Misunderstanding Veganism

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
You can’t discuss your “personal choice” of -]eating animals /-] ABORTION while leaving -]animals/-] HUMAN BEINGS completely out of the conversation. Think of it this way, if you were walking down the street and saw someone beating their -]dog/-] CHILD, would you try to do something to stop it? The same principle applies here. Since -]eating animal foods /-] ABORTION is a question of want and like versus need, killing a sentient being, when there is absolutely no need – except for someone’s pleasure – becomes simply unnecessary and merciless."
Click to expand...
Sorry Spence-

Re-done to make sense…
 
spencelo said:
I’ve said what I needed to say, but apparently you’re intent is to focus on abortion, which is not the thread topic. I offer my explanation one last time:

Abortion is not the thread topic, and I already explained that vegans can hold different views on abortion. If I say I’m against abortion, would that affect your decision to turn vegan? If I say I’m for abortion, would that affect your decision to turn vegan? Clearly no - so my answering your question has absolutely no relevance to the thread topic.

The relevant point is that, as a Catholic, you’re committed to adhering to Catholic principles, which entail either veganism or at least boycotting animal products from factory farms. Will you adhere to your Catholic principles? I suppose it’s fine if you don’t want to answer my question here, but I hope you will answer it honestly and reflectively for yourself.
Click to expand...
Well it does, because if you want me to accept your arguments you have to show consistency across the board.

I’m presuming therefore that when non-sentient the unborn are fair game, and when sentient they can be said to be exploiting their “host” and therefore are fair game.

Or does the talk of game, with its hunting connotations, offend you?

If, in your world view, you are not able to protect unborn humans then why should I believe that your “emoting” on behalf of animals is sincere.

Or am I just a meat eating misogynistic worshiper of a bronze age deity in your eyes, and my opinions have no weight until they match yours?
 
Link0126 said:
Spencelo, did you miss my other post? The one asking how long you’ve been vegan?
Click to expand...
My apologies, I did miss it. I’ve been vegetarian the last year or so and only recently made the transition to veganism.

As for my “approach,” while I have immense admiration and respect for Peter Singer, and for utilitarianism in general, my arguments aren’t purely utilitarian - they are compatible with various moral theories, include Tom Regan’s.
 
triumphguy said:
Good post!

I think the Real Food movement is catching on.

I’m just waiting for a City ordinance to change (soon hopefully) and I’m going to keep chickens. The coop is built already.
Click to expand...
Ours are free roaming. Since our dog died:(, they have been attacked by coyotes and neighbors dogs. I don’t mind loosing them to the coyotes, the birds of prey and other wild life but I hate when the dogs are not controlled by their owner:mad:
 
spencelo said:
My apologies, I did miss it. I’ve been vegetarian the last year or so and only recently made the transition to veganism.

As for my “approach,” while I have immense admiration and respect for Peter Singer, and for utilitarianism in general, my arguments aren’t purely utilitarian - they are compatible with various moral theories, include Tom Regan’s.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your honest answer. You do remind me of myself in my early veg years… very interesting times that I do not regret.
 
How is this an OK argument for vegans
I am vegan for the many of the same reasons I’m pro-choice. I have a deep appreciation for life; my veganism and my pro-choice activism both stem from this appreciation. abortiongang.org/2010/12/my-pro-choice-veganism/
Click to expand...
In other words - I appreciate life, that is why I am pro-abortion.:eek:

Whereas this is not?
The hunt is as archetypal to males as birthing is to females. The hunt marries young men to wild animals and nature just as birthing bonds a young women to children and life. Men are adapted to take life to serve life. Hunting itself teaches universal virtues, and the taking of life opens hearts and engenders respect and responsibility. iwmc.org/IWMC-Forum/RandallEaton/030504-2.htm.
Click to expand...
 
triumphguy said:
How is this an OK argument for vegans In other words - I appreciate life, that is why I am pro-abortion.:eek: Whereas this is not?
Click to expand...
Thanks Triumph-

Absolutely sickening. Probably written at an outdoor table using a Mac sipping a latte in a big city recovering from a late night of serving humanity by dancing and waking up in a strange place.
 
triumphguy said:
How is this an OK argument for vegans

In other words - I appreciate life, that is why I am pro-abortion.:eek:

Whereas this is not?
Click to expand...
ha. Both are absurd. Both start with the conclusion and try to reach it, in what appears to be, the most inane way possible.
 
spencelo said:
Many people misunderstand my goals and intentions when I advocate for veganism, and much of the resistance seems to stem from a poor grasp of veganism itself–some view it as a “cult” or a “religion,” though is true. So I offer the following eloquent article in the hopes that it will promote more understanding and less hostility to the idea.

huffingtonpost.com/ari-solomon/who-you-callin-vegangelic_b_290582.html

“The word “veganism” denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practical – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

"If, as a meat-eater, being exposed to this reality bothers you, it is not the fault of the vegan. Lashing out or making up endless excuses doesn’t change the stark scientific fact that animals are suffering because of our taste buds. Your neatly packaged chicken breast, all wrapped in pristine plastic, was once part of an animal that felt fear and pain. It’s called responsibility and culpability, and we’re all to blame.

Now, you may try to argue that eating animals is a matter of personal opinion or choice, but again I’d have to disagree – this is not about your opinion versus my opinion, this is about animal suffering. You can’t discuss your “personal choice” of eating animals while leaving animals completely out of the conversation.

Think of it this way, if you were walking down the street and saw someone beating their dog, would you try to do something to stop it? The same principle applies here. Since eating animal foods is a question of want and like versus need, killing a sentient being, when there is absolutely no need – except for someone’s pleasure – becomes simply unnecessary and merciless."
Click to expand...
Spence,

Here are some videos from a colleague. I have spoken to her and she is no longer doing this stuff but leaves it up for all to watch. She gives some good reasons for considering being Vegan…

youtube.com/user/JanetBrunoMD

youtube.com/watch?v=FxB9DBFWFNA&list=UUDgzhHEptAEiwDwdg66j0RQ&index=37&feature=plcp

youtube.com/watch?v=HwzElkC-7g0

youtube.com/watch?v=YyNn4aec3AM

youtube.com/watch?v=ndaPyxm_xWc&feature=channel&list=UL

I believe that Nutrition is important and the Vegan is a way not the only way. There are many food pyramids including the Vegan, Vegetarian and Meditteranean food pyramid that should be looked at. The most important thing is to find a diet that fits your lifestyle and if eating meat is not your thing then OK…but it is not the thing for everyone…
 
Link0126 said:
ha. Both are absurd. Both start with the conclusion and try to reach it, in what appears to be, the most inane way possible.
Click to expand...
My point is that vegans can maintain a dichotomy in one instance, but not in another.

I can eat meat, hunt, and still be against cruelty to animals. AND be anti-abortion.

A vegan can be against cruelty to and the unnecessary killing of sentient beings, unless it is a “fetus” since the “fetus” “exploits” its host (AKA the mother).

My view is consistent: human life is made in the image and likeness of God. Animal life, though to be respected, is not of the same order as humanity, and animals can validly be bred, raised and slaughtered for human consumption.

The second view is not consistent.
 
spencelo said:
No, I have not. But I looked at numerous independent sources that say the same thing about factory-farming conditions. Is it really plausible that those sources – often in peer-reviewed journals – are flat our lies and misinformation?
Click to expand...
So by your own admission, you are ignorant to what life on a farm is really like. You have not provided a link to one peer reviewed journal supporting your position. You have provided links to pages that are biased and have an obvious agenda, in order to further your position.
 
newprestonpete said:
So by your own admission, you are ignorant to what life on a farm is really like. You have not provided a link to one peer reviewed journal supporting your position. You have provided links to pages that are biased and have an obvious agenda, in order to further your position.
Click to expand...
Yep, and he has been doing it for every thread he has started. But he claims that he doesn’t have an agenda. Silly isn’t it.
 
spencelo said:
It’s in our nature to be aggressive, so according to your logic, it’s okay for me to randomly assault people, which is absurd. Hence you should reconsider your justification.
Click to expand...
I know of no biological human design that allows for assault of another human. We are designed to eat meat, so killing would be required to meet that end.
 
Link0126 said:
Genesis 1:29 implies otherwise. God allowed us to eat meat b/c of sin, b/c of the flood. Health wise, I no longer think meat is the worst thing we could eat and responsible for all our modern diseases. I see now that processed foods and high sugar consumption is probably the main culprit. Unfortunately, the vegan diet tends to be high carb. Even if completely whole foods (which is the ideal vegan diet, but not the one that most people end up eating in favor of fake meat products, soy ice cream, etc…) it is still a carb based diet. This can be a problem for some people.
Click to expand...
The Bible is not a science book. We know from science humans are designed to eat meat, it is our nature. “One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables.” Romans 14:2
 
newprestonpete said:
So by your own admission, you are ignorant to what life on a farm is really like. You have not provided a link to one peer reviewed journal supporting your position. You have provided links to pages that are biased and have an obvious agenda, in order to further your position.
Click to expand...
Oh he did, but he still has no idea about living on the countryside.
 
Link0126 said:
The problem is that he thinks he is being consistent b/c many vegans approach ethics from the utilitarian view. This is an absolutely abominable ethical system that I used to argue against even in my PETA days. Their esteemed philospher is the utilitarian Peter Singer. Who is not only pro-choice but promotes infanticide saying we should have up to 20 days to kill the baby if birth defects or other issues are present. I’m not exactly sure if there are even requirements such as these necessary. I preferred to approach the subject from the “rights” perspective as laid out by Tom Regan.

So in a nutshell, he actually thinks he is being consistent as does Peter Singer. So this conversation will probably continue to be useless.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that Singer reasoned that because we are not cruel to humans we should not be cruel to animals but I’m not sure he has or can reason that it is ok to kill human babies therefore we should not kill animals.
 
Crescentinus said:
Oh he did, but he still has no idea about living on the countryside.
Click to expand...
I have not seen any peer reviewed literature backing up his claims. The only thing I have seen is broad assertions backed up by opinion pieces in the Huffington Post.
 
newprestonpete said:
I have not seen any peer reviewed literature backing up his claims. The only thing I have seen is broad assertions backed up by opinion pieces in the Huffington Post.
Click to expand...
He did so in his other threads. o:
And yet he had shown his weakness in doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top