high up on my list of whitest shit ever) I'm just saying - and this is the second time I've said this, in like, the past week on hubski - pick and choose your battles! It'll work out really well for you in the long run. I agree it's a conversation to be had, but you go about it in an accusatory manner. And like I said, I get it - being in Boulder, though an absolute bastion for veganism, has also gotten me to a point where I feel like actively resenting White people - and that shit isn't right. Don't let it happen to you in regards to veganism.
I hear you, I'd have thought that coming from a background of discrimination would make you want to stop discrimination going on in other facets of life. If it's something you're truly passionate about I don't think you should shut up. I understand how annoying that'd be, I haven't chased anyone around with animal rights links though. However in your context, if I was being racist, I'd be deserving a damn good chase and serious educating. I don't insult people, I rarely use curse words, I try to state facts and never make it personal. Yet people keep accusing me of being aggressive and accusatory and I don't understand where or when I've been aggressive and accusatory. Can you please give me examples? I really don't want to come across that way. Sure, I know how inconvenient it is to break the flow of a conversation about meat eating with a sign asking to be kind to animals, but is that aggressive? I mean if you came across a racist conversation would you not say something? This is the first time I've heard this. Why do you think that? Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist? Thanks for the warning but I don't understand the connection.I mean it's muthafuckin Black history month, bruh. I might NEVER shut up this February.
But imagine if I followed you around from comment to comment going "THIS IS THE WHITEST SHIT EVER"to everything you said, then linking to a bunch of Black Panther videos?
I agree it's a conversation to be had, but you go about it in an accusatory manner.
...just as a personal opinion, veganism is high up on my list of whitest shit ever
...being in Boulder, though an absolute bastion for veganism, has also gotten me to a point where I feel like actively resenting White people - and that shit isn't right. Don't let it happen to you in regards to veganism.
I had to think a lot about this. Hmm. No. Honestly comparing some of the shit I've gone through to animal discrimination is, frankly, a little insulting. And I'm also busy trying to stop the discrimination going on in the facets of my life. Dude. DUDE. Yes, you have. It's the whole reason anyone here is ticked off in the first place. It's easy for rich, wealthy White people to abide by Veganism. Minorities that are poor and have crappy access to food, have a hardy time becoming Vegans. But - and this brings up that "accusatory" thing I was talking about - by your definition, those people are shitstains for not doing a better job not eating chicken and stuff. You have to be in a position of privilege to be vegan. It's expensive as fuck and hard to keep up when you've got $20 to eat this week and the closest Sprouts or whatever is 30 miles away. Again, this is what I'm talking about. It's passive aggressive as hell. Stahp. I'm saying that when you go day in and day out wondering why don't people care about this as much as me?, you start equating that to them not caring about your cause whatsoever. Then you start to look at them negatively, then you get resentful and angry because they don't care as passionately about the same things as you do. And it's bad, not every White person is a racist sack of shit, not every non-Vegan is a cold-blooded reverse-Hannibal out to murder all the chickens in the world. Don't have much else to say.I'd have thought that coming from a background of discrimination would make you want to stop discrimination going on in other facets of life.
I haven't chased anyone around with animal rights links though.
This is the first time I've heard this. Why do you think that?
Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?
I don't understand the connection.
Why is it insulting? No one is saying that the discrimination you experience is the same as the discrimination against animals. Recognising cruelty against other species in no way diminishes the recognition of the discrimination that you endure. If anything it's an extension of. Please show me where I have chased anyone. You make it sound like I've been targeting individuals when what I've done was posting non-offensive, non-graphic images on a couple of posts. You make it sound like beans, rice, potatoes, carrots, kale, onions, fruit, nuts and seeds are prohibitly expensive! Sure there are expensive specialist vegan foods, the same way that there are expensive meats but you don't need them to have a balanced diet. The staples of a vegan diet are very accessible. This was a genuine question. I honestly don't understand how you interpreted it as passive aggressive. This says more about you than me. That is absolutely true and I completely agree. And that is why I don't feel that every meat eater is evil. I do however believe that a lot of the negative defensive reaction of meat eaters is irrational. The subject of animal cruelty is highly stigmatised because it requires a serious re-evaluation of our beliefs and even tradition. It's not an easy thing to do, it is a lot easier to chase after the person who triggered that feeling inside of you rather than having a serious introspection of why we do what we do and whether we need to do it at all.Honestly comparing some of the shit I've gone through to animal discrimination is, frankly, a little insulting. And I'm also busy trying to stop the discrimination going on in the facets of my life.
Dude. DUDE. Yes, you have. It's the whole reason anyone here is ticked off in the first place.
It's easy for rich, wealthy White people to abide by Veganism.
Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?
Again, this is what I'm talking about. It's passive aggressive as hell. Stahp.
... not every White person is a racist sack of shit, not every non-Vegan is a cold-blooded reverse-Hannibal out to murder all the chickens in the world.
I know I said that I had nothing else to say, but I can't let this one slide. First of all, that's not true. To consistently keep a Vegan diet is still expensive. I don't know what your definition of "poverty" is, but I know for a fact it's too poor to sustain a vegan diet. Secondly: It's like you're purposefully ignoring other aspects of being hella hella poor. You have less time to cook things. You have less time to get groceries. Sometimes you have to choose between food and rent. This is where that whole privileged thing I was talking about comes into play, you're not recognizing any of these things.You make it sound like beans, rice, potatoes, carrots, kale, onions, fruit, nuts and seeds are prohibitly expensive!
I am perplexed by this perspective. Could you, or thenewgreen, please help me understand it? Any restricted diet will be more expensive than simply eating whatever food is cheapest. When I can't find any leftovers, my lazy meal is a can of corn, a can of black beans, and a can of chick peas mixed together with some hot sauce. It costs about three bucks. The ingredients last forever in the closet, even if the power goes out. They will survive a long bike ride in the heat of summer, even if I drop them or leave them outside overnight. They require no appliances to prepare, just a can opener and a spoon and two minutes. Substitute canned tomatoes, carrots, green beans or mushrooms according to taste. It's not ideal dining. But do you have a meat-based recipe that can match this in terms of cost, convenience, or nutrition? I know there are food deserts where Trader Joe's does not venture. In those neighborhoods of liquor stores and pawn shops, can people find ground beef or a frozen bird but not bread, peanut butter, rice or potatoes? There's only one realistic place for the inner city poor to buy meat, and it's not Morton's Steakhouse. Even if we don't care about animal welfare, should we celebrate a vast industrial meat infrastructure which enables the fast food industry to provide cheap, convenient, and unhealthy food to the poor? (Uh, maybe?) The poor shopper who cares about animal welfare need not always choose between eating and good conscience. I believe we can learn from sources that use extremely annoying tactics to promote a self-righteous message, so here is PETA's list of vegetarian fast food options: http://www.peta.org/living/food/chain-restaurants/ In contrast to canned plants, sofritas are pretty good.
Yeah, sure I'll just head over to Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, when I live in rural, poor ass USA. But even then, I could just go to my liquor store and get Peanut butter... oops, can't do that because Jiffy contains honey and honey is not vegan. And I totally would take the time to care about the amount of honey in Jiffy, if a rat hadn't just bit my sister Nell.
Look at this way, then. When you are poor, YOU DO NOT GIVE A SHIT. When you are poor, you are literally unable to process other areas of your life because you're so fucking TIRED. This is where the whole privilege thing pops up again! You don't HAVE to worry about poverty, so you (royal you, not actual you, wasox) get to harp about animals and shit. These people don't, so they get whatever is closest and cheapest. Sometimes they have to think about kids, who don't WANT corn and fucking black beans, you monster. So, they want tasty food that's cheap, while also able to get them through a day. Where do you find that?
Thank you for explaining. When you said "To consistently keep a Vegan diet is still expensive," I naively thought you were talking about budgeting. Now I see you are shouting the more nuanced view that poor people cannot "afford" – in terms of time, energy, and attention – to live by strict dietary ideals. I agree. My kid eats meat, eggs and cheese every day and I would not welcome the challenge of keeping him on a vegan diet, especially if I were also struggling to pay the bills. You and thenewgreen seem to be responding to a jerk who says poor people should go hungry rather than eat animal products. I have not seen that view expressed on Hubski. Perhaps it was implied, or I missed it. For my part, I will state that: • Poor people should be allowed to do whatever they need to do to get by. • Hunters should be allowed to enjoy their sport. • Alaskans should be allowed to eat polar bear. I could go on to discuss matadors, circuses, and snake charmers. Eventually, the only thing left to talk about will be ... the majority of meat consumption in this country. I believe that most meat is consumed by people who could comfortably reduce their consumption and thereby reduce suffering. Do you think they should?
We aren't really talking about meat, we are talking about life and death. So, the question is l, "which life and death provides the least suffering?" Can we just accept that death is coming for every creature on this planet? Are we going to insert human criteria of what suffering is on animals? How are we measuring "happiness?" If life is so precious, and we don't want to kill these animals then isn't the giving of life precious too? There's no doubt that a tremendous amount of "life" is given by people that raise livestock. Many of these "sentient" beings would have never been brought into sentience in the first place, the joys of their lives, the happiness that they have would have never been had, had it not been for us consuming their cheese, eggs and eventually their meat. My consumption of animal products creates life. Now, the question is what type of life does it create? If I'm consuming products that are factory farmed, where chickens are kept in pens where they can't move and their beaks are cut off and they are pumped full of hormones, well I will not even try to argue that that is a life worth creating. However, and I have mentioned this before, I have a cousin that owns what she calls a "moreganic" farm. The criteria that they set forth is far more stringent than "organic." In regards to their livestock, they raise chickens and I daresay that no chickens will ever be loved more. Do they harvest their eggs? Yes, they do and they sell them at a farmers market. Do they eventually eat the chickens? Yes, they do. But, would that chicken have died anyway? Yes. Would that chicken have lived had they not had their farm? No. So, was the life that this chicken lived worth creating? Well, I happen to have interviewed one of their hens:
Me: thanks for doing this chicken, I appreciate it. Hen: sure, no problem Steve glad to help bridge the divide Me: so how do you feel about my cousin taking your eggs and selling them? Hen: yeah, I thought you might ask that. Well, to be really frank, I'm a chicken and I honestly don't give a shit nor do I have any understanding of what is occurring. However I am good at laying eggs Me: thanks for the candor. Are you glad you exist? Hen: again Steve, I really have no understanding of the question however, I will say that I like to run around in the yard and peck at the earth and sometimes, in June, the sun shines just right through my large, warm and cozy henhouse so that the light bounces against the wall and I swear it looks like a Picasso light drawing. Me: how do you feel about your inevitable death at the hands of your captors? Hen: They're not my captors, they keep me safe from the fox and the Hawk, they love me and would never hurt m....... Baaawk"!! Me: Hi cousin, that hen didn't even see you coming. You snapped its neck so quickly. It thrashed once and now almost seems to have a smile on its beak. Oh look at the sun break through the henhouse... She was right about that.
Your cousin's farm sounds wonderful. If I could go to a Chipotle that sourced poultry from there, I could enjoy a chicken burrito without a twinge of guilt. Thanks for the investigative report. Now that we have covered niche compassionate farms, I could go on to discuss modern hunter-gatherer tribes, eating roadkill, and people with allergies to fruit and vegetables. Eventually, the only thing left to talk about will be ... the majority of meat consumption in this country. I believe that most meat is consumed by people who could comfortably reduce their consumption and thereby reduce suffering. Do you think they should?
On February 2, 2015, thenewgreen wrote:I believe that most meat is consumed by people who could comfortably reduce their consumption and thereby reduce suffering. Do you think they should?
ANSWER THE QUESTION: ...If you don't answer the actual questions above, it will speak volumes.
The new green is at a government conference but I will reply. Yes, I think that when possible, people should reduce suffering as they are aware of it existing. Just passed up fried chicken and had salad. I did this prior to reading this for the reason stated above.
I didn't realise you meant that poor! I don't see being able to afford basic necessities as a privilege but I now understand why you'd think that if you have to choose between rent and food. May I ask what is it that you eat if you can't afford basic vegetables? What do you find that is cheaper than vegetables?
The question "Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?" is purposely phrased to put the questionee on the defensive. When you phrase a question or statement to make your position seem more holy, you insult the people you debate with. Here are a few examples: I haven't yet sifted through your many other threads on this matter. I will update this list as appropriate.I honestly don't understand how you interpreted it as passive aggressive
easier to chase after the person who triggered that feeling inside of you rather than having a serious introspection of why we do what we do and whether we need to do it at all
do you have a valid argument to justify the billions of animals currently being cruelly imprisoned, abused, rapped, mutilated and murdered for no other reason than human enjoyment?
I'm a lot nicer when I'm not being pitch forked by a crowd simply for asking to reconsider torturing animals.
Can you not see the disproportionate reaction of outrage to my method of calling attention to the issue and the complete complacency to the unnecessary suffering of farmed animals?
What more noble motive than wanting to reduce cruelty, suffering and death do you want?
putting our own pleasure ahead of another species well being and the stubbornness of the human ego to admit it. And then I'm the unreasonable, inconvenient one.
I truly don't care what you think about my way of forming sentences in my second language. Since when is it a crime to use words to defend the defenceless?
See what I did there? : ) I don't have to fight for the moral high ground for as long as you keep attacking me instead of having the guts to engage with the actual debate of animal abuse.
How can you exist? How can someone so blind to how they come across, to how their arguments hurt their cause, to how other people can have different opinions ever possibly exist? Not once in your conversations here have you ever even vaguely entertained the thoughts of others. You view Hubski as a platform for your views and your views alone, and cry "Persecution!" when others dare to speak. You demonise others, and act shocked when they demonise you as well. You labour under the impression that your tactics are excused for your "noble purpose." Your crusade has, so far, accomplished nothing but antagonising a community that has done nothing but talk to you. Your opinions are not worthless, but you are. You are a coward who knows nothing of struggle. I have nothing more to say to you.
Thank you for reinforcing my previous point. You have to be a pretty tortured person to deliberately try to hurt another (human) being. Much love to you.
"I don't insult people, I rarely use curse words, I try to state facts and never make it personal. Yet people keep accusing me of being aggressive and accusatory and I don't understand where or when I've been aggressive and accusatory." one time a while ago you said something mean about vegetarianism and I mean yeah it's ont quite veganism but man you gotta pick your battles and stuff vegetarianism is probably the best you're gonna get most of the time also, though, probably ignore me I'm very very drunk
Are you referring to the following comment, in this thread? I explained extensively why I think vegetarianism is a contradiction. Why did you find that "mean"?Congratulations for making the connection between compassion, environment and health and not stopping at the half-hearted contradiction that is vegetarianism.
Thanks for sharing that coffeesp00ns. It'd be interesting to hear how your social circle reacted to your change. You can judge my character by a few posts on a website but you don't have to. Life does span beyond the screen and I'm a lot nicer when I'm not being pitch forked by a crowd simply for asking to reconsider torturing animals. If you have a look at my profile description and my previous posts, excepting the last couple of days, you'll find they are not all about animal rights. But even if Veganism was the only thing that defined me, even if I didn't do anything else but fight to stop animal cruelty, why would you find it unfortunate?
I'm not sure if this is exactly the sense in which your original question is being asked, but it seems relevant. in the comments below you say > I no longer believe that living by example is sufficient to defend animals, the same way that I don't think it's ok to stand by and watch an expression of racism or sexism. This is certainly a challenging decision to make, and I applaud your dedication to principles. But it's interesting to me because it illustrates something I've been thinking about lately, and something I've used to inform some significant lifestyle changes. I care a lot about Doing The Right Thing, Making The World A Better Place, Living My Principles, and all the other ways of describing these things. But in the course of my trying to live my principles, I've butted heads with many different activists in many different areas. And this has scared me. Because, what I've seen, is that for every 1 sincere activist who really believes they're doing the right thing, there seems to be 10 who are just in it for selfish personal reasons. Status and glory, perhaps? Establishing a petty tyranny, maybe? Because it's something to do? This scares me, a lot. For someone such as yourself, who has a dedication to veganism and animal welfare, it is relatively easy to stay focused on your goal. But for the kinds of activists attracted by glory, they have no such orientation. What I have seen, in trying to live my principles, is the fact that the majority of activist hierarchies I've seen, do more harm than good. They get co-opted by leaders with unsavoury goals, they encourage social norms that are damaging to bystanders, and they are generally ineffective at achieving their stated goals (they may be effective at achieving unstated goals). How has this informed 'conscious lifestyle changes' on my part? It's helped me realize the value of compromise, of being a good neighbour, of creating community. It's helped me realize that, most of the time, Being A Decent Person To Those Around You is more important than living one's activist politics. This is a really hard thing to do. To intercept your own thought process and say "sure, this feels like you're talking to an evil person who is working against you and negatively influencing society, but you could be wrong, and destroying the existing social fabric and amicable relationships around this person is Not Worth It.", is very difficult. But it is worth it, in the long run. Creating and maintaining mutually respectful, courteous, friendly communities is more important than achieving one's activist goals. Even for activist goals that seem extremely important (racism and sexism are two big ones for me here. It's been a challenge to figure out how to still work towards solving those problems, without causing so much collateral damage in the mean time). In short: my conscious lifestyle change is realizing the value of being quiet to keep the peace. This has been impactful in a lot of ways
The linked post for example, what exactly is that supposed to do? kleinbl00 isn't going to stop eating meat because you showed him a MS paint protester, I doubt anyone would(Maybe you were joking, and I'm just stupid). If anything you're giving veganism a bad name and preventing people from changing to a vegan diet because they don't want to be ridiculed or called a hippie. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's not unlikely you're employed by meat companies to eliminate vegans. :PYou find yourself being shouted at, being called an extremist, a hippie, irresponsible, a snob, stupid, retarded, judgemental, a weirdo, and accused of forcing your views on others. Simply because you chose not to harm other beings, you find yourself.
Do you mean that happens as a result of being vegan? I wouldn't say 'simply', I'm vegan and have not once been called any of those things seriously, ever. Clearly there's something else you're doing, probably things like this. I respect you for going to great efforts to make the world a better place, the world needs more of that. But your method is pretty questionable.
No. But it definitely stems from being an animal rights activist. Thank you. Can you be more specific about what's wrong with my "method"? I no longer believe that living by example is sufficient to defend animals, the same way that I don't think it's ok to stand by and watch an expression of racism or sexism. As a vegan how often do you engage in animal rights discussion? What methods do you use? I'm genuinely interested. Of course not. I have no illusions about kleinbl00 changing. The illustration is a mini virtual protest for passers by. I shall add this one to my list of insults. What have I done that is so repugnant?Do you mean that happens as a result of being vegan?
I respect you for going to great efforts to make the world a better place, the world needs more of that. But your method is pretty questionable.
kleinbl00 isn't going to stop eating meat because you showed him a MS paint protester...
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's not unlikely you're employed by meat companies to eliminate vegans.
I think you're too aggressive. I can't remember many examples besides the one I linked before, but when you enter a friendly conversation with a 'mini virtual protest' just because meat was mentioned, whether people agree with your opinions on the topic or not they are going to think less of you. Not just Kleinbl00, anyone who sees what you said. When people think less of you, they probably won't have as much of a open mind about what you say in the future plus the less mature will associate with the people who disagree with you based purely on how you interacted with them and defend their opinion before even thinking about it for themselves. I only bring it up when I'm offered food or it becomes extremely relevant, generally when this happens the person(s) I'm speaking with already consider me a friend. Often they will curiously ask why I'm vegan at some point after learning I'm vegan, because they know it will be a friendly conversation and not a flame war. This way they're actually prepared to listen. I tell them what I think and not what I want them to think. I think people react a lot better when you're not telling them how to think. Here is a good example, Complexity Asked you about it and you responded with what you thought. It got a great reaction, you were even token'd. It was also relevant at the time.Thank you. Can you be more specific about what's wrong with my "method"?
As a vegan how often to do engage in animal rights discussion? What methods do you use? I'm genuinely interested.
I fail to see which part of "be kind to animals" is aggressive. It might be inconvenient or annoying, I can even understand how it can be interpreted as rude but aggressive? That is great and it's something kind of inevitable, to talk about your lifestyle when it comes up. How often does that happen online? Do you think that a passive attitude is sufficient to stop cruelty? You do not think that those being abused deserve a more proactive approach? I do realise that it'll be less effective to force people to think about something than waiting for the subject to come up. But what's the option? To just sit back and let discrimination go on unchallenged? We wouldn't do that regarding other types of discrimination, why should we regarding animal discrimination? Should we speak only when we are allowed by those contributing to the problem we're tying to solve?I think you're too aggressive.
I only bring it up when I'm offered food or it becomes extremely relevant, generally when this happens the person(s) I'm speaking with already consider me a friend.
By aggressive I mean persistent and forceful, not 'mean' or 'angry'
I suppose there was a clearer word I could use. I'm not great with words. Online, not very often. I sort of avoided mentioning it because I don't want my first impression to be shaped by my diet or poltical views. Maybe now that I'm a bit more known on Hubski I won't avoid it anymore. I think a passive attitude is the most effective, since the aim for me is to have a productive conversation, where both people come out happier, smarter and/or maybe one of us will have a different view. I don't think an aggressive attitude will yield any of those, atleast for me it never does.
Certainly not to sit back and do nothing, there are lots of other things you can do. Like getting into government, protesting against companies you know act cruely to their animals(Curious, is there a way of getting meat you're okay with?), helping people transition to a vegan diet, coming up with good vegan recipes, maybe entering them in grubski if you're not muted from that(I heard you were posting pictures of baby animals there?). Simply by not buying meat you're promoting the vegan diet.That is great and it's something kind of inevitable, to talk about your lifestyle when it comes up. How often does that happen online? Do you think that a passive attitude is sufficient to stop cruelty?
But what's the option? To just sit back and let discrimination go on unchallenged? We wouldn't do that regarding other types of discrimination
I'm sorry, I'm exhausted from trying to justify my methods. I do what I do because I care for those that are suffering. I'm sorry if you find me inconvenient, but that's not going to make me stop. Ultimately everyone has the choice to ignore me. The sad thing is, all this time we wasted talking about me and what are and aren't acceptable forms of activism would have been way better spent talking about those who can't talk. That is the real tragedy, not the inconvenience I caused on some stupid online post.
Don't be sorry. I consider this to be a good conversation, I learned a lot about my own opinions, why I have them and your opinions and why you have them. I'm sorry I exhausted you. who knows? maybe one day you'll see my points and maybe one day I'll see yours.
I asked that very specific question for a very specific reason and I was not disappointed. I had a long reply for this thread but I don't know if it's better sent privately.
It's up to you. If it's posted publicly everyone will have the opportunity to contribute.I had a long reply for this thread but I don't know if it's better sent privately.
I read it back and whilst my motivation was wholesome sadly the result lacks arete. Sorry. Another time.
That's disappointing. I was looking forward to your input.
OrganicAnt, the one thing I see missing from this thread is how you actually come to the decision to be vegetarian. I find your title misleading as you open up into a discussion about how it's hard to be a vegan, but you don't discuss at all what brought you to it.
My personal story was covered in a previous discussion. The intent of this wasn't necessarily to talk about veganism but to explore what makes people stop and re-evaluate their lives. I look around and I see most people in automatic mode, very few people seem to actually stop in their lives to think and question the reasons why they live the way they do. Animal suffering happens to have been my awakening, but I'm sure there are plenty more examples out there which I could learn from. That was the aim of this post and hence the title.the one thing I see missing from this thread is how you actually come to the decision to be vegetarian.
I'm not sure if you're asking me or in general. If you meant how does one become vegetarian in the first place, I'd say information. I don't think most people understand the pain that is in their plate. I find your title misleading
I don't mind vegans, I really don't. But please don't try to make it a moral superiority thing. It's not. You still kill things, and you still eat the things killed. And please, for the love of everything, don't shove it in people's faces. Don't try to 'convert' people, don't broadcast your dietary preferences, etc. If it comes up due to a group meal or something, fine. Everyone has their preferences of what they choose to eat. I have my own weird selection. But the morality angle, or even the health angle is just silly. Morally speaking, there's no way getting around killing something to sustain yourself. And either way, it's the 'law of the land' so to speak. Animals kill things and eat them. That's just how it goes. It's not morally wrong. It's life. As far as health is concerned, humans eat meat. We've been tuned to do such. If we couldn't, we wouldn't. We wouldn't have the digestive track for it, and we wouldn't have the teeth. All in all, it's perfectly fine to be a vegan (or vegetarian), and I'm fine with you choosing to be such. I'm not fine with people trying to broadcast it and shove it down people's throats like Psy's Gangnam style. As far as the rest of the post is concerned (unrelated to veganism), I had a 'major awakening' type of thing in my life not too long ago. And it's about mindless consumption, shallow thinking, and the entertainment 'conspiracy' (not really a conspiracy). Here's a video I stumbled upon that kind of summarizes it:
Thank you for joining in with some arguments for consuming animal products. Can you explain why you think there's a sense of moral superiority to not wanting to kill animals? Yes, vegans still kill other forms of life which are believed not to be sentient. But even if they were sentient and felt pain, it takes a lot more plants to feed animals than to eat plants directly. The ratio is 10 to 1. So if one is sincerely concerned about reducing harm to plants, it'd still make more sense to eat plants than feeding them to animals in order to eat the animals. Understood. No one likes preachers. Does this mean that you won't act if you ever come across some unfair cruelty which could be avoided? This is how animal rights activists feel. They see this humongous unfair cruelty going on and feel frustrated that it's taboo to even mention it unless asked. I understand that currently killing animals for food is a common thing and therefore everyone has the personal choice. Similarly in the past we've had attitudes such as slavery and female oppression, which today we find unacceptable. If no one ever stood up for the discrimination around them, things would never change. There'd be no history. Yes, humans are capable of digesting meat but just because we can do something does it mean we should? Human teeth are definitely not predator teeth. Just compare your canines with those of a feline. Here's a full physical comparison: In the past we've had to do plenty of things to survive which we don't do today. Also we didn't have science and an understanding of human dietary requirements. In an age when we know that we can live healthily without subjugating or killing other creatures, why should we choose to? Especially when animal farming is such a big contributor of green house gases causing climate change. If you feel it's not morally wrong killing animals for human enjoyment, how do you feel about certain countries killing dogs or cats for meat? Can you see the biased emotional attachment that we have towards animals we have designated as pets and animals which we have placed outside of moral consideration? Again, I think anyone is free to broadcast whatever they want, that's called free speech. You don't have to listen to them and you certainly don't have to reply, you can even block them online. However if everyone that has views that go against the status-quo, followed your advice and didn't speak up, things would never change. Have you asked yourself why is it that this subject upsets you? Your video doesn't seem to work by the way, it says an error occurred. I'd love to see it, it sounds like a very interesting topic.
The morality angle is typically what's used to convert people to veganism(?). Regardless, the "it's not sentient" response doesn't really convince me at all, given that there's varying levels of sentience. At what point is it okay to kill and eat? Seems like an arbitrary distinction. If they can't recognize themselves, does that mean it's a-okay? Or perhaps it's just when you can't distinguish whether they can feel pain? No matter how you draw the line, it's completely arbitrary and not a real distinction. As far as plants being eaten by animals, which I then eat, I realize that. It's not somehow more moral to cut out the middle man (or middle pig). I have no qualms with eating anything. I don't see it as morally wrong, just like I don't see 'survival of the fittest' as being morally wrong. Eating an animal is completely different than having unequal rights between the same species. The equivalent to slavery or female oppression would be specifically setting aside certain pigs that aren't going to be eaten, and then eat the rest. Similarly, I'd have no problem with eating people, if the need arose. However, my views towards equal rights supersedes my dietary preferences, and on top of that eating a human is rather difficult. As far as animal cruelty goes, I don't particularly see it as my problem, but it's not like I'd choose it directly. Similarly, I don't like to "mess with people", or prank them, or w/e. It's along the same lines IMO. But to try and relate eating animals as a 'barbaric' act, similar to slavery is absurd. And the logical extreme would be to not eat any living thing; including plants or bacteria. As I mentioned before, eating living things is necessary for survival. Torturing living things is not. If you want to extend the 'you don't need to eat living things' even further, you could argue that simply living and existing is consuming resources, which directly hinders another living thing's ability to live. "Should" isn't the question. I don't do something simply because I'm able to. As for the chart, I'm wondering if you could provide a chart/info from an unbiased source, seeing as that particular chart has clear connections to the vegetarian side of things (the name, the Facebook group, etc). One that doesn't try to argue a particular side would be much easier to accept. Either way, from my knowledge, don't vegans/vegetarians need supplements or w/e to stay healthy? Or is that misinformation? Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with my current food choices. Which include other 'unhealthy' or potentially not favorable to humans. Like donuts :). And once again, by arguing for a plant-based diet, you are in the same grounds morally, IMO. As I see humans, plants, animals, and every other living thing as the same: a living organism that exists in this world under the natural laws. I don't see any problem with something like synthetic meats. Granted, we aren't quite there yet. As far as climate change, cars are also a big factor. I take it that you own a car? I don't. I walk where I need to go (or carpool with someone who's driving that way anyway). But if you are going to argue for something, you need to be sure your entire views line up. Otherwise it's just silly. Though I'd definitely like to see the numbers. I'm curious how much modern animal farming has contributed, in comparison to early farming and without farming as well. I have no problems with eating a dog or cat. I wouldn't eat my own pet, but that's like saying I wouldn't eat my brother. If it came down to it, I probably would. But given the choice, I don't see a reason to harm those that are close to me. A random cat? Or one that was grown to be eaten? Sure. I have no problems with that. As I said, people aren't out of the question either. The only reason I wouldn't, is due to the obvious rights issue that arises. If I say "yes, it's fine to eat my species" that directly places me in the line of food. And seeing as people as a whole are cognitive and creative creatures (as compared to other living things), it's best to let things lie where they are. Nah, I have no problems with them saying as they please. But there's a time and a place. The problem arises when someone lets it dominate their entire worldview and they can't shut up about it. It's not so much that I don't want to hear it (I'm always up for a valid and consistent view that's different from my own), it's that I don't want to hear people nag about my preferences and opinions when I'm trying to eat. I don't start blabbing to people about how spicy food is actually bad for you, how it destroys tastebuds, and how it's just awful in general. I don't like it, I don't eat it, and if asked, I'll talk about it. But that doesn't mean I need to bring it up whenever there's a bit of silence. It "upsets me" because people are thinking they are taking the moral high ground, without realizing their own view is self-contradictory, as well as morals being entirely subjective. As I said, I have no problem with people having certain diets or w/e. Just mention it if it's an issue (group meal or something), and perhaps if we are talking about food then bring it up. It's just annoying when a conversation goes like this: "Hey, I'm hungry, want to go eat?" "Sure, but keep in mind i'm vegan, so we need to go somewhere that works for me." "Alright, how about X?" "Can't do there, they serve meat and support slavery and slaughter of livestock" "FFS dude, they have vegan and vegetarian meals! How about Y?" "Nah, same problem. But these guys hate gays as well!" etc. It's a matter of interjecting it at every possible moment to try and take a moral high ground. And that bothers me regardless of what you are trying to say. Have a problem with gendered pronouns? Same fucking thing. Have a problem if I use specific words? Again, same thing. Maybe bring it up if it's a sensitive or important issue, but no need to try and take a moral high ground when we are just having a conversation about something unrelated, or are just trying to get a bite to eat. Here's the video I linked (it's unrelated to the vegetarian/veganism thing), I'm not sure why it's not showing up. I tried as a text link this time, instead of embedding it. So hopefully that works.Can you explain why you think there's a sense of moral superiority to not wanting to kill animals? Yes, vegans still kill other forms of life which are believed not to be sentient. But even if they were sentient and felt pain, it takes a lot more plants to feed animals than to eat plants directly. The ratio is 10 to 1. So if one is sincerely concerned about reducing harm to plants, it'd still make more sense to eat plants than feeding them to animals in order to eat the animals.
Understood. No one likes preachers. Does this mean that you won't act if you ever come across some unfair cruelty which could be avoided? This is how animal rights activists feel. They see this humongous unfair cruelty going on and feel frustrated that it's taboo to even mention it unless asked. I understand that currently killing animals for food is a common thing and therefore everyone has the personal choice. Similarly in the past we've had attitudes such as slavery and female oppression, which today we find unacceptable. If no one ever stood up for the discrimination around them, things would never change. There'd be no history.
Yes, humans are capable of digesting meat but just because we can do something does it mean we should? Human teeth are definitely not predator teeth. Just compare your canines with those of a feline. Here's a full physical comparison:
In the past we've had to do plenty of things to survive which we don't do today. Also we didn't have science and an understanding of human dietary requirements. In an age when we know that we can live healthily without subjugating or killing other creatures, why should we choose to? Especially when animal farming is such a big contributor of green house gases causing climate change.
If you feel it's not morally wrong killing animals for human enjoyment, how do you feel about certain countries killing dogs or cats for meat? Can you see the biased emotional attachment that we have towards animals we have designated as pets and animals which we have placed outside of moral consideration?
Again, I think anyone is free to broadcast whatever they want, that's called free speech. You don't have to listen to them and you certainly don't have to reply, you can even block them online. However if everyone that has views that go against the status-quo, followed your advice and didn't speak up, things would never change. Have you asked yourself why is it that this subject upsets you?