Is Vegetarianism morally superior
interchaz
and I thought I’d respond to the moral issue of vegetarianism. I’ve been a
vegetarian for almost 11 years now, and my feelings and ideas about it have
changed and evolved over time. My vegetarianism started out for health
reasons, but as I learned more about it, it has become a moral decision, and
something I would continue even if I were to find out that the overwhelming
research that said it was healthy turned out to be wrong.
The environmental, social, and health repercussions of the meat industry are
abominable, and cause a great deal of suffering in the world, not just to
animals, but to human beings and the ecosystem itself. This isn’t an
opinion, but documented fact for anyone who cares to do a little research.
So, just on these grounds, not eating meat is a morally superior position.
Beyond that, though, is the suffering of animals themselves. I simply can’t
believe that causing suffering in something with consciousness can be
defended. When Alan Watts was asked why he was a vegetarian, he responded by
saying “Cows scream louder than carrots.” This makes it plain to see that
eating animals causes more suffering than eating vegetables. When you cut a
carrot in half, it doesn’t have the neural architecture to feel pain.
Whenever a meat eater finds out that I am a vegetarian, they want to know
why. I am usually leery of telling them, because they become defensive so
often. So I start out by saying that I’m not trying to push my ideas on
them, but since they asked I educate them a little on the environmental,
social and spiritual reasons for not eating meat. I often get the same
answer --as I’m sure all vegetarians hear-- that “I couldn’t do that. I
like the taste of meat too much”. Often, though, they recognize that what I
’m doing is good, and they even tell me that.
So, how could someone putting their own temporary sense pleasure above
consequences they know are destructive and cause suffering, be a moral
position. It isn’t. It would be liked vindicating a rapist who puts his own
temporary gratification above the rights and welfare of a woman.
Vegetarianism is a morally superior position. There are many moral arguments
to not eat meat, I’m not aware of any for eating meat.
But while I definitely see vegetarianism as the morally superior position,
part of my own moral philosophy is not to push my ideas on others. I don’t
go around telling meat eaters they are evil people. Most of my friends eat
meat. When they ask, I tell them why I do it, I try to set an example, but
the decision is theirs. My vegetarianism is a moral decision that I have
made for myself. I hardly think the term “wacko” applies to my beliefs.
Charlie
“A moral decision is always easy to recognize, it is where you abandon
self-interest”. – Frank Herbert
Dan McEwen
> But while I definitely see vegetarianism as the morally superior position,
> part of my own moral philosophy is not to push my ideas on others. I don’t
> go around telling meat eaters they are evil people. Most of my friends eat
> meat. When they ask, I tell them why I do it, I try to set an example, but
> the decision is theirs. My vegetarianism is a moral decision that I have
> made for myself. I hardly think the term “wacko” applies to my beliefs.
>
> Charlie
This sounds about where I am. I get far more flak from meat-eaters
because I'm a vegetarian than I ever give to any meat-eaters for eating
meat. I say "I'm a vegetarian", and it automatically seems open season
to start with jokes and pushing meat on me. I agree that vegetarianism
is a superior moral choice, but I don't believe every one is capable of
attaining it. Ghandi, for example, is a superior person to me. Though
I'm also a pacifist, I doubt I could stand by and do nothing if I were
attacked. At least right now, that doesn't even seem attainable to me,
just as vegetarianism isn't attainable to some people right now.
Also, I think veganism is even better than vegetarianism. I'm not
vegan, but recognize this is a moral lacking on my part (I like cheese
too much, though I don't use eggs or milk). It is, however, something I
think is attainable for me. I will be vegan someday, but I'm not at a
point where I'm ready to make the commitment. I look forward to that
day, and can envision it, though.
> “A moral decision is always easy to recognize, it is where you abandon
> self-interest”. – Frank Herbert
Exactly. I place the self-interest of animals over my own. I used to
eat at McDonald's quite frequently. In fact, double cheeseburgers were
one of my favorite things. I stopped, not because my tastes suddenly
changed, but because my values changed.
--
Dan
fe...@lsh.org
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/depressed.html
Coming soon: http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/epilepsy.html
CherCohen1
<charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
[...]
>The environmental, social, and health repercussions of the meat industry are
>abominable, and cause a great deal of suffering in the world, not just to
>animals, but to human beings and the ecosystem itself. This isn’t an
>opinion, but documented fact for anyone who cares to do a little research.
>So, just on these grounds, not eating meat is a morally superior position.
Whoah, your last statement is inaccurate and a generalization at best, imo.
"Not eating meat" in itself does not make someone morally superior to someone
who does eat meat. There are plenty of variables to be considered; for
example, someone who eats beef but not eggs and dairy may very well be
responsible for less animal harm than someone who doesn't eat meat but does eat
eggs and dairy. The problem is in judging morality by diets in general, rather
than examining individual foods.
Actually, the REAL problem is judging morality in the first place. What's the
point of it if you're a vegetarian to help yourself and the animals? Why the
need to establish a moral hierarchy (except that you get to place yourself at
the top)? The primary complaint many meat-eaters have about ethical
vegetarians is that they go around claiming to be morally superior. They say
ethical vegetarians have a need to point the finger at meat-eaters in order to
feel better about themselves. You're only proving them right.
>Whenever a meat eater finds out that I am a vegetarian, they want to know
>why. I am usually leery of telling them, because they become defensive so
>often.
Yes, because so many vegetarians (like you) claim to be morally superior, it
has become a sort of stereotype unfortunately. I'm an ethical vegan myself and
have often encountered this defensiveness in meat-eaters when the subject of
veg*nism comes up. To be blunt, it pisses me off to no end when veg*ns go
around claiming to be morally superior because then, when *I* get into a
discussion with a meat-eater and that person gets defensive, it's because there
are so many veg*ns like *you* who perpetuate the stereotype. Thanks a bunch.
[...]
>So, how could someone putting their own temporary sense pleasure above
>consequences they know are destructive and cause suffering, be a moral
>position. It isn’t.
You mean like all those lacto-ovo vegetarians who know about the dairy, veal
and egg industries but can't live without cheesecake and omelets?
>It would be liked vindicating a rapist who puts his own
>temporary gratification above the rights and welfare of a woman.
>Vegetarianism is a morally superior position.
Oh, but according to your statement above, lacto-ovo veg*ns are more like the
rapist than the woman, aren't they? Which is besides the point that your
rapist analogy is just a lousy transfer device, anyway.
And your repetition of the morally superior thing sounds extremely arrogant and
annoying, even to my vegan ears.
>There are many moral arguments
>to not eat meat, I’m not aware of any for eating meat.
You're generalizing again. There are too many variables for you to make this
claim. Eating some types of meat may cause less animal suffering than eating
certain grains and veggies or dairy and eggs.
And there are certain cultures that depend on meat from animals they kill
themselves, who live in climates where they can't grow their own produce. Are
they morally inferior to you or me? To lacto-ovo vegetarians?
>But while I definitely see vegetarianism as the morally superior position,
<*gag*>
>part of my own moral philosophy is not to push my ideas on others.
Whew! I knew you must have some redeeming qualities.
>I don’t
>go around telling meat eaters they are evil people. Most of my friends eat
>meat. When they ask, I tell them why I do it, I try to set an example, but
>the decision is theirs. My vegetarianism is a moral decision that I have
>made for myself.
If you made it for yourself, then don't worry so much about being morally
superior to others. It doesn't do anyone any good; try telling your friends
you think you're morally superior to them just because they eat meat.
>I hardly think the term “wacko” applies to my beliefs.
I agree with you here.
--Cheryl Cohen
dseitel . com
(CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
> <charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
[...]
> >I hardly think the term “wacko” applies to my beliefs.
>
> I agree with you here.
Me too. It's important to have a reservoir of moral diversity around.
Otherwise, from where will moral progress and growth come from?
It doesn't occur to people that there's any difference between what they
do in their habits and customs on the one hand and what they *ought* to do
on the other hand. Such is a _customary_ morality. To avoid a choice
between calcifying custom and explosive change to borrow a phrase from
Campbell, there's a middle way of moral experimentation, moral empiricism:
trying out rules as tools for analyzing a special situation, a reflective
morality, instead of a customary one. A sort of moral science. But then
out go the absolutes, and in comes tolerance of others as fellow moral
experimenters dealing with tough moral problems in the best way they can.
In such a model of continuously restructuring our own morality, we NEED to
accept moral diversity, for as John Dewey wrote, "History shows how much
of moral progress has been due to those who in their own time were
regarded as rebels and treated as criminals." But with tolerance, and
tolerance as "not just an attitude of good-humored indifference," but as a
"positive willingness to permit reflection and inquiry to go on in the
faith that the truly right will be rendered more secure through
questioning and discussion, while things that have endured merely from
custom will be done away with," Dewey goes on. But as James Campbell
writes in his _Understanding John Dewey_, "We must provisionally accept
the sincere moral decisions of others, whether or not they conform to
ours. Experimentalism, pluralism, and tolerance go hand-in-hand."
And on both sides.
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
Lesley Dove
>In article <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
><charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
>[...]
>>The environmental, social, and health repercussions of the meat industry are
I think you are being really unfair, jumping down this person's throat
like this. It seems clear to me that he is not saying to these
meat-eaters that he is morally superior to them. It is they that are
defensive, although they claim to want to know why he is vegetarian.
Sounds like the meat-eaters are looking for an argument, and he isn't.
Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
but I don't think this guy does. What good is it to fight amongst
ourselves like this?
>[...]
>>So, how could someone putting their own temporary sense pleasure above
>>consequences they know are destructive and cause suffering, be a moral
>>position. It isn’t.
>You mean like all those lacto-ovo vegetarians who know about the dairy, veal
>and egg industries but can't live without cheesecake and omelets?
You have a point, but once vegetarian they are more likely to become
vegan than those who aren't vegetarian. How many meat-eaters become
vegan overnight? Most do use vegetarianism as a stepping stone.
><*gag*>
I don't get the impression that he does tell them that he is morally
superior to them.
Lesley Dove
>>I hardly think the term “wacko” applies to my beliefs.
>I agree with you here.
>--Cheryl Cohen
dseitel . com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
[...]
> Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
> but I don't think this guy does.
Yes, you do, as your posts in talk.politics.animals well demonstrate,
justifying comparing your opponents to the Nazis, for example.
> What good is it to fight amongst ourselves like this?
Perhaps she's trying to salvage something from the mess of things people
like you and "Enviroveg" have made? That's my guess. Holier-than-Thou's
like you and "Enviroveg" just act as lightning rods. You don't accomplish
anything, other than getting high yourselves on hate and your Holy Cause.
On the other hand, Cheryl will be listened to. Back when I argued as an
anti-whaler against pro-whalers, mostly Norwegians, one of them even came
out and told me publicly that 'the reasonable ones are listened to'.
Of course, that means the unreasonable ones aren't, doesn't it?
You see, it's a fundamental principle of persuasion that you must try to
appeal to what *does* matter to people, not what *should* matter to them.
If you really cared about the animals, perhaps you'd read up on how to
EFFECTIVELY persuade people, instead of just demonizing and niggerizing
meat-eaters, which merely fuels your hatred but does nothing for animals.
Persuasion is an *incremental* process that you do WITH someone, not TO
them and you do it *with* them at *their* pace, not yours. The best form
of persuasion is self-persuasion in which people CHOOSE to change, because
then the change sticks. If you force them, it doesn't. So, then, as
Kathleen Reardon says in _Persuasion in Practice_: "Being a good
persuader, then, means knowing where and how to resent one's version of
reality so that others will *choose* to accept it."
Cheryl is appealing to what actually matters to those of us who are
meat-eaters, like fairness, respect and honesty. She'll get listened to.
Someone might change. People do. I have (on other animal issues).
But people like you and "Enviroveg" who busy themselves throwing shit on
people will merely reinforce the stereotype of Holier-than-Thou veg*ns and
will be given the treatment you so rightly deserve, mainly being dismissed
as the religious cranks and self-absorbed moral prigs that you both are.
I actively seek out contact with veg*ns to discuss these issues, mostly in
private, and I succeed in that endeavor. But I seek out people that don't
act superior, explicitly or implicitly. I can't learn anything from
anyone who thinks they are morally superior, because if they actually
_were_ morally superior, they would know that they are not.
[...]
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
CherCohen1
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
>cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>
>>In article <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
>><charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
[...]
>>>Whenever a meat eater finds out that I am a vegetarian, they want to know
>>>why. I am usually leery of telling them, because they become defensive so
>>>often.
>
>>Yes, because so many vegetarians (like you) claim to be morally superior, it
>>has become a sort of stereotype unfortunately. I'm an ethical vegan myself
and
>>have often encountered this defensiveness in meat-eaters when the subject of
>>veg*nism comes up. To be blunt, it pisses me off to no end when veg*ns go
>>around claiming to be morally superior because then, when *I* get into a
>>discussion with a meat-eater and that person gets defensive, it's because
>>there are so many veg*ns like *you* who perpetuate the stereotype. Thanks
>>a bunch.
>
>I think you are being really unfair, jumping down this person's throat
>like this.
Is it fair for him to go around claiming to be morally superior when he doesn't
have a clue?
>It seems clear to me that he is not saying to these
>meat-eaters that he is morally superior to them. It is they that are
>defensive, although they claim to want to know why he is vegetarian.
If he *believes* he is morally superior, others can pick up on that without his
saying it directly. But he DID say it directly to the meat-eaters who read
this newsgroup.
>Sounds like the meat-eaters are looking for an argument, and he isn't.
We'll never know for sure though, will we, since it seems he popped in, spewed
his nonsense, and then vanished. That 'listen-to-me-but-I-won't-listen-to-you'
attitude is predictable of someone with a superiority complex, imo.
In all fairness, I'm quite familiar with meat-eaters looking for an argument or
making callous remarks throughout a meal, and so on. I'm *not* excusing that
behavior at all; I think it's extremely childish.
>Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
>but I don't think this guy does. What good is it to fight amongst
>ourselves like this?
I don't think there's anything wrong with vegetarians disagreeing with one
another. In fact, it's generally more civilized when two vegetarians argue
than when an ARA and an Anti go at each other. I don't even consider what you
and I are doing to be fighting, and I *can't* be fighting with the original
poster because he rode off into the sunset.
>>>So, how could someone putting their own temporary sense pleasure above
>>>consequences they know are destructive and cause suffering, be a moral
>>>position. It isn’t.
>
>>You mean like all those lacto-ovo vegetarians who know about the dairy, veal
>>and egg industries but can't live without cheesecake and omelets?
>
>You have a point, but once vegetarian they are more likely to become
>vegan than those who aren't vegetarian. How many meat-eaters become
>vegan overnight? Most do use vegetarianism as a stepping stone.
I'd agree that most vegans probably used vegetarianism as a stepping stone, but
it doesn't necessarily follow that lacto-ovo vegetarians are likely to become
vegans at any point in time. I don't think it matters if they are "more
likely" to become vegans than meat-eaters are; the fact is that most lacto-ovo
vegetarians do *not* become vegans, due to either lack of willpower or lack of
knowledge wrt the egg/dairy industries.
[...]
>>If you made it for yourself, then don't worry so much about being morally
>>superior to others. It doesn't do anyone any good; try telling your friends
>>you think you're morally superior to them just because they eat meat.
>
>I don't get the impression that he does tell them that he is morally
>superior to them.
I don't either; my point was that he shouldn't concern himself with whether or
not he's morally superior to anyone else if he decided to go veg*n for himself,
as he claimed. The problem as I see it is that he *believes* he is morally
superior to his meat-eating friends, so I wonder what would happen if he told
them how he honestly feels. I think they'd have a few choice words for him.
--Cheryl
interchaz
>>like this.
>
doesn't
>have a clue?
Who says that I don't have a clue. I'm not claiming that I am a morally
superior person, I merely meant to state that I remain a vegetarian because
I believe it to be a morally superior position. I used to eat meat, but
after discovering the facts about agribusiness, factory farming, slaughter
house practices, environmental degradation, and so forth, I believe that
abstaining from meat is the right thing to do. It doesn't make me a better
person, or more valuable than anyone else, but I do believe that the net
effect of my decision helps to make the world a better place.
There used to be arguments over slavery, and many slave owners in and of
them selves were good people, but were caught up in an old cultural practice
that had some serious ethical flaws. Some abolitionist on the other hand
took actions that weren't so morally superior, like murder, for example.
Maybe it could have been justified, maybe not. Still, the fact remains that
the abolition of slavery was morally superior to slavery.
>>Sounds like the meat-eaters are looking for an argument, and he isn't.
>
>We'll never know for sure though, will we, since it seems he popped in,
spewed
>his nonsense, and then vanished. That
'listen-to-me-but-I-won't-listen-to-you'
>attitude is predictable of someone with a superiority complex, imo.
>
>In all fairness, I'm quite familiar with meat-eaters looking for an
argument or
>making callous remarks throughout a meal, and so on. I'm *not* excusing
that
>behavior at all; I think it's extremely childish.
>
Sorry about not posting back, but I was away for the weekend, and now I'm
back. I don't intend to have a 'listen-to-me-but-I-won't-listen-to-you'
attitude. In fact one of the reasons I posted a message was to get feedback
to ideas. I consider myself to be very open minded. In fact it was through
listening to other vegetarians and vegans that helped me to make my choice
in the first place. What I find strange is that when I respond to many meat
eaters who are looking for an argument, and start by saying that I'm not
judging them, but merely explaining the reasons for my own choice, they
often agree with me. Yes, they acknowledge that it causes harm and hurts the
environment. Yes, many of them agree that it is a good thing to do. But the
answer I get time and time again, is that they can't do it because they
enjoy the taste too much. So, my point is, when someone acknowledges that
what they are doing is having a deleterious effect, and continue to act that
way, or if acknowledges that what they are doing is having a deleterious
effect and change their behavior to try to make it better, which is a better
position?
>>Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
>>but I don't think this guy does. What good is it to fight amongst
>>ourselves like this?
>
>I don't think there's anything wrong with vegetarians disagreeing with one
>another. In fact, it's generally more civilized when two vegetarians argue
>than when an ARA and an Anti go at each other. I don't even consider what
you
>and I are doing to be fighting, and I *can't* be fighting with the original
>poster because he rode off into the sunset.
See above.
>
>I don't either; my point was that he shouldn't concern himself with whether
or
>not he's morally superior to anyone else if he decided to go veg*n for
himself,
>as he claimed. The problem as I see it is that he *believes* he is morally
>superior to his meat-eating friends, so I wonder what would happen if he
told
>them how he honestly feels. I think they'd have a few choice words for
him.
Once again, I don't believe that being a vegetarian makes me a better or
more valuable person than someone who eats meat. But I do believe that it is
better for the world at large. I do believe that it would be better if
everyone was a vegetarian. But I don't believe that I have the right to
force those ideas on others. I realize I may be wrong. I just wish I got
better arguments from meat eaters than "It taste good."
What's wrong with me responding to a question of why I am vegetarian by
outlining the various kinds of damage caused by the meat industry, and that
I believe it is better for myself to not participate in it. When people ask
me, I'm not an in your face militant damning them to the fires of hell for
their sinful ways. I understand that many people don't understand the wider
effects of choices that seem as simple as diet. I didn't at one time either.
But do I believe that not eating meat is better than eating meat---of course
I do or I wouldn't do it. Do I think that that makes me some "holier than
thou" shining angel that can look down on everyone from above--no.
>
Charlie
Lesley Dove
>In article <uPBurK2j#GA....@nih2naae.prod2.compuserve.com>,
>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
>>cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
>>><charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
>[...]
>>>>Whenever a meat eater finds out that I am a vegetarian, they want to know
>>>>why. I am usually leery of telling them, because they become defensive so
>>>>often.
>>
>>>Yes, because so many vegetarians (like you) claim to be morally superior, it
>>>has become a sort of stereotype unfortunately. I'm an ethical vegan myself
>and
>>>have often encountered this defensiveness in meat-eaters when the subject of
>>>veg*nism comes up. To be blunt, it pisses me off to no end when veg*ns go
>>>around claiming to be morally superior because then, when *I* get into a
>>>discussion with a meat-eater and that person gets defensive, it's because
>>>there are so many veg*ns like *you* who perpetuate the stereotype. Thanks
>>>a bunch.
>>
>>I think you are being really unfair, jumping down this person's throat
>>like this.
>Is it fair for him to go around claiming to be morally superior when he doesn't
>have a clue?
I don't feel certain that he doesn't have a clue. He maybe knows less
than you, but now it looks like you being a bit superior in your
attitude, claiming he doesn't have a clue. It seems to me that you are
aware that you feel superior, you're just mostly better at hiding it.
It came out in that last sentence.
>>It seems clear to me that he is not saying to these
>>meat-eaters that he is morally superior to them. It is they that are
>>defensive, although they claim to want to know why he is vegetarian.
>If he *believes* he is morally superior, others can pick up on that without his
>saying it directly. But he DID say it directly to the meat-eaters who read
>this newsgroup.
>>Sounds like the meat-eaters are looking for an argument, and he isn't.
>We'll never know for sure though, will we, since it seems he popped in, spewed
>his nonsense, and then vanished. That 'listen-to-me-but-I-won't-listen-to-you'
>attitude is predictable of someone with a superiority complex, imo.
Yes, maybe you scared him away. I think you're really good at being
diplomatic with meat-eaters, but I don't think you were so fair with
him.
>In all fairness, I'm quite familiar with meat-eaters looking for an argument or
>making callous remarks throughout a meal, and so on. I'm *not* excusing that
>behavior at all; I think it's extremely childish.
Glad to hear you support vegans and vegetarians on the receiving end
of this sort of behaviour.
>>Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
>>but I don't think this guy does. What good is it to fight amongst
>>ourselves like this?
>I don't think there's anything wrong with vegetarians disagreeing with one
>another. In fact, it's generally more civilized when two vegetarians argue
>than when an ARA and an Anti go at each other. I don't even consider what you
>and I are doing to be fighting, and I *can't* be fighting with the original
>poster because he rode off into the sunset.
You're right, I'll try to keep it civilized.
>>>>So, how could someone putting their own temporary sense pleasure above
>>>>consequences they know are destructive and cause suffering, be a moral
>>>>position. It isn’t.
>>
>>>You mean like all those lacto-ovo vegetarians who know about the dairy, veal
>>>and egg industries but can't live without cheesecake and omelets?
>>
>>You have a point, but once vegetarian they are more likely to become
>>vegan than those who aren't vegetarian. How many meat-eaters become
>>vegan overnight? Most do use vegetarianism as a stepping stone.
>I'd agree that most vegans probably used vegetarianism as a stepping stone, but
>it doesn't necessarily follow that lacto-ovo vegetarians are likely to become
>vegans at any point in time. I don't think it matters if they are "more
>likely" to become vegans than meat-eaters are; the fact is that most lacto-ovo
>vegetarians do *not* become vegans, due to either lack of willpower or lack of
>knowledge wrt the egg/dairy industries.
Not sure, It would be interesting if anyone knows of any data on this.
>>>If you made it for yourself, then don't worry so much about being morally
>>>superior to others. It doesn't do anyone any good; try telling your friends
>>>you think you're morally superior to them just because they eat meat.
>>
>>I don't get the impression that he does tell them that he is morally
>>superior to them.
>I don't either; my point was that he shouldn't concern himself with whether or
>not he's morally superior to anyone else if he decided to go veg*n for himself,
>as he claimed. The problem as I see it is that he *believes* he is morally
>superior to his meat-eating friends, so I wonder what would happen if he told
>them how he honestly feels. I think they'd have a few choice words for him.
Maybe if they are really childish and closed-minded, he's better off
finding some veggie friends anyway.
Lesley Dove
>--Cheryl
Lesley Dove
>In <uPBurK2j#GA....@nih2naae.prod2.compuserve.com>
>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>[...]
>> Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
>> but I don't think this guy does.
>Yes, you do, as your posts in talk.politics.animals well demonstrate,
>justifying comparing your opponents to the Nazis, for example.
I compared the mass killing of animals to the Holocaust. I was not the
first, and will not be the last to do it, I expect.
>> What good is it to fight amongst ourselves like this?
>Perhaps she's trying to salvage something from the mess of things people
>like you and "Enviroveg" have made? That's my guess. Holier-than-Thou's
>like you and "Enviroveg" just act as lightning rods. You don't accomplish
>anything, other than getting high yourselves on hate and your Holy Cause.
I don't see Enviroveg saying anything so terrible. I don't hate you
and I am not religious. You are the one being hateful to me.
>On the other hand, Cheryl will be listened to. Back when I argued as an
>anti-whaler against pro-whalers, mostly Norwegians, one of them even came
>out and told me publicly that 'the reasonable ones are listened to'.
>Of course, that means the unreasonable ones aren't, doesn't it?
>You see, it's a fundamental principle of persuasion that you must try to
>appeal to what *does* matter to people, not what *should* matter to them.
>If you really cared about the animals, perhaps you'd read up on how to
>EFFECTIVELY persuade people, instead of just demonizing and niggerizing
>meat-eaters, which merely fuels your hatred but does nothing for animals.
>Persuasion is an *incremental* process that you do WITH someone, not TO
>them and you do it *with* them at *their* pace, not yours. The best form
>of persuasion is self-persuasion in which people CHOOSE to change, because
>then the change sticks. If you force them, it doesn't. So, then, as
>Kathleen Reardon says in _Persuasion in Practice_: "Being a good
>persuader, then, means knowing where and how to resent one's version of
>reality so that others will *choose* to accept it."
>Cheryl is appealing to what actually matters to those of us who are
>meat-eaters, like fairness, respect and honesty. She'll get listened to.
>Someone might change. People do. I have (on other animal issues).
If you care about fairness, or respect, I wish her luck in persuading
you to extend it to those you currently eat!
>But people like you and "Enviroveg" who busy themselves throwing shit on
>people will merely reinforce the stereotype of Holier-than-Thou veg*ns and
>will be given the treatment you so rightly deserve, mainly being dismissed
>as the religious cranks and self-absorbed moral prigs that you both are.
You are being downright insulting so how can you expect such perfect
treatment from me (or Enviroveg)? Besides I can't speak for her. If we
were self-absorbed we would not care about animal suffering to be
vegan or vegetarian, or even bother trying to change anyone else to
save more animals. Just because Cheryl is especially good at the
debate (I can see that she better at this than most, so I may stick
around to learn from her), doesn't make those of us who are less
persuasive into moral prigs or cranks.
>I actively seek out contact with veg*ns to discuss these issues, mostly in
>private, and I succeed in that endeavor. But I seek out people that don't
>act superior, explicitly or implicitly. I can't learn anything from
>anyone who thinks they are morally superior, because if they actually
>_were_ morally superior, they would know that they are not.
I am not morally superior over all things, perhaps I am over veganism,
but that's about all. I acknowledge my many weaknesses and that I
don't always get things right (as in my pets and housing thread on
talk.politics.animals).
I certainly am aware of having a lot to learn, for instance from those
people who have done animal rescue/welfare work.
Lesley Dove
CherCohen1
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
>cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>
>>In article <uPBurK2j#GA....@nih2naae.prod2.compuserve.com>,
>>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
>>>cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>>>>In article <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
>>>><charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
[...]
>>Is it fair for him to go around claiming to be morally superior when he
>>doesn't have a clue?
>
>I don't feel certain that he doesn't have a clue. He maybe knows less
>than you, but now it looks like you being a bit superior in your
>attitude, claiming he doesn't have a clue. It seems to me that you are
>aware that you feel superior, you're just mostly better at hiding it.
>It came out in that last sentence.
No, I don't feel superior at all, although I may take an occasional brief ride
on my high horse. ;o) And I don't hide anything, Lesley; I have been quite
open on this ng about my own flaws and faulty reasoning, and I openly admit
I've made far more than my share of clueless statements since I've been posting
here (hopefully, I don't make them nearly as often as I used to, though).
As for the doesn't-have-a-clue statement, I realize it's a harsh thing to say,
but I'm standing by it. Charlie claims that meat-eating in itself is morally
superior to not eating meat. That is a clueless statement, imo. If it turns
out I've misunderstood him, I'll gladly retract what I said, but I don't think
that will happen.
[...]
>Yes, maybe you scared him away.
Well, he's back now, as I'm sure you've noticed. The idea of *me* scaring
anyone away is really funny, btw. :o) I'd never want to scare anyone away
from here.
>I think you're really good at being
>diplomatic with meat-eaters, but I don't think you were so fair with
>him.
Hmm... I try to be fair with everyone. I'll have to pay closer attention going
forward in my discussion with Charlie.
>>In all fairness, I'm quite familiar with meat-eaters looking for an argument
>>or making callous remarks throughout a meal, and so on. I'm *not* excusing
>>that behavior at all; I think it's extremely childish.
>
>Glad to hear you support vegans and vegetarians on the receiving end
>of this sort of behaviour.
Hell, yes. I *am* one, after all, and it would be foolish of me to discount my
own experiences of being ridiculed by meat-eaters just so I could stomp on
another vegetarian.
>>>Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
>>>but I don't think this guy does. What good is it to fight amongst
>>>ourselves like this?
>
>>I don't think there's anything wrong with vegetarians disagreeing with one
>>another. In fact, it's generally more civilized when two vegetarians argue
>>than when an ARA and an Anti go at each other. I don't even consider what
>>you and I are doing to be fighting, and I *can't* be fighting with the
original
>>poster because he rode off into the sunset.
>
>You're right, I'll try to keep it civilized.
That's good, but I wasn't implying that you hadn't been civilized. I think you
and I have been perfectly fair to each other.
[...]
>>I'd agree that most vegans probably used vegetarianism as a stepping stone,
>>but it doesn't necessarily follow that lacto-ovo vegetarians are likely to
become
>>vegans at any point in time. I don't think it matters if they are "more
>>likely" to become vegans than meat-eaters are; the fact is that most
>>lacto-ovo vegetarians do *not* become vegans, due to either lack of willpower
>>or lack of knowledge wrt the egg/dairy industries.
>
>Not sure, It would be interesting if anyone knows of any data on this.
Just going from personal experience, I've known plenty of ethical lacto-ovo
veg*ns, but I've only known one other vegan (outside this ng) in the past
eleven years (I've lived in Boston and the New York area). I think a good
vegan is much harder to find than a good man; I feel *really* sorry for anyone
in search of a good vegan man! (I married a fish-eater myself, for better or
for worse...) ;o)
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
Charlie! Glad to have you back! Take off your jacket and stay awhile...
In article <7g2cf2$t7d$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
<charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
>>>I think you are being really unfair, jumping down this person's throat
>>>like this.
>>
>>Is it fair for him to go around claiming to be morally superior when he
doesn't
>>have a clue?
>
>Who says that I don't have a clue. I'm not claiming that I am a morally
>superior person, I merely meant to state that I remain a vegetarian because
>I believe it to be a morally superior position.
Sorry, Charlie, but that is the same thing, imo. If I claim that Judaism is
morally superior to Christianity, and I follow Judaism and you follow
Christianity, am I not claiming to be morally superior to you? A milder--but
just as arrogant--way I've also seen this said, is when vegetarians claim to be
"enlightened" while others are nĻt.
>€I used to eat mEat, but
>after discovering the facts about agribusiness, factory farming, slaughter
>house practices, environmental degradation, and so forth, I believe that
>abstaining from meat is the right thing to do. It doesn't make me a better
>person, or more valuable than anyone else, but I do believe that the net
>effect of my decision helps to make the world a better place.
Are you vegan or lacto-ovo, btw?
The problem I'm having with your position is that you keep making statements
such as "abstaining from meat is the right thing to do" (although you have
finally managed to qualify it--wise move) . For one thing, abstaining from
meat may NOT always be the best way to go in terms of reducing one's bloody
footprints, and you refuse to acknowledge that.
And secondly, if not eating meat is "the right thing" to do, then you obviously
believe that eating meat is the *wrong* thing to do. You are automatically
alienating everyone on this ng who *does* eat meat, which is a very poor move
if you want others to understand your position and not drive an even bigger
wedge between ethical veg*ns and antis (those opposed to animal rights).
[...]
>Sorry about not posting back, but I was away for the weekend, and now I'm
>back. I don't intend to have a 'listen-to-me-but-I-won't-listen-to-you'
>attitude.
Oops, looks as though I'll have to eat some of my words then (words don't have
any meat in them, do they? ;o)). Sorry, but I'd never seen you in this part
of town before and then you were suddenly gone, so I took you for one of those
"one post stand" ARAs.
>In fact one of the reasons I posted a message was to get feedback
>to ideas. I consider myself to be very open minded.
Good.
>In fact it was through
>listening to other vegetarians and vegans that helped me to make my choice
>in the first place. What I find strange is that when I respond to many meat
>eaters who are looking for an argument, and start by saying that I'm not
>judging them, but merely explaining the reasons for my own choice, they
>often agree with me. Yes, they acknowledge that it causes harm and hurts the
>environment. Yes, many of them agree that it is a good thing to do. But the
>answer I get time and time again, is that they can't do it because they
>enjoy the taste too much. So, my point is, when someone acknowledges that
>what they are doing is having a deleterious effect, and continue to act that
>way, or if acknowledges that what they are doing is having a deleterious
>effect and change their behavior to try to make it better, which is a better
>position?
I understand exactly what you're saying, and I happen to be a big believer in
making positive changes to support one's principles, but don't you see the huge
contradiction between your point (your last sentence above) and your claim that
simply "not eating meat" is right or morally superior?
Lacto-ovo veg*ns who are aware of the problems in the dairy/veal/egg industries
are doing *exactly* the same thing you explain above about meat-eaters who know
about factory farming, yet they don't eat meat. But according to your
position, they would be following a morally superior path compared to the
meat-eaters although they are really in the same boat.
In any case, why are you so hellbent on showing "which is a better position"?
Why should that matter to you if you made the decision to be veg*n for yourself
and aren't concerned with being better than others? The only thing it
*appears* you are doing is pointing your finger at meat-eaters, even though you
claim not to be doing this.
Believe me, Charlie, I am just as dumbfounded as you by people who know about
factory farming but don't bother to even *reduce* the amount of factory-farmed
products they consume. I just don't understand that way of thinking. However,
I know better than to explain the problem in such vague terms as "eating meat"
vs. "not eating meat".
[...]
>Once again, I don't believe that being a vegetarian makes me a better or
>more valuable person than someone who eats meat. But I do believe that it is
>better for the world at large. I do believe that it would be better if
>everyone was a vegetarian. But I don't believe that I have the right to
>force those ideas on others. I realize I may be wrong. I just wish I got
>better arguments from meat eaters than "It taste good."
Meat-eaters, meat-eaters, meat-eaters... What do think about hearing that "it
tastes good" remark when it comes from lacto-ovo vegetarians, Charlie? Or are
you one yourself? It seems you must be, from things you've said.
>What's wrong with me responding to a question of why I am vegetarian by
>outlining the various kinds of damage caused by the meat industry, and that
>I believe it is better for myself to not participate in it.
You didn't just say you believe it's better for *yourself*, you said veg*nism
was morally superior to meat-eating, and that blanket statement is false, even
by your own criteria.
>When people ask
>me, I'm not an in your face militant damning them to the fires of hell for
>their sinful ways.
Good!
>I understand that many people don't understand the wider
>effects of choices that seem as simple as diet. I didn't at one time either.
What I've learned is that choosing a specific diet (i.e. vegetarianism or
veganism) over examining individual foods can be a mistake if one wants to
truly lessen one's bloody footprints as much as possible. To most if not all
ethical veg*ns/vegans, the diet is a way of life and it defines who we are.
The problem comes when we follow the *rules* and lose sight of the principles,
Charlie.
If it could be proven to you that eating certain types of meat (not
factory-farmed) would cause less animal suffering and environmental damage than
eating certain grains, would you replace some of those grains in your diet with
the meat? I don't think I'd be able to, but it's a matter of esthetics rather
than ethics at that point.
>But do I believe that not eating meat is better than eating meat
Always, Charlie? All kinds of meat?
>---of course
>I do or I wouldn't do it. Do I think that that makes me some "holier than
>thou" shining angel that can look down on everyone from above--no.
Then don't claim to be walking down Morally Superior Road.
--Cheryl
Michael Cerkowski
"If it could be proven to you that eating certain types of meat (not
factory-farmed) would cause less animal suffering and environmental
damage than eating certain grains, would you replace some of those
grains in your diet with the meat? I don't think I'd be able to, but
it's a matter of esthetics rather than ethics at that point."
You've bought into this mindset a little too much for me to keep
silent about it, Cheryl. The choice presented is a deceptive one,
because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
to eating meat. When you begin to parrot statements from both John and
David, it makes me...uncomfortable. Now David will jump in and say that
I'm trying to retrieve one of my Flock - ignoring the fact that I don't
eat rice anymore, and the fact that I have also defended hunting - for
those who have no choice in the matter.
While I'm being critical, I'd like to point out that your blanket
condemnation of lacto-ovos needs some fine-tuning: many lacto-ovos don't
buy factory farmed animal products, but stick to organic eggs and dairy
from small sustainable farms. I offer my experience working in a food
coop to support this.
Don't get the idea that I don't agree with anything you've said: you
did an excellent job in the way-too-long-and-drawn-out 'hypothetical
animals' thread. MC
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
dseitel . com
> Cheryl wrote:
>
> "If it could be proven to you that eating certain types of meat (not
> factory-farmed) would cause less animal suffering and environmental
> damage than eating certain grains, would you replace some of those
> grains in your diet with the meat? I don't think I'd be able to, but
> it's a matter of esthetics rather than ethics at that point."
>
> You've bought into this mindset a little too much for me to keep
> silent about it, Cheryl. The choice presented is a deceptive one,
We are having an _exploratory_ discussion and any choices are part and
parcel of thought experiments, period. It's not clear to me Cheryl is on
some slippery slide into moral oblivion, but rather she has the courage to
refine her position by daring to let her ideas stand the scrutiny of those
who may to some extent disagree with her on some issues. You will note
that Peter and I both have expressed concern over battery hens,
repeatedly; in fact it was I who posted the stuff from Rolling,
documenting the abuse aspect, as have I done many times before.
Your effort to polarize this discussion is neither needed nor welcome.
Especially by someone like me, someone in the muddled middle.
> because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
> different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
> to eating meat.
The point isn't veg*ns should eat meat but realize they still have bloody
hands and that at least in some cases, bloodier than some meat-eaters.
The point to all this is two-fold, to get the ones up on a high horse off
it, and to get the point across that this IS SUPPOSED TO be driven by a
*principle*, the principle of minimizing our toll on our animal brothers.
Driven by a *principle*, not by rules or mindless rituals.
That *principle* is in the main served by a meat-avoiding diet, but not in
all cases, and if the person really cares about the *principle* of
minimizing their toll on our animal brothers, they will look at individual
foods, not diets, and certainly not groups of people.
This is a valid point and there's not much you can say to defeat it, as
you know.
Anyone sincerely interested in not hurting animals would want to know if
they still were hurting animals. Isn't that right, Michael?
> When you begin to parrot statements from both John and
> David, it makes me...uncomfortable.
Because you are trying to spread an ideology and you need group cohesion
to do that. Cheryl, OTOH, is trying to find the right way for *her*, not
dictate to everyone else how they should live and eat.
> Now David will jump in and say that
> I'm trying to retrieve one of my Flock - ignoring the fact that I don't
> eat rice anymore, and the fact that I have also defended hunting - for
> those who have no choice in the matter.
You've gotten credit for me for the latter, and tacitly for the former.
But you get no credit from me for saying on the one hand it's okay for
veg*ns to "selectively buy" coffee to eliminate killing songbirds, but
it's not okay for meat-eaters to selectively buy to avoid animal abuse.
Which tells us the abuse isn't really your concern. You want to police my
dining room. I don't want you to be able to do that, anymore than I want
fundamentalist Christians to make me kneel down to their God.
> While I'm being critical, I'd like to point out that your blanket
> condemnation of lacto-ovos needs some fine-tuning: many lacto-ovos don't
> buy factory farmed animal products, but stick to organic eggs and dairy
> from small sustainable farms. I offer my experience working in a food
> coop to support this.
I noticed with some pleasure you and the Inuit defender, Jae, seemed to
come together on the goal of consuming local resources at least as far as
farm coops went. That's good, but trucking in foods at horrendous
environmental expense (and with a few dead animals on the road too) to the
likes of polar peoples, just so they can live as you say they *must* live,
that still smacks strongly of cultural and moral imperialism.
> Don't get the idea that I don't agree with anything you've said: you
> did an excellent job in the way-too-long-and-drawn-out 'hypothetical
> animals' thread. MC
She does fine. You'd do well to emulate her. You see, you're worried
she'll come over to the dark side. But you underestimate her. She knows
that she is *strengthening* her position as she *refines* it. This will
make her more secure in her beliefs, in her way of living, and more able
to defend it effectively. All positions on these difficult issues have
weaknesses, mine, yours, and hers, and by taking those into honest
account, by listening to honest sincere challenges, and coming up with
solid responses that satisfy *her*, she wins. And strengthens her hand.
To give a specific example, Cheryl was backed into a corner by John, who
specializes in such things :-), and was told that part of her avoiding of
meat was likely esthetic, not ethical. Unfortunately for John, Cheryl was
honest and real, and admitted it was so. John's little test backfired for
once, because by admitting it, Cheryl has strengthened her position -- not
weakened it -- for no one can, with any legitimacy, tell her that
*esthetically* she should prefer one way over another. Her position at
that point is, as I see it, unassailable. It worked out this way because
she is honest, an honest seeker not afraid to have her ideas challenged.
It's evident to me if it isn't to you a number of veg*ns are insecure in
their beliefs and are posting to convince *themselves* they are right.
That's all fine and normal, as we're all a bit insecure about our beliefs,
but we can become less so by strengthening the foundations of those
beliefs which is done by having the courage to expose them to scrutiny and
constructive criticism. Ideas not subjected to this process tend to be
simple, oversimplified, and *dogmatic*, to say nothing of full of holes.
Cheryl has pointed out meat-eaters need to be more aware of the weaknesses
in their position, and she's quite right. And the same goes for your side.
interchaz
are obviously intelligent and I’m interested in hearing your point of view.
So, let me try to clarify my point of view a little.
First of all, I am no saint. I do plenty of things that are wrong, even when
I know they are wrong. Why? I don’t always know, but I try as much as
possible to uncover my conscious and subconscious motives so I can move to a
point where I am a better person. Sometimes that is a long road, and I know
that it will never be traveled if I don’t take into account the point of
view of others. I just wanted to point this out because I don’t want to
paint myself as a saint. But, by and large, I try to do what I believe is
right.
I gave up eating meat when I was 17 (I’m just about 28 now). I lived in an
area where almost everyone hunts, and I took all kinds of abuse for a long
time. Not because I was moralizing to them, but for simple things like
eating a salad instead of a hamburger. That was usually enough to provoke
someone into shoving a piece of flesh into my face. I was told I wouldn’t
last two weeks, but here I am almost 11 years later. For most of that time I
was a lacto-ovo vegetarian. I used the “taste good”, and the “animals aren’t
killed for it” arguments myself to rationalize my behavior. Recently, I
finally admitted that that was a big cop out, and I was undermining my own
beliefs, so I switched to being vegan. I obviously wouldn’t want to put
myself up as a candidate as the poster boy for Morality, I’d be a terrible
spokes-person. And certainly, any person examining my life could find room
for improvement. I’m just looking to test my point of view, and see if it
holds up under scrutiny.
So where does morality come into this. Well, maybe we should back away from
any concepts of vegetarianism for a moment and take a look at exactly what
morality is. Morality, obviously, isn’t part of objective reality the way,
say, atoms and planets are. Morality is part of inter-subjective reality,
and more so, part of human culture and human thought (after all, a pack of
wolves experiences an inter-subjective reality, but aren’t capable of moral
decisions). As humans, we place different values on things and concepts, and
a good chunk of these values are derived from our cultural upbringing. At
the least we can say that morality involves our concepts of right and wrong,
and how those tie into what we value as good or bad.
Let’s take a look at the Aztecs. The Aztecs believed that their god
Huitzilopochtli, the sun god, had to fight his way through the underworld
each night in order to rise again. Furthermore, they believed that in order
to have the strength to fight, he needed to be fed with human blood, so they
needed to sacrifice at least one person per day. Taken just from within that
inter-subjective, cultural belief system, sacrificing people was a moral
decision. If at least one person wasn’t sacrificed, all would die as a
result of the loss of the sun. The problem with this is that we don’t live
in a purely inter-subjective world. There is an objective reality. And
through understanding that objective world, we can improve our cultural
beliefs. Obviously, the sun is not a god that needs human blood, we
understand the physics behind it pretty well, and it’s going to rise (or
better yet, the Earth will turn) whether we sacrifice someone or not. Given
this, human sacrifice is not a moral decision, it is simply murder. Our own
beliefs aren’t enough without some way to tie them into the wider world.
I’m not a big fan of moral systems that champion persecuting others for
differing beliefs, the whole kill the heretics, destroy the infidels,
attitude. And I am no fan of ethnocentrism. These elements of human culture
have caused much damage in the past, and will continue to in the future. But
neither am I a cultural relativist, where I would have to say that any
atrocity can be justified if it is supported by someone else’s beliefs,
because everything is relative. I can understand the Aztecs beliefs, but I
still think that human sacrifice is wrong. We can believe many things about
the world, and disagree on them, but at some point, if somebody’s beliefs
infringe on the greater good, or other’s rights, when can we say they are
wrong?
I guess what I’m asking, is if in your point of view, is there a such thing
as a moral decision? Or do we all define our own morality. Is there ever a
point where we can say that the action someone else takes (or ourselves, for
that matter) is wrong? If so, what are these points. I’m interested in your
opinion. Or, can I only ever decide what is right or wrong for me? This
point of view seems too limited to me, at least in order for people to have
a civil society. Where is the foundation that allows us to make laws? Can we
ever pass judgements on other people? Or are all opinions equally valid?
Let’s get back to questions of vegetarianism. Is the damage caused by the
meat industries just a matter of opinion? Is the threat to the ecosystem,
due to clearing of rainforest for cattle production, the waste products of
so many animals being emptied into rivers and the atmosphere (methane from
cattle being one of the major greenhouse gasses), the extra land and
resources it takes to inefficiently cycle protein through cattle by feeding
them grains and soybeans (it takes 16 pounds of grain and soybeans for each
pound of beef produced, 2,500 gallons of water to raise 1 pond of beef as
opposed to 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat, and 20 times the
agricultural land to feed someone who eats meat as opposed to a vegetarian),
just cold facts with no actual adverse effects on the ecosystem?
What about the effect that meat production has on the economy, keeping a lot
of the arable land in the world in the hands of a few, usually big
mega-corporations and not subsistence farmers. This being part of the reason
there is starvation in the world, not to mention the fact that feeding so
much grain to livestock keeps it away from people who need it, or at least
raises the price beyond a point where many of the world’s poor can afford
it. In turn, having large populations of landless poor actually contributes
to the world population problem, which compounds many other global problems.
While meat production may not be the major contributor to this, it certainly
plays a part.
And there is also the point of animal rights. Do animals only have the
extrinsic value of playing a role in human economy, or do they have an
intrinsic value and rights of their own. Just because we are able to
subjugate animals and use them for our own purposes, does that give us the
right.
So, while a judgement about values may be subjective, doesn’t looking at our
subjective and inter-subjective values in conjunction with the effect that
they have on the objective world and a larger inter-subjective sphere
(taking into account the experience of animals), give some credence to a
claim of right and wrong, or at the least, better or worse. At the very
least, isn’t this true if we agree that the health of the planet, people and
animals is important?
But I agree with you (or at least, the point that I think you were making)
that we really can’t use blanket statements to neatly place everything into
a tidy moral picture. We do need to look at each case individually. If I
were starving and the only way to survive was to eat meat, I’d do it. Also,
for cultures that existed in the past, and continue to exist, that truly
require some meat to survive, I agree that they did what was right. Nature
has been built on the fact that life consumes life. These questions are
really more complicated than “meat = bad, vegan = good”. The entire question
doesn’t boil down to do you eat meat or don’t you. But doesn’t it at least
play a role?
I truly believe that I am better off abstaining from animal products. I
believe that the world is better off because of my abstinence. I also
believe that the world would be much better off if many more people did
likewise. Is this a moral decision? It is for me. What is it for you Cheryl?
Or am I just an arrogant prick? Believe me, I don’t rule out that
possibility. :)
CherCohen1
writes:
>Cheryl wrote:
>
>"If it could be proven to you that eating certain types of meat (not
>factory-farmed) would cause less animal suffering and environmental
>damage than eating certain grains, would you replace some of those
>grains in your diet with the meat? I don't think I'd be able to, but
>it's a matter of esthetics rather than ethics at that point."
>
> You've bought into this mindset a little too much for me to keep
>silent about it, Cheryl.
So I've dragged you out of hiding, have I? Maybe that was my plan all along...
;o)
>The choice presented is a deceptive one,
>because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
>different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
>to eating meat.
I fully realize this, thanks to your past posts on the subject. I understand
that it is *possible* for vegans to lower their death count significantly
without eating meat, but most of us simply don't bother to take those steps.
All I wanted to show above was that it is also *possible* to eat meat and be
responsible for less animal suffering and death; remember, Charlie claimed that
not eating meat was morally superior to eating meat.
>When you begin to parrot statements from both John and
>David, it makes me...uncomfortable.
Hey!! Parroting, am I? I thought I was just trying on a new shirt, and I
think it fits pretty well, actually. I'm learning as I go, Michael, and I pick
the parts of everyone else's position that make sense to me; so, I suppose I am
part John, part David, and part you, too--but the whole odd combination = me.
:o)
>Now David will jump in and say that
>I'm trying to retrieve one of my Flock - ignoring the fact that I don't
>eat rice anymore, and the fact that I have also defended hunting - for
>those who have no choice in the matter.
Heh-heh, come and get me, catch me if you can! ;oP
> While I'm being critical, I'd like to point out that your blanket
>condemnation of lacto-ovos needs some fine-tuning: many lacto-ovos don't
>buy factory farmed animal products, but stick to organic eggs and dairy
>from small sustainable farms. I offer my experience working in a food
>coop to support this.
I have no problem with this, but I've never personally known a lacto-ovo who
did what you say above. I think if a veg*n cares enough to go out of his/her
way to get organic eggs and dairy from small farms, that person would likely
just go vegan. Even if veg*ns did only buy organic eggs and dairy from small
farms, what happens when they go out to eat or eat at someone else's house?
And do they buy cheeses, cakes, and other dairy/egg products at the
supermarket? I'm sure you know quite well how many processed foods contain
dairy or eggs.
I was lacto-ovo myself for several years, and the only time I ever bought
organic eggs was when they were conveniently located in a health food store I
frequented. Most lacto-ovo veg*ns I've known over the years have felt in
general that what they were doing was enough (even if they "admired" veganism);
that is the problem I have with blindly following the rules of a diet while
losing sight of the principles themselves.
> Don't get the idea that I don't agree with anything you've said: you
>did an excellent job in the way-too-long-and-drawn-out 'hypothetical
>animals' thread. MC
Thanks.
--Cheryl
Martin Martens
[...]
You were doing pretty well up until this:
> [...]
> due to clearing of rainforest for cattle production
[...]
> the extra land and resources it takes to inefficiently cycle protein
> through cattle by feeding them grains and soybeans
> (it takes 16 pounds of grain and soybeans for each
> pound of beef produced, 2,500 gallons of water to raise 1 pond of beef as
> opposed to 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat, and 20 times the
> agricultural land to feed someone who eats meat as opposed to a vegetarian),
> just cold facts with no actual adverse effects on the ecosystem?
Those "facts" are far from reality.
It doesn't take 16 lbs. According to recent USDA figures an average of 4
lbs is used. This 4 lbs of grains is not fit for human consumption and
the soybean material is waste product from producing products for human
consumption. It takes exactly zero pounds of grain to produce a pound of
beef as it is quite easy to purchase beef that is grass-fed only.
You should also look into the history of why cattle are fed grain.
That 25 gallons of water used to produce wheat in the prairies is water
that has been collected and distributed in a manner that has had a huge
negative impact on the ecosystem.
You are spouting off typical erroneous vegan propoganda.
> What about the effect that meat production has on the economy, keeping a lot
> of the arable land in the world in the hands of a few, usually big
> mega-corporations and not subsistence farmers.
What about the effect that grain and vegetable production has on the
economy, keeping a lot of the arable land in the world in the hands of a
few, usually big, mega-corporations and not subsistence farmers?
Your "point" is a non-point.
> This being part of the reason
> there is starvation in the world, not to mention the fact that feeding so
> much grain to livestock keeps it away from people who need it, or at least
> raises the price beyond a point where many of the world’s poor can afford
> it.
You've bought the vegan propoganda hook, line, and sinker.
Eating meat is not the cause of nor the reason behind starvation in the
world.
There is a huge surplus of food in North America and Europe yet there
are people starving in every major city in those countries.
[...]
mj...@albany.net
dseitel @ crl . com (David Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> > Cheryl wrote:
> >
> > "If it could be proven to you that eating certain types of meat (not
> > factory-farmed) would cause less animal suffering and environmental
> > damage than eating certain grains, would you replace some of those
> > grains in your diet with the meat? I don't think I'd be able to, but
> > it's a matter of esthetics rather than ethics at that point."
> >
> > You've bought into this mindset a little too much for me to keep
> > silent about it, Cheryl. The choice presented is a deceptive one,
>
> We are having an _exploratory_ discussion and any choices are part and
> parcel of thought experiments, period. It's not clear to me Cheryl is on
> some slippery slide into moral oblivion, but rather she has the courage to
> refine her position by daring to let her ideas stand the scrutiny of those
> who may to some extent disagree with her on some issues. You will note
> that Peter and I both have expressed concern over battery hens,
> repeatedly; in fact it was I who posted the stuff from Rolling,
> documenting the abuse aspect, as have I done many times before.
That's one way of looking at it. However, Cheryl's response to a
relatively new participant here didn't scan as a mere thought experiment
to me.
>
> Your effort to polarize this discussion is neither needed nor welcome.
My post was addressed to Cheryl. Feel free to ignore me.
>
> Especially by someone like me, someone in the muddled middle.
No comment.
>
> > because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
> > different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
> > to eating meat.
>
> The point isn't veg*ns should eat meat but realize they still have bloody
> hands and that at least in some cases, bloodier than some meat-eaters.
> The point to all this is two-fold, to get the ones up on a high horse off
> it, and to get the point across that this IS SUPPOSED TO be driven by a
> *principle*, the principle of minimizing our toll on our animal brothers.
>
> Driven by a *principle*, not by rules or mindless rituals.
And using the words of our resident Terrorist, John Mercer, isn't the
best way to get people to think.
> That *principle* is in the main served by a meat-avoiding diet, but not in
> all cases, and if the person really cares about the *principle* of
> minimizing their toll on our animal brothers, they will look at individual
> foods, not diets, and certainly not groups of people.
Quite true. It is not true, however, that anyone south of the Arctic
Circle would need to eat meat to reduce sufering.
> This is a valid point and there's not much you can say to defeat it, as
> you know.
It's also a strawman.
>
> Anyone sincerely interested in not hurting animals would want to know if
> they still were hurting animals. Isn't that right, Michael?
Yes. They would not, however, need to have it suggested to them that
they could improve by eating meat. There are also more aspects to
vegetarianism than death count and aesthetics.
>
> > When you begin to parrot statements from both John and
> > David, it makes me...uncomfortable.
>
> Because you are trying to spread an ideology and you need group cohesion
> to do that. Cheryl, OTOH, is trying to find the right way for *her*, not
> dictate to everyone else how they should live and eat.
Read what she wrote again.
>
> > Now David will jump in and say that
> > I'm trying to retrieve one of my Flock - ignoring the fact that I don't
> > eat rice anymore, and the fact that I have also defended hunting - for
> > those who have no choice in the matter.
>
> You've gotten credit for me for the latter, and tacitly for the former.
Frankly with all of the irrational abuse I've received from you in
the last year, I don't pay close attention anymore. That doesn't mean
that I don't appreciate it when you are calm and rational, just that I
can't expect it consistently.
>
> But you get no credit from me for saying on the one hand it's okay for
> veg*ns to "selectively buy" coffee to eliminate killing songbirds, but
> it's not okay for meat-eaters to selectively buy to avoid animal abuse.
That isn't quite true: I think that people should buy organic meat if
they are going to buy meat; I just question the need to buy meat at all.
Ditto coffee, but animals aren't slaughtered for coffee.
>
> Which tells us the abuse isn't really your concern. You want to police my
> dining room. I don't want you to be able to do that, anymore than I want
> fundamentalist Christians to make me kneel down to their God.
I see that you still have delusions of my Godhood. That makes one of us.
>
> > While I'm being critical, I'd like to point out that your blanket
> > condemnation of lacto-ovos needs some fine-tuning: many lacto-ovos don't
> > buy factory farmed animal products, but stick to organic eggs and dairy
> > from small sustainable farms. I offer my experience working in a food
> > coop to support this.
>
> I noticed with some pleasure you and the Inuit defender, Jae, seemed to
> come together on the goal of consuming local resources at least as far as
> farm coops went. That's good, but trucking in foods at horrendous
> environmental expense (and with a few dead animals on the road too) to the
> likes of polar peoples, just so they can live as you say they *must* live,
> that still smacks strongly of cultural and moral imperialism.
Read that again: you first admit that I (reluctantly) support subsistence
hunting by the Inuit, then raise the strawman of trucking in food for
a veg*n diet.
>
> > Don't get the idea that I don't agree with anything you've said: you
> > did an excellent job in the way-too-long-and-drawn-out 'hypothetical
> > animals' thread. MC
>
> She does fine. You'd do well to emulate her. You see, you're worried
> she'll come over to the dark side. But you underestimate her. She knows
> that she is *strengthening* her position as she *refines* it. This will
> make her more secure in her beliefs, in her way of living, and more able
> to defend it effectively. All positions on these difficult issues have
> weaknesses, mine, yours, and hers, and by taking those into honest
> account, by listening to honest sincere challenges, and coming up with
> solid responses that satisfy *her*, she wins. And strengthens her hand.
>
> To give a specific example, Cheryl was backed into a corner by John, who
> specializes in such things :-), and was told that part of her avoiding of
> meat was likely esthetic, not ethical. Unfortunately for John, Cheryl was
> honest and real, and admitted it was so. John's little test backfired for
> once, because by admitting it, Cheryl has strengthened her position -- not
> weakened it -- for no one can, with any legitimacy, tell her that
> *esthetically* she should prefer one way over another. Her position at
> that point is, as I see it, unassailable. It worked out this way because
> she is honest, an honest seeker not afraid to have her ideas challenged.
>
Cheryl is welcome to find her own way. Just as she will criticize other
veg*ns when she thinks that they are wrong, I will do the same. What was
it you just wrote about attempting to polarize the discussion?
(...)
--
Michael Cerkowski
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mj...@albany.net
cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <37262B...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net>
> writes:
>
> >
> >"If it could be proven to you that eating certain types of meat (not
> >factory-farmed) would cause less animal suffering and environmental
> >damage than eating certain grains, would you replace some of those
> >grains in your diet with the meat? I don't think I'd be able to, but
> >it's a matter of esthetics rather than ethics at that point."
> >
> > You've bought into this mindset a little too much for me to keep
> >silent about it, Cheryl.
>
along...
> ;o)
I have two sprained fingers, and repetitive stress injuries to my hands
and arms from my job. I also wasn't interested in continuing with the
hypothetical lives thread, especially as you were doing fine.
>
> >The choice presented is a deceptive one,
> >because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
> >different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
> >to eating meat.
>
> I fully realize this, thanks to your past posts on the subject. I understand
> that it is *possible* for vegans to lower their death count significantly
> without eating meat, but most of us simply don't bother to take those steps.
> All I wanted to show above was that it is also *possible* to eat meat and be
> responsible for less animal suffering and death; remember, Charlie claimed
that
> not eating meat was morally superior to eating meat.
First, the steps required would be no more onerous - and almost certainly
less so - than a vegetarian eating meat. Second, your hypothetical reads
like a suggestion for an actual change in diet; one that isn't necessary
and would weaken the positive impact of vegetarianism. Last, your virtual
quoting of John's strawman gives him more credibility than he deserves.
Last plus one, your suggestion that replacing some grains with meat
carries the unintentional implication that people who eat meat don't also
eat those grains. At least you didn't mention elk. ;)
>
> >When you begin to parrot statements from both John and
> >David, it makes me...uncomfortable.
>
> Hey!! Parroting, am I? I thought I was just trying on a new shirt, and I
> think it fits pretty well, actually. I'm learning as I go, Michael, and I
pick
> the parts of everyone else's position that make sense to me; so, I suppose I
am
> part John, part David, and part you, too--but the whole odd combination = me.
> :o)
That your choice of course, Dr. Frankenstein. ;)
>
> >Now David will jump in and say that
> >I'm trying to retrieve one of my Flock - ignoring the fact that I don't
> >eat rice anymore, and the fact that I have also defended hunting - for
> >those who have no choice in the matter.
>
> Heh-heh, come and get me, catch me if you can! ;oP
I'm too old and tired to chase anyone, even women.
>
> > While I'm being critical, I'd like to point out that your blanket
> >condemnation of lacto-ovos needs some fine-tuning: many lacto-ovos don't
> >buy factory farmed animal products, but stick to organic eggs and dairy
> >from small sustainable farms. I offer my experience working in a food
> >coop to support this.
>
> I have no problem with this, but I've never personally known a lacto-ovo who
> did what you say above. I think if a veg*n cares enough to go out of his/her
> way to get organic eggs and dairy from small farms, that person would likely
> just go vegan. Even if veg*ns did only buy organic eggs and dairy from small
> farms, what happens when they go out to eat or eat at someone else's house?
> And do they buy cheeses, cakes, and other dairy/egg products at the
> supermarket? I'm sure you know quite well how many processed foods contain
> dairy or eggs.
If I thought that lacto-ovos were perfect, I'd be one. I am saying that
many of them do put thought and care into their food buying choices.
>
> I was lacto-ovo myself for several years, and the only time I ever bought
> organic eggs was when they were conveniently located in a health food store I
> frequented. Most lacto-ovo veg*ns I've known over the years have felt in
> general that what they were doing was enough (even if they "admired"
veganism);
> that is the problem I have with blindly following the rules of a diet while
> losing sight of the principles themselves.
If you're trying to get a rise out of me, I'll pass.
>
> > Don't get the idea that I don't agree with anything you've said: you
> >did an excellent job in the way-too-long-and-drawn-out 'hypothetical
> >animals' thread. MC
>
> Thanks.
You're welcome. Please read my response to David, in case I didn't
say everything I wanted to here.
>
> --Cheryl
Martin Martens
[...]
> I think if a veg*n cares enough to go out of his/her
> way to get organic eggs and dairy from small farms, that person would likely
> just go vegan.
Hello?
I get my eggs and dairy from small farms (although not specifically for
or particularly because of ethics). I have no plans to go vegan.
[...]
dbmiller
interchaz wrote in message <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>...
>Just looking at the thread that was going in the “veggie wacko’s”
discussion
>and I thought I’d respond to the moral issue of vegetarianism. I’ve been a
>vegetarian for almost 11 years now, and my feelings and ideas about it have
>changed and evolved over time. My vegetarianism started out for health
>reasons, but as I learned more about it, it has become a moral decision,
and
>something I would continue even if I were to find out that the overwhelming
>research that said it was healthy turned out to be wrong.
>
are
>abominable, and cause a great deal of suffering in the world, not just to
>animals, but to human beings and the ecosystem itself. This isn’t an
>opinion, but documented fact for anyone who cares to do a little research.
>So, just on these grounds, not eating meat is a morally superior position.
>
>believe that causing suffering in something with consciousness can be
>defended. When Alan Watts was asked why he was a vegetarian, he responded
by
>saying “Cows scream louder than carrots.” This makes it plain to see that
>eating animals causes more suffering than eating vegetables. When you cut a
>carrot in half, it doesn’t have the neural architecture to feel pain.
>
>why. I am usually leery of telling them, because they become defensive so
>them, but since they asked I educate them a little on the environmental,
>social and spiritual reasons for not eating meat. I often get the same
>answer --as I’m sure all vegetarians hear-- that “I couldn’t do that. I
>like the taste of meat too much”. Often, though, they recognize that what
I
>’m doing is good, and they even tell me that.
>
>consequences they know are destructive and cause suffering, be a moral
>temporary gratification above the rights and welfare of a woman.
arguments
>to not eat meat, I’m not aware of any for eating meat.
>
>go around telling meat eaters they are evil people. Most of my friends eat
>meat. When they ask, I tell them why I do it, I try to set an example, but
>the decision is theirs. My vegetarianism is a moral decision that I have
>
>Charlie
Lesley Dove
>In article <uhqUNl#j#GA....@nih2naad.prod2.compuserve.com>,
>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
>>cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <uPBurK2j#GA....@nih2naae.prod2.compuserve.com>,
>>>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
>>>>cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>>>>>In article <7fq79l$6r8$1...@news.eclipse.net>, "interchaz"
>>>>><charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
>[...]
>>>Is it fair for him to go around claiming to be morally superior when he
>>>doesn't have a clue?
>>
>>I don't feel certain that he doesn't have a clue. He maybe knows less
>>than you, but now it looks like you being a bit superior in your
>>attitude, claiming he doesn't have a clue. It seems to me that you are
>>aware that you feel superior, you're just mostly better at hiding it.
>>It came out in that last sentence.
>No, I don't feel superior at all, although I may take an occasional brief ride
>on my high horse. ;o) And I don't hide anything, Lesley; I have been quite
>open on this ng about my own flaws and faulty reasoning, and I openly admit
>I've made far more than my share of clueless statements since I've been posting
>here (hopefully, I don't make them nearly as often as I used to, though).
>As for the doesn't-have-a-clue statement, I realize it's a harsh thing to say,
>but I'm standing by it. Charlie claims that meat-eating in itself is morally
>superior to not eating meat. That is a clueless statement, imo. If it turns
>out I've misunderstood him, I'll gladly retract what I said, but I don't think
>that will happen.
>[...]
>>Yes, maybe you scared him away.
>Well, he's back now, as I'm sure you've noticed. The idea of *me* scaring
>anyone away is really funny, btw. :o) I'd never want to scare anyone away
>from here.
>>I think you're really good at being
>>diplomatic with meat-eaters, but I don't think you were so fair with
>>him.
>Hmm... I try to be fair with everyone. I'll have to pay closer attention going
>forward in my discussion with Charlie.
>>>In all fairness, I'm quite familiar with meat-eaters looking for an argument
>>>or making callous remarks throughout a meal, and so on. I'm *not* excusing
>>>that behavior at all; I think it's extremely childish.
>>
>>Glad to hear you support vegans and vegetarians on the receiving end
>>of this sort of behaviour.
>Hell, yes. I *am* one, after all, and it would be foolish of me to discount my
>own experiences of being ridiculed by meat-eaters just so I could stomp on
>another vegetarian.
>>>>Look, I admit that I may perpetuate the morally superior stereotype,
>>>>but I don't think this guy does. What good is it to fight amongst
>>>>ourselves like this?
>>
>>>I don't think there's anything wrong with vegetarians disagreeing with one
>>>another. In fact, it's generally more civilized when two vegetarians argue
>>>than when an ARA and an Anti go at each other. I don't even consider what
>>>you and I are doing to be fighting, and I *can't* be fighting with the
>original
>>>poster because he rode off into the sunset.
>>
>>You're right, I'll try to keep it civilized.
>That's good, but I wasn't implying that you hadn't been civilized. I think you
>and I have been perfectly fair to each other.
>
>[...]
>>>I'd agree that most vegans probably used vegetarianism as a stepping stone,
>>>but it doesn't necessarily follow that lacto-ovo vegetarians are likely to
>become
>>>vegans at any point in time. I don't think it matters if they are "more
>>>likely" to become vegans than meat-eaters are; the fact is that most
>>>lacto-ovo vegetarians do *not* become vegans, due to either lack of willpower
>>>or lack of knowledge wrt the egg/dairy industries.
>>
>>Not sure, It would be interesting if anyone knows of any data on this.
>Just going from personal experience, I've known plenty of ethical lacto-ovo
>veg*ns, but I've only known one other vegan (outside this ng) in the past
>eleven years (I've lived in Boston and the New York area). I think a good
>vegan is much harder to find than a good man; I feel *really* sorry for anyone
>in search of a good vegan man! (I married a fish-eater myself, for better or
>for worse...) ;o)
I'm married to a good vegan man. And there are a lot of good vegan
single men in the London area of the UK, I am aware of quite a few.
Here in the UK there are vegetarian match-making agencies too. If you
are OK about being married to a fish-eater, then it's OK for you. I
think I could be OK about a vegetarian but not a fish-eater, but you
are definitely more tolerant than me. I am so amazed that vegans are
rare in your part of the world. I suppose I got to meet lots of vegans
by being in London Vegans and animal rights groups for years. I
thought it was the same in large US cities like New York.
Lesley Dove
CherCohen1
Woops, I was only referring to ethical vegetarians, Martin. I'm usually
careful enough to make the distinction, but sometimes you just have to read my
mind and not only my words. ;o)
Why *do* you get your eggs and dairy from small farms, btw? I'm guessing it's
mostly for environmental reasons but also partly for the animals? Now let's
see how well *my* mindreading skills work...
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) writes:
[...]
>I'm married to a good vegan man. And there are a lot of good vegan
>single men in the London area of the UK, I am aware of quite a few.
>Here in the UK there are vegetarian match-making agencies too. If you
>are OK about being married to a fish-eater, then it's OK for you. I
>think I could be OK about a vegetarian but not a fish-eater, but you
>are definitely more tolerant than me. I am so amazed that vegans are
>rare in your part of the world. I suppose I got to meet lots of vegans
>by being in London Vegans and animal rights groups for years. I
>thought it was the same in large US cities like New York.
I met my husband when I was sixteen and still a meat-eater. We actually met
at, um, *Burger King*, where we both worked. He's actually a "house
vegetarian" since I don't cook him fish at home, but he eats it when we go out.
If I were single and dating, I'm sure I'd prefer a vegan man, but I'd probably
melt quite easily if I met a meat-eater with an intelligent sense of humor, a
kind heart, and a cute butt. ;o)
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
[...]
> And using the words of our resident Terrorist, John Mercer, isn't the
> best way to get people to think.
I've learned quite a lot from John, actually, and his words have gotten me to
think for myself more than a decade's worth of AR literature had. I realize
most ARAs don't take to his methods very kindly, but I at least hope when *I*
go around "parroting" him as you say, that I don't come across as being
aggressive or out to expose someone's hypocrisy to make that person look
foolish. That is not my intention at all.
[...]
> Yes. They would not, however, need to have it suggested to them that
> they could improve by eating meat. There are also more aspects to
> vegetarianism than death count and aesthetics.
Michael, I raised the point about the possibility of eating meat causing less
animal deaths than veg*nism NOT to convince Charlie that was the only way or
the best way to go. HE had claimed not eating meat was morally superior to
eating meat, and I was merely pointing out that his statement was false, in
part because there are circumstances where eating meat may cause fewer deaths
than not eating meat. That's all. You understand that, don't you?
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
>In article <19990427165928...@ngol05.aol.com>,
> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>> In article <37262B...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
>><mj...@albany.net> writes:
[...]
>> >The choice presented is a deceptive one,
>> >because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
>> >different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
>> >to eating meat.
>>
>> I fully realize this, thanks to your past posts on the subject. I
understand
>> that it is *possible* for vegans to lower their death count significantly
>> without eating meat, but most of us simply don't bother to take those steps.
>> All I wanted to show above was that it is also *possible* to eat meat and be
>> responsible for less animal suffering and death; remember, Charlie claimed
that
>> not eating meat was morally superior to eating meat.
>
> First, the steps required would be no more onerous - and almost certainly
> less so - than a vegetarian eating meat. Second, your hypothetical reads
> like a suggestion for an actual change in diet; one that isn't necessary
> and would weaken the positive impact of vegetarianism.
As I said above, all I wanted to show Charlie was that it was *possible* for
someone to eat meat and cause fewer animal deaths than someone who doesn't eat
meat, and it *is* possible. I'm not far enough down the road myself to advise
anyone else to actually *do* anything, and that's not my interest anyway. I
have a hard enough time taking responsibility for my own actions and inaction,
let alone someone else's.
>Last, your virtual
> quoting of John's strawman gives him more credibility than he deserves.
John's credibility is irrelevant; it's the credibility of the argument itself
that counts, and it still stands, at least in the way I was using it.
> Last plus one, your suggestion that replacing some grains with meat
> carries the unintentional implication that people who eat meat don't also
> eat those grains. At least you didn't mention elk. ;)
Heh, I *almost* mentioned venison, though. ;o)
>> >When you begin to parrot statements from both John and
>> >David, it makes me...uncomfortable.
>>
>> Hey!! Parroting, am I? I thought I was just trying on a new shirt, and I
>> think it fits pretty well, actually. I'm learning as I go, Michael, and I
pick
>> the parts of everyone else's position that make sense to me; so, I suppose
>> I am part John, part David, and part you, too--but the whole odd combination
>> = me. :o)
>
> That your choice of course, Dr. Frankenstein. ;)
Heh, maybe now you can understand the degree of my inner conflict. ;o)
[...]
>> I was lacto-ovo myself for several years, and the only time I ever bought
>> organic eggs was when they were conveniently located in a health food store
>>I frequented. Most lacto-ovo veg*ns I've known over the years have felt in
>> general that what they were doing was enough (even if they "admired"
veganism);
>> that is the problem I have with blindly following the rules of a diet while
>> losing sight of the principles themselves.
>
> If you're trying to get a rise out of me, I'll pass.
I wouldn't do that, Michael. I'll concede that of course there are lacto-ovo
veg*ns who do care about the food choices they make. My point was only that
when there is a prescribed set of rules to follow (as in veg*nism), it's easy
for the principles to take a back seat to some degree. That's true for
religion, too; just look at the whole kosher slaughter issue, where the
practice defeats the purpose.
[...]
--Cheryl
interchaz
CherCohen1 wrote in message
<19990428170442...@ngol04.aol.com>...
>In article <7g5e5i$ll5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
>
>>In article <19990427165928...@ngol05.aol.com>,
>> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>>> In article <37262B...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
>>><mj...@albany.net> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>> >The choice presented is a deceptive one,
>>> >because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
>>> >different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to
resort
>>> >to eating meat.
>>>
>>> I fully realize this, thanks to your past posts on the subject. I
>understand
>>> that it is *possible* for vegans to lower their death count
significantly
>>> without eating meat, but most of us simply don't bother to take those
steps.
>>> All I wanted to show above was that it is also *possible* to eat meat
and be
>>> responsible for less animal suffering and death; remember, Charlie
claimed
>that
>>> not eating meat was morally superior to eating meat.
I got your point now Cheryl, maybe you just stated it a little more clearly,
or maybe it is because I've been thinking a lot harder about this stuff. It
may be possible for someone to follow a diet that contains meat, and because
of the practices used in production of their diet, actually cause less
animal suffering to someone following a vagan. That is, if certain
agricultural practices are used in the production of the vegan diet that
cause suffering in some other manner. For example, I'm sure that a peasant
farmer in the Andes, who grows his own food and raises some livestock for
meat, probablly causes less suffering to animals than a vegan in the US
consuming many of the foods available from largescale agribusiness. Thus you
said before that we must look at the specific practices that support what we
consume and not just "diet" as a broad category. So instead of saying that
vegetarianism is morally superior, we can try saying that attempting to live
in a manner that decreases suffering is how we should judge a moral
decision. (That seems almost tautological).
Am I understanding you correctly?
interchaz
diet."
I usually proofread better. Guess I'm just tired.
Charlie
Martin Martens
[...]
> Why *do* you get your eggs and dairy from small farms, btw? I'm guessing it's
> mostly for environmental reasons but also partly for the animals? Now let's
> see how well *my* mindreading skills work...
First reason is taste. The eggs from the battery hens appear to be from
chickens that are bred and fed to produce thicker shells. Those eggs are
rather bland. Free range eggs aren't so bland. Not that I eat many
directly.
Second reason is environmental. I've always been one to promote local
organic farms. Especially ones that wisely use the animals in the
system.
Third, yes, it is because I do not like the way that battery hens are
treated.
The first and second reasons apply to milk. I don't see the
institutionalized mistreatment in the dairy industry that exists in the
chicken industry.
Martin Martens
[...]
> So instead of saying that
> vegetarianism is morally superior, we can try saying that attempting to live
> in a manner that decreases suffering is how we should judge a moral
> decision. (That seems almost tautological).
Monotonicity bias.
First, suffering is not inherently bad. There are many decisions in
which the correct moral choice is to increase suffering.
Second, you still appear to be judging others.
[...]
Sarah Jane Betts
><snip>
>As I said above, all I wanted to show Charlie was that it was *possible* for
>someone to eat meat and cause fewer animal deaths than someone who doesn't eat
>meat, and it *is* possible. I'm not far enough down the road myself to advise
>anyone else to actually *do* anything, and that's not my interest anyway. I
>have a hard enough time taking responsibility for my own actions and inaction,
>let alone someone else's.
><snip>
>--Cheryl
I wouldn't really disagree with you on this one Cheryl, in the same
way that it is *possible* to eat an unhealthy vegan diet or a very
healthy but predominantly meat based one.
But when looking at "moral superiority" should we be looking at
current practice or at the potential of the practice.
It is oft quoted that rice kills more than venison (though I've never
yet seen a statistic that backs up that claim) so the rice eaters have
bloodier footprints, but surely the potential of veganism is that
killing does not *have* to occur. In which case, if the stated aim is
to kill fewer animals, and the attempt is to reach that potential -
doesn't that make veganism morally superior?
Sarah
mj...@albany.net
cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <7g5ddb$kv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > best way to get people to think.
>
> think for myself more than a decade's worth of AR literature had. I realize
> most ARAs don't take to his methods very kindly, but I at least hope when *I*
> go around "parroting" him as you say, that I don't come across as being
> aggressive or out to expose someone's hypocrisy to make that person look
> foolish. That is not my intention at all.
I've also learned quite a lot from John. My complaint is that you used
one of his pet phrases - the one about replacing some or all of the grain
in a vegetarian diet with certain meats - virtually word for word. If you
think back, you'll remember that I often admit that it is possible to
eat meat under certain conditions and cause less suffering than some
vegetarian diets. The problem is that John's pet phrases aren't about
educating people, they are about attacking the very idea of ethical
vegetarianism. Your choice of those particular words, combined with the
bit about not wanting to eat meat being an "aesthetic" issue only, are
what I have a real problem with.
To summarize before I drop this: there is no reason whatsoever for a
vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter of
animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics. Collateral
deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
CherCohen1
<charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
[...]
>First of all, I am no saint. I do plenty of things that are wrong, even when
>I know they are wrong. Why? I don’t always know, but I try as much as
>possible to uncover my conscious and subconscious motives so I can move to a
>point where I am a better person. Sometimes that is a long road, and I know
>that it will never be traveled if I don’t take into account the point of
>view of others. I just wanted to point this out because I don’t want to
>paint myself as a saint. But, by and large, I try to do what I believe is
>right.
Good.
>I gave up eating meat when I was 17 (I’m just about 28 now). I lived in an
>area where almost everyone hunts, and I took all kinds of abuse for a long
>time. Not because I was moralizing to them, but for simple things like
>eating a salad instead of a hamburger. That was usually enough to provoke
>someone into shoving a piece of flesh into my face.
I understand this perfectly.
>I was told I wouldn’t
>last two weeks, but here I am almost 11 years later. For most of that time I
>was a lacto-ovo vegetarian. I used the “taste good”, and the “animals aren’t
>killed for it” arguments myself to rationalize my behavior. Recently, I
>finally admitted that that was a big cop out, and I was undermining my own
>beliefs, so I switched to being vegan. I obviously wouldn’t want to put
>myself up as a candidate as the poster boy for Morality, I’d be a terrible
>spokes-person. And certainly, any person examining my life could find room
>for improvement. I’m just looking to test my point of view, and see if it
>holds up under scrutiny.
There's nothing wrong with testing your point of view, Charlie, but claiming
that not eating meat is morally superior to eating meat is not the way to do
it; I think you at least understand that now. I used to have much the same
mindset you have, btw, and when I first started posting to the ng I remember
fuming at having been called "self righteous" (what--ME--self righteous??
;o)).
A Norwegian fellow posted to me once on talk.politics.animals that
(paraphrasing), "One person's rights end where another's begins".
I don't think there is a simple, black-and-white answer to your question, and I
wonder if it's even possible to truly see the "objective reality" in the world.
There are too many exceptions to any rule (i.e., most people would agree that
killing is wrong, but there are times when even that is not the case).
>I guess what I’m asking, is if in your point of view, is there a such thing
>as a moral decision? Or do we all define our own morality. Is there ever a
>point where we can say that the action someone else takes (or ourselves, for
>that matter) is wrong? If so, what are these points. I’m interested in your
>opinion. Or, can I only ever decide what is right or wrong for me? This
>point of view seems too limited to me, at least in order for people to have
>a civil society. Where is the foundation that allows us to make laws? Can we
>ever pass judgements on other people? Or are all opinions equally valid?
Excellent questions here, some of which I've raised myself in the past and to
which I still don't know the answers. I believe it is extremely important to
define one's own morality before judging another's.
However, I believe we can examine *specific situations* and work to make
positive changes in those areas (which would ultimately affect others); for
example, you don't have to believe in veg*nism to believe that veal crates
cause unnecessary suffering to veal calves and support legislation to change
those conditions. This can be done without believing that people who eat veal
are morally inferior, selfish pigs. The crucial point imo is to be as fully
informed as possible before doing anything drastic.
[snip stuff Martin addressed more thoroughly than I could have]
>And there is also the point of animal rights. Do animals only have the
>extrinsic value of playing a role in human economy, or do they have an
>intrinsic value and rights of their own. Just because we are able to
>subjugate animals and use them for our own purposes, does that give us the
>right.
I believe with all my heart that animals' lives have intrinsic value, and I
can't help but see them as individuals. I believe they deserve our moral
consideration in decisions which affect their lives, much more so than is
currently the case. However, the concept of rights is extremely complex and
largely beyond my comprehension at this point, so I feel awkward claiming that
animals have rights as I violate those rights every day of my life, oftentimes
for mere convenience.
>So, while a judgement about values may be subjective, doesn’t looking at our
>subjective and inter-subjective values in conjunction with the effect that
>they have on the objective world and a larger inter-subjective sphere
>(taking into account the experience of animals), give some credence to a
>claim of right and wrong, or at the least, better or worse. At the very
>least, isn’t this true if we agree that the health of the planet, people and
>animals is important?
Perhaps, but don't you see the potential danger of deciding for others what is
right and wrong because you *think* you understand objective reality? I've
been veg*n for eleven years, and for most of that time I thought I had all the
information I needed to know what was right and wrong for everyone. But
imagine if I had become ruler of the world (heh-heh-heh... mine all mine)--I'd
have had everyone eating tons of rice and other grains, feeling pure while
countless animals were being shredded alive, etc.
>But I agree with you (or at least, the point that I think you were making)
>that we really can’t use blanket statements to neatly place everything into
>a tidy moral picture.
Excellent!
>We do need to look at each case individually. If I
>were starving and the only way to survive was to eat meat, I’d do it. Also,
>for cultures that existed in the past, and continue to exist, that truly
>require some meat to survive, I agree that they did what was right. Nature
>has been built on the fact that life consumes life. These questions are
>really more complicated than “meat = bad, vegan = good”. The entire question
>doesn’t boil down to do you eat meat or don’t you. But doesn’t it at least
>play a role?
The problem is that you're still over-generalizing by saying "eating
meat"--which can be so many different things. Lumping grass-fed cattle in with
battery hens is a huge mistake, as the two situations are completely different.
>I truly believe that I am better off abstaining from animal products. I
>believe that the world is better off because of my abstinence. I also
>believe that the world would be much better off if many more people did
>likewise. Is this a moral decision? It is for me. What is it for you Cheryl?
>Or am I just an arrogant prick? Believe me, I don’t rule out that
>possibility. :)
Heh, you're not an arrogant prick, or you wouldn't be asking me that. ;o) I
agree with everything you say in the above paragraph, Charlie, or I wouldn't be
vegan myself.
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
(Sarah Jane Betts) writes:
[...]
>I wouldn't really disagree with you on this one Cheryl, in the same
>way that it is *possible* to eat an unhealthy vegan diet or a very
>healthy but predominantly meat based one.
>
>But when looking at "moral superiority" should we be looking at
>current practice or at the potential of the practice.
If someone is searching for ways to truly minimize animal suffering, that
person should examine every possibility rather than fall into blindly following
a prescribed set of rules. Moral superiority to others should not be an issue.
But if you want to look at current practice, let's start with the current
practices of the typical vegan, shall we? If you follow the rules of veganism,
it is perfectly acceptable to eat any type of grain in any quantity. It is
perfectly acceptable to eat produce out of season that had to be trucked in
from anywhere on earth. No vegan literature I've ever seen warns against using
pregnancy tests, etc. (but let's not get further into research and medical
practice here, or this will get way too complicated).
According to the rules of veganism, it is NOT okay to eat grass-fed beef or to
hunt your own large animal to replace any of your bloody grains. It is not
even acceptable to eat eggs from a hen you keep in your own backyard.
It is not okay to wear animal skins, but it *is* okay to wear synthetics in
spite of the animal deaths and environmental damage associated with their
manufacture. Do you know which is responsible for more animal deaths and
suffering? I sure don't, but when I became a vegan all I needed to know was
"animal skins = bad, synthetics = good".
>It is oft quoted that rice kills more than venison (though I've never
>yet seen a statistic that backs up that claim) so the rice eaters have
>bloodier footprints, but surely the potential of veganism is that
>killing does not *have* to occur.
Killing will always occur on some level, but if someone's goal is to minimize
that killing, it can be done as a vegan or as a meat-eater; the clincher is
that in either case the person has to know what the hell is going on in the
first place. The problem as I see it is that people become vegans and believe
they are already doing the most they can do--many believing they are
responsible for NO animal deaths at all (I believed this myself for many
years).
If a vegan minimizes grain consumption while maximizing consumption of locally
grown, organic produce, and takes other significant steps to clean his/her
bloody hands as much as possible (out, out, damn spot!), that is quite a
different story than the typical vegan who doesn't have a clue thanks to AR
literature which does not address the issue of animals killed in the fields at
all.
>In which case, if the stated aim is
>to kill fewer animals, and the attempt is to reach that potential -
>doesn't that make veganism morally superior?
I think the flaw in your question is where you say, "if the stated aim is to
kill fewer animals...". That may be *your* stated aim but it isn't everyone's,
so it would be a mistake to claim that your diet is morally superior to anyone
else's, especially when it isn't. If *you* want to make changes in your diet
to minimize the animal suffering/deaths for which you're responsible, you could
maybe say you've become morally superior to the way you used to be, but that
sounds a bit awkward because superiority is generally about being better than
*others*.
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
<charlie@nospam_mysticworks.com> writes:
[...]
>I got your point now Cheryl, maybe you just stated it a little more clearly,
>or maybe it is because I've been thinking a lot harder about this stuff. It
>may be possible for someone to follow a diet that contains meat, and because
>of the practices used in production of their diet, actually cause less
>animal suffering to someone following a vagan. That is, if certain
>agricultural practices are used in the production of the vegan diet that
>cause suffering in some other manner. For example, I'm sure that a peasant
>farmer in the Andes, who grows his own food and raises some livestock for
>meat, probablly causes less suffering to animals than a vegan in the US
>consuming many of the foods available from largescale agribusiness. Thus you
>said before that we must look at the specific practices that support what we
>consume and not just "diet" as a broad category.
Yes! Woo-hoo!
>So instead of saying that
>vegetarianism is morally superior, we can try saying that attempting to live
>in a manner that decreases suffering is how we should judge a moral
>decision.
Yes... a moral decision we're making for ourselves, I might add, assuming that
minimizing suffering is the goal. You raised an important point in one of your
other posts about if and when it's okay to make moral decisions for others, but
I'll address the issue in that post.
>(That seems almost tautological).
But it isn't, really.
>Am I understanding you correctly?
You got it, baby! ;o)
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
<martin....@ragingbull.com> writes:
[...]
>First, suffering is not inherently bad. There are many decisions in
>which the correct moral choice is to increase suffering.
Like what?
And what is monotonicity bias?
[...]
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
[...]
> I've also learned quite a lot from John. My complaint is that you used
> one of his pet phrases - the one about replacing some or all of the grain
> in a vegetarian diet with certain meats - virtually word for word.
Jesus Christ, Michael, you make it sound as if I plagiarized the man's posts
without thinking for myself. What do you think of all the ethical veg*ns who
go around parroting ARA propaganda virtually word for word?
>If you
> think back, you'll remember that I often admit that it is possible to
> eat meat under certain conditions and cause less suffering than some
> vegetarian diets.
I never claimed you didn't.
>The problem is that John's pet phrases aren't about
> educating people, they are about attacking the very idea of ethical
> vegetarianism. Your choice of those particular words, combined with the
> bit about not wanting to eat meat being an "aesthetic" issue only, are
> what I have a real problem with.
I don't care about John's reasons for saying what he does. They are not *my*
reasons. I am not attacking the idea of ethical vegetarianism, only
questioning parts of it. And the part about esthetics is true for *me*; if
some animal lived a happy life and died of natural causes, I would not eat it.
> To summarize before I drop this:
Don't post and run, Michael.
>there is no reason whatsoever for a
> vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
> to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter of
> animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics. Collateral
> deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
> numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
Agreed.
--Cheryl
dseitel . com
wrote:
> In article <372e015b...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
> dseitel @ crl . com (David Eitelbach) wrote:
> > In <37262B...@albany.net> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Cheryl wrote:
[...]
> > > because it is virtually never as presented: veg*ns can choose to eat
> > > different foods to improve their 'death count', without having to resort
> > > to eating meat.
> >
> > The point isn't veg*ns should eat meat but realize they still have bloody
> > hands and that at least in some cases, bloodier than some meat-eaters.
> > The point to all this is two-fold, to get the ones up on a high horse off
> > it, and to get the point across that this IS SUPPOSED TO be driven by a
> > *principle*, the principle of minimizing our toll on our animal brothers.
> >
> > Driven by a *principle*, not by rules or mindless rituals.
>
> And using the words of our resident Terrorist, John Mercer, isn't the
> best way to get people to think.
It's important with "ethical" diets to not mistake form for content!
Same is true with Usenet posts.
I'm disappointed you see no merit in John Mercer's words? Having spent
two years...or was it three?...at the receiving end of his vile attacks,
I've still seen merit in his words. Both now and during those attacks.
You discard all his ideas then because he is too harsh in presenting them?
I sure don't like John Mercer's posting style myself. Fought it tooth
and nail for two years or more and even spent fifty dollars on the
persuasion book to give him some...tips. But I still find it regrettable
you feel the need to call John Mercer a "Terrorist".
You think being a "terrorist" is wrong then, I take it?
ALF too then? What they do wrong, Michael?
> > That *principle* is in the main served by a meat-avoiding diet, but not in
> > all cases, and if the person really cares about the *principle* of
> > minimizing their toll on our animal brothers, they will look at individual
> > foods, not diets, and certainly not groups of people.
>
> Quite true. It is not true, however, that anyone south of the Arctic
> Circle would need to eat meat to reduce sufering.
No one said they NEED to. That's a straw man argument, Michael. What was
said is that they COULD reduce suffering in some cases by eating meat.
Implicit in what you say is that ethical veg*ns only need go SO far in
their efforts to reduce animal suffering, so it seems to me you're out on
thin ice even though you're south of the Arctic Circle.
> > This is a valid point and there's not much you can say to defeat it, as
> > you know.
>
> It's also a strawman.
No, you're saying they *need* to eat meat is the straw man. Again, some
veg*ns *could* reduce their toll on our animal brothers by selecting
individual FOODS instead of a ritualized DIET.
It appears you do, at least sometimes, which leaves you arguing one thing,
doing another.
> > Anyone sincerely interested in not hurting animals would want to know if
> > they still were hurting animals. Isn't that right, Michael?
>
> Yes. They would not, however, need to have it suggested to them that
> they could improve by eating meat.
They need to have it suggested to them they're not doing all they can IF
they come to meat-eaters and say meat-eaters aren't doing all they can.
Of course, if veg*ns aren't laying a guilt trip on meat-eaters, then your
point stands and would constitute a valid complaint I would endorse.
You see, no one likes being told how they can approve, veg*ns or
meat-eaters. Thanks for granting that point, if only implicitly.
That's really what it's all about, meat-eaters being in here. We don't
like being told how we can improve. See, you guys don't either!
Lots of common ground and potential for understanding here, Michael.
> There are also more aspects to
> vegetarianism than death count and aesthetics.
Most definitely, and the psychological aspects utterly fascinate me.
Of course, you have yet another straw man, as I have never said there
weren't "more aspects to vegetarianism than death count and aesthetics".
Once I even quoted, again, Peter Singer, in support of an a.a.e.v. veg*n
troubled about "straying" in social occasions. I could think of lots of
reasons to be vegetarian, but in order to be *superior* wouldn't be one.
[...]
> > But you get no credit from me for saying on the one hand it's okay for
> > veg*ns to "selectively buy" coffee to eliminate killing songbirds, but
> > it's not okay for meat-eaters to selectively buy to avoid animal abuse.
>
> That isn't quite true: I think that people should buy organic meat if
> they are going to buy meat; I just question the need to buy meat at all.
> Ditto coffee, but animals aren't slaughtered for coffee.
They die in droves so people can drink a drug called coffee. The URLs
have been posted in here and are widely available on the web. Animals,
beautiful migratory songbirds, die in droves and lose habitat so the latte
crowd can sip. Here in North America. We import LOTS of coffee.
[...]
> > > While I'm being critical, I'd like to point out that your blanket
> > > condemnation of lacto-ovos needs some fine-tuning: many lacto-ovos don't
> > > buy factory farmed animal products, but stick to organic eggs and dairy
> > > from small sustainable farms. I offer my experience working in a food
> > > coop to support this.
> >
> > I noticed with some pleasure you and the Inuit defender, Jae, seemed to
> > come together on the goal of consuming local resources at least as far as
> > farm coops went. That's good, but trucking in foods at horrendous
> > environmental expense (and with a few dead animals on the road too) to the
> > likes of polar peoples, just so they can live as you say they *must* live,
> > that still smacks strongly of cultural and moral imperialism.
>
> Read that again: you first admit that I (reluctantly) support subsistence
> hunting by the Inuit, then raise the strawman of trucking in food for
> a veg*n diet.
Because you left the door open to escape from your words later implying
that it was only "okay" for people who are not even part of our society to
eat meat if there was no other way. Well, there's always SOME other way.
Vegan helicopter gun ships could be used to fly in Cheetohs to the Inuit
in between campaigns. ;-) But surely you see the serious point here.
[...]
> > She does fine. You'd do well to emulate her. You see, you're worried
> > she'll come over to the dark side. But you underestimate her. She knows
> > that she is *strengthening* her position as she *refines* it. This will
> > make her more secure in her beliefs, in her way of living, and more able
> > to defend it effectively. All positions on these difficult issues have
> > weaknesses, mine, yours, and hers, and by taking those into honest
> > account, by listening to honest sincere challenges, and coming up with
> > solid responses that satisfy *her*, she wins. And strengthens her hand.
> >
> > To give a specific example, Cheryl was backed into a corner by John, who
> > specializes in such things :-), and was told that part of her avoiding of
> > meat was likely esthetic, not ethical. Unfortunately for John, Cheryl was
> > honest and real, and admitted it was so. John's little test backfired for
> > once, because by admitting it, Cheryl has strengthened her position -- not
> > weakened it -- for no one can, with any legitimacy, tell her that
> > *esthetically* she should prefer one way over another. Her position at
> > that point is, as I see it, unassailable. It worked out this way because
> > she is honest, an honest seeker not afraid to have her ideas challenged.
> >
> Cheryl is welcome to find her own way. Just as she will criticize other
> veg*ns when she thinks that they are wrong, I will do the same. What was
> it you just wrote about attempting to polarize the discussion?
What was it you just wrote in your FAQ about using tu quoques?
I'm not trying to polarize the discussion but to frustrate your attempts
to orchestrate conformity. Both in my society and in your "group".
And, especially, on my dinner plate.
I am reminded of what a wise Norwegian used to say in the whaling
discussion back when I argued long and hard against their whaling. He
said he didn't care if people were against whaling or not, just that they
make their decision on the basis of facts and information, not dogma and
propaganda. I feel the same way. I admire profoundly anyone who feels so
strongly about the toll they take on animals that they modify their diet
to reduce it. The quiet humble ones I look up to as moral examples.
The ones that niggerize and demonize meat-eaters or try to shove it down
my throat get it thrown right back in their face. Seems fair to me.
The reasonable ones are heard. I'm setting up a lunch date now with a
*reasonable* ARA vegan woman from t.p.a. To talk. And, to listen.
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
dseitel . com
(CherCohen1) wrote:
[...]
> I think the flaw in your question is where you say, "if the stated aim is to
> kill fewer animals...". That may be *your* stated aim but it isn't everyone's,
Yes! The real evil flows, and boy does it flow, when we set about purging
the world of evil...fixing other people. Ernest Becker has written a book
about this, _Escape from Evil_. But I can't fit it into one Usenet post,
so I'll go with a quote from pragmatist philosopher William James:
"No one has insight into all the ideals. No one should
presume to judge them off-hand. The pretension to dogmatize
about them in each other is the root of most human injustices
and cruelties, and the trait in human character most likely
to make the angels weep."
A wise Norwegian once complained to me of a "single-issue mentality" among
animal rights folks. It took years to sink in, but when I read _The Logic
of Failure_ I realized that so often when we solve one problem, we create
another. Sometimes when we help animals, we hurt people. Like the Inuit.
So, there are other issues at stake, and while helping animals is fine,
even needs doing urgently because of widespread abuse and treating animals
as objects or economic commodities, we still need to consider all angles,
all what we will affect, want to or not, as we set about fixing problems.
> so it would be a mistake to claim that your diet is morally superior to anyone
> else's, especially when it isn't. If *you* want to make changes in your diet
> to minimize the animal suffering/deaths for which you're responsible, you could
> maybe say you've become morally superior to the way you used to be, but that
> sounds a bit awkward because superiority is generally about being better than
> *others*.
Yes, and it's arguably bogus anyway, for as Jane Addams has written, it
may not be so much a choice between virtue and vice, but a choice between
virtue and virtue, with the goodness of yesterday opposed to the good of
today. In which case, the claiming of moral "superiority" would ring a
bit hollow. Plus, it is not a given that people's moral worth should be
judged in terms of some fixed standard. I side with John Dewey in judging
people's moral worth in terms of their progress, growth, and improvement.
In such a model, moral growth is the only moral end, and the "end" is an
active process of transforming oneself by always refining and perfecting.
"Moral absolutism is the shadow of moral integrity."
-- Santayana
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
mj...@albany.net
cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <7g8ji1$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > I've also learned quite a lot from John. My complaint is that you used
> > one of his pet phrases - the one about replacing some or all of the grain
> > in a vegetarian diet with certain meats - virtually word for word.
>
> Jesus Christ, Michael, you make it sound as if I plagiarized the man's posts
> without thinking for myself. What do you think of all the ethical veg*ns who
> go around parroting ARA propaganda virtually word for word?
I think that they have accepted it from people that they trust, without
giving a lot of thought to it. It appears that you think the same of them.
In that case, why give at least the appearance of doing it with Mercer's
rants? On a related note, I doubt that you have learned more from him
than from AR organizations. It would probably be more fair to say that
you learned the positive aspects of AR from them, while the negatives
were withheld, and that you learned the negatives from him and the other
Antis here, while they carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive
nature. No one has, or is likely to, give you the whole picture.
> >If you
> > think back, you'll remember that I often admit that it is possible to
> > eat meat under certain conditions and cause less suffering than some
> > vegetarian diets.
>
> I never claimed you didn't.
I know. That was to fend off accusations that I'm a policeman/priest,
or that my life is strictly rules-based. I'll also add that I have also
learned from Mercer, but wouldn't dream of echoing his catch-phrases to
another veg*n. Those little ditties were designed to drive people off,
not educate them.
>
> >The problem is that John's pet phrases aren't about
> > educating people, they are about attacking the very idea of ethical
> > vegetarianism. Your choice of those particular words, combined with the
> > bit about not wanting to eat meat being an "aesthetic" issue only, are
> > what I have a real problem with.
>
> I don't care about John's reasons for saying what he does. They are not *my*
> reasons. I am not attacking the idea of ethical vegetarianism, only
> questioning parts of it. And the part about esthetics is true for *me*; if
> some animal lived a happy life and died of natural causes, I would not eat it.
>
Then perhaps you should specify the personal aspect a little more, when
posting to someone who doesn't know you? You may have benefitted from John's
style, but most people don't, so if you choose to use it, make sure that
your aim is to discourage.
> > To summarize before I drop this:
>
> Don't post and run, Michael.
I was going to drop it so it didn't appear that I was persecuting you.
Have it your way.
>
> >there is no reason whatsoever for a
> > vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
> > to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter of
> > animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics. Collateral
> > deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
> > numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
>
> Agreed.
Then perhaps you agree that you shouldn't have reduced it to just body
counting and aesthetics?
>
> --Cheryl
dseitel . com
[...]
> It would probably be more fair to say that
> you learned the positive aspects of AR from them, while the negatives
> were withheld, and that you learned the negatives from him and the other
> Antis here, while they carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive
> nature.
"Carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive nature"???
I beg your pardon!
I just gave an example in my post to you, about supporting a woman veg*n
in here troubled about what to do in social situations, quoting Singer. I
could find more. But I'll stick that one below while I await a retraction.
You really ought to be more careful with your well-poisoning, Michael!
[...]
==== BEGIN QUOTED ARTICLE ====
Re: Vegetarian
Author: David Eitelbach <dse...@ether.rahul.net>
Date: 1998/12/31
Message-ID: <369aa2dc....@enews.newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Organization: Magic Theater, Not For Everyone
In <368b4...@newsread3.dircon.co.uk> "sophie" <soph...@dircon.co.uk>
wrote:
> There are also the times when you have been vegetarian for quite a while and
> you accidently have something with animal fat etc. Or you go to a family
> meal and they tell you all the ingredients that they have put in your meal.
> You know they have included something you don't eat, but you eat it anyway
> out of politeness.
> Soph.
Sure, the whole point to ethical judgments is to guide *practice*, as
Singer says. And, as Dewey said, it's better to judge in terms of moral
growth than in terms of some fixed ideal.
> Robert Kramer wrote in message <76fbk0$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > Yep, I started out eating all that Gelatin and other stuff in the
> >beginning too. Welcome to the News Group and I hope you stick around a
> >little while.
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@spams.r.us.com>
E-mail will be publicly posted as I see fit.
==== END QUOTED ARTICLE ====
[...]
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
dseitel . com
> In article <19990429103902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> > In article <7g8ji1$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
[...]
Note Cheryl's explicitly expressed concern about *suffering* here:
> > >there is no reason whatsoever for a
> > > vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
> > > to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter of
> > > animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics. Collateral
> > > deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
> > > numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Then perhaps you agree that you shouldn't have reduced it to just body
> counting and aesthetics?
She didn't do that! That's yet another one of your straw men, Michael.
She's made it abundantly clear in the thread about chicken suffering that
her concerns go way beyond JUST body counting and aesthetics.
She even has an expressed concern about animals *suffering* carried
forward in the very post you're responding to! Look up top of this one.
[...]
mj...@albany.net
dseitel @ crl . com (David Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> > In article <19990429103902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> > cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> > > In article <7g8ji1$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Note Cheryl's explicitly expressed concern about *suffering* here:
There's just one *small* problem...
>
> > > >there is no reason whatsoever for a
> > > > vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
> > > > to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter
of
> > > > animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics.
Collateral
> > > > deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
> > > > numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
...those were my words, not Cheryl's. Try to focus, David, and to focus on
someone other than me...
> > >
> > > Agreed.
Or are you basing a whole post on Cheryl's single word above?
> >
> > Then perhaps you agree that you shouldn't have reduced it to just body
> > counting and aesthetics?
>
> She didn't do that! That's yet another one of your straw men, Michael.
No, it isn't.
>
> She's made it abundantly clear in the thread about chicken suffering that
> her concerns go way beyond JUST body counting and aesthetics.
I was referring to a specific post in which she threw out everything but
those two aspects, not to her entire posting history.
(...)
Martin Martens
>
> In <3728FC...@albany.net> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote:
[...]
> > Since you generally characterize yourself as a 'fence-sitter', not
> > an Anti, none will be forthcoming. It isn't my fault that you have
> > forgotten what your stance is this week...
>
> No, but it is your fault you've lumped me in with them as an "anti" even
> recently. With your other face of course.
>
> So, you contend Martin and John have been "carefully avoided imparting
> anything of a positive nature"? Are you sure?
He believes he gets to define what is positive and what is not.
It appears that his definition of "positive" is anything that conforms
to his beliefs.
Martin Martens
[...]
> That's right. Edward de Bono has coined a word for this *provisional*
> accepting of an idea, the word is _po_, for "provocative operation". It
> is designed to defeat the limits of our logical thinking which uses NO
> gates to stop a course of thinking. PO instead uses MAYBE gates. You go
> with it for a while. The principle behind this is the same as the
> definition of provocation given by de Bono: "There may not be a reason for
> saying something until after it has been said." It's a way of
> circumventing the judgment system and is a *learning* tool.
There's also the notion of group learning, in the case of what Cheryl is
doing, I'd put forth the notion of usenet group learning. Learning that
is beyond one person. Usenet groups are rather ephemeral, participants
come and go. Even long term participants rarely last more than a few
years. Yet notions and ideas that emerge within a newsgroup can last
beyond any particular person.
Group level learning is multiple person interpretive knowledge about
reality. Reality is out there but it represented by and is scripted into
beliefs about reality, which may or may not be an accurate
representation of it. Participants in a usenet newsgroup such as this
bring with them scripted beliefs and the clash comes over determining
which belief better matches reality. The putative "winner" is the script
which is shown to better represent reality.
Charlie came into this newsgroup with a standard AR script. It is a
fairly easy task to demonstrate that this script is not an accurate
representation of reality
Cheryl is, perhaps, standing in an usenet PO gate between scripts, to
use the de Bono terminology you use here. This is the reason that
Michael is desperately fighting to shut it.
[...]
Carl Mondello
steak with onions, mushrooms and gravy! Mashed potatoes on the side!
MMMMMM! Hold the ketchup!
dseitel . com
> David Eitelbach wrote:
> (...)
> .> "Carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive nature"???
> .>
> .> I beg your pardon!
> .>
> .> I just gave an example in my post to you, about supporting a woman
> veg*n
> .> in here troubled about what to do in social situations, quoting
> Singer. I
> .> could find more. But I'll stick that one below while I await a
> retraction.
>
>
dseitel . com
(CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <7gabh0$fd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
[...]
> > I think that they have accepted it from people that they trust, without
> > giving a lot of thought to it. It appears that you think the same of them.
> > In that case, why give at least the appearance of doing it with Mercer's
> > rants?
>
> Is that how it appears? That just kills me, because I've been bursting brain
> cells thinking about these issues so deeply, trying to sift through ALL the
> information I've been given and come to *my own* conclusions. I've been on
> this ng listening to John since last summer, and only now have I "parroted" him
> this way (grrr...).
>
> When can I consider some of these beliefs my own? How will I know whether my
> refined beliefs still need some fine tuning if I don't start to use those
> arguments myself in discussion with other ethical veg*ns?
That's right. Edward de Bono has coined a word for this *provisional*
accepting of an idea, the word is _po_, for "provocative operation". It
is designed to defeat the limits of our logical thinking which uses NO
gates to stop a course of thinking. PO instead uses MAYBE gates. You go
with it for a while. The principle behind this is the same as the
definition of provocation given by de Bono: "There may not be a reason for
saying something until after it has been said." It's a way of
circumventing the judgment system and is a *learning* tool.
The way our minds work, past information controls what happens to new
information. Po also lessens the arrogance of a particular point of view
to allow insight restructuring and the generation of new ideas, says de
Bono. Since most errors in thinking are not errors in logic, but errors
in *perception*, this is a way of improving perception, to get around the
way the mind is an active patterning system using old information
sometimes to discard new.
I use it myself quite extensively. It accounts for me seeming at times to
be on different sides. I have to *provisionally* accept as true certain
ideas to properly evaluate them.
The first function of po is simply to enable one to say anything one
wants, not because it makes sense in itself, but because it can lead to a
rearrangement of information that does make sense in itself, says he.
[...]
CherCohen1
>In article <19990429103902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
>> In article <7g8ji1$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > I've also learned quite a lot from John. My complaint is that you used
>> > one of his pet phrases - the one about replacing some or all of the grain
>> > in a vegetarian diet with certain meats - virtually word for word.
>>
>> Jesus Christ, Michael, you make it sound as if I plagiarized the man's posts
>> without thinking for myself. What do you think of all the ethical veg*ns
who
>> go around parroting ARA propaganda virtually word for word?
>
> I think that they have accepted it from people that they trust, without
> giving a lot of thought to it. It appears that you think the same of them.
> In that case, why give at least the appearance of doing it with Mercer's
> rants?
Is that how it appears? That just kills me, because I've been bursting brain
cells thinking about these issues so deeply, trying to sift through ALL the
information I've been given and come to *my own* conclusions. I've been on
this ng listening to John since last summer, and only now have I "parroted" him
this way (grrr...).
When can I consider some of these beliefs my own? How will I know whether my
refined beliefs still need some fine tuning if I don't start to use those
arguments myself in discussion with other ethical veg*ns?
> On a related note, I doubt that you have learned more from him
> than from AR organizations. It would probably be more fair to say that
> you learned the positive aspects of AR from them, while the negatives
> were withheld, and that you learned the negatives from him and the other
> Antis here, while they carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive
> nature. No one has, or is likely to, give you the whole picture.
Well, I can't disagree with you here, as there's no way to actually measure the
amount learned in one situation or another. I do agree that no one person or
source is likely to offer the whole picture.
BTW, I saw David's response to this comment, and he *does* offer many posts of
a positive nature. I think you just weren't thinking of him as a full-fledged
Anti--no?
>> >If you
>> > think back, you'll remember that I often admit that it is possible to
>> > eat meat under certain conditions and cause less suffering than some
>> > vegetarian diets.
>>
>> I never claimed you didn't.
>
> I know. That was to fend off accusations that I'm a policeman/priest,
> or that my life is strictly rules-based. I'll also add that I have also
> learned from Mercer, but wouldn't dream of echoing his catch-phrases to
> another veg*n. Those little ditties were designed to drive people off,
> not educate them.
As I said below, it doesn't matter to me what *his* intentions are; I'm not
here to drive anyone away, and if I express some idea I learned from John, it
doesn't necessarily come across the same way it would coming from him (I doubt
I could make that happen even if I wanted to).
>> >The problem is that John's pet phrases aren't about
>> > educating people, they are about attacking the very idea of ethical
>> > vegetarianism. Your choice of those particular words, combined with the
>> > bit about not wanting to eat meat being an "aesthetic" issue only, are
>> > what I have a real problem with.
>>
>> I don't care about John's reasons for saying what he does. They are not
*my*
>> reasons. I am not attacking the idea of ethical vegetarianism, only
>> questioning parts of it. And the part about esthetics is true for *me*; if
>> some animal lived a happy life and died of natural causes, I would not eat
it.
>>
> Then perhaps you should specify the personal aspect a little more, when
> posting to someone who doesn't know you?
Okay, that's a good point, although I bet it's the same for many other vegans,
too.
Incidentally, would you eat meat if it came from an animal that lived a good
life and died of natural causes? It's one thing to say it would be okay in
general to do it, and another to actually do it yourself.
>You may have benefitted from John's
> style, but most people don't, so if you choose to use it, make sure that
> your aim is to discourage.
Hmm... I don't see my "style" as being the same as John's. I offered as much
information as I possibly could; I didn't ask any 'trick' questions Charlie
wouldn't understand; I didn't mention the words "religion" or "fascist" or
"MedicAlert bracelet"; and I proceeded to have a civilized discussion with
Charlie.
>> > To summarize before I drop this:
>>
>> Don't post and run, Michael.
>
> I was going to drop it so it didn't appear that I was persecuting you.
> Have it your way.
I'd much prefer to work through this with you than to just drop it, Michael. I
*want* to know when you disagree with me and why; I don't see it as persecution
at all and I'm not afraid of anything you (or anyone else) might have to say.
>> >there is no reason whatsoever for a
>> > vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
>> > to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter of
>> > animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics. Collateral
>> > deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
>> > numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Then perhaps you agree that you shouldn't have reduced it to just body
> counting and aesthetics?
Hmm... But my purpose was just to show Charlie that his claim about moral
superiority was untrue. Do you disagree with that?
Now that I've had a second look, I'm not sure I understand your last sentence
above, about collateral deaths. I *think* you're saying that first people need
to believe that killing animals is wrong and go veggie, and then we can work on
the collateral deaths(?). Maybe you could clarify that, because I'm not sure I
follow or agree.
--Cheryl
Michael Cerkowski
(...)
.> "Carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive nature"???
.>
.> I beg your pardon!
.>
.> I just gave an example in my post to you, about supporting a woman
veg*n
.> in here troubled about what to do in social situations, quoting
Singer. I
.> could find more. But I'll stick that one below while I await a
retraction.
Since you generally characterize yourself as a 'fence-sitter', not
an Anti, none will be forthcoming. It isn't my fault that you have
forgotten what your stance is this week...
(....)
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
Martin Martens
[...]
> The reasonable ones are heard. I'm setting up a lunch date now with a
> *reasonable* ARA vegan woman from t.p.a. To talk. And, to listen.
Karen again? From what I've read of her background, she'd make a great
character for a book.
All this lunch talk is interesting. I want to set up something next time
I'm down in SF. I might even be in that area on a long term basis as my
research interests are leading me to target my position search for that
area.
dseitel . com
wrote:
> In article <19990429103902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> > In article <7g8ji1$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I've also learned quite a lot from John. My complaint is that you used
> > > one of his pet phrases - the one about replacing some or all of the grain
> > > in a vegetarian diet with certain meats - virtually word for word.
> >
> > Jesus Christ, Michael, you make it sound as if I plagiarized the man's posts
> > without thinking for myself. What do you think of all the ethical veg*ns who
> > go around parroting ARA propaganda virtually word for word?
>
> I think that they have accepted it from people that they trust, without
> giving a lot of thought to it. It appears that you think the same of them.
> In that case, why give at least the appearance of doing it with Mercer's
> rants? On a related note, I doubt that you have learned more from him
> than from AR organizations. It would probably be more fair to say that
> you learned the positive aspects of AR from them, while the negatives
> were withheld, and that you learned the negatives from him and the other
> Antis here, while they carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive
> nature. No one has, or is likely to, give you the whole picture.
I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure the AR organizations get off the hook
that easily. If you look at the writings of AR philosophers Peter Singer
and S. F. Sapontzis, you get at least an honest -- and deep effort -- at
presenting the whole picture (within an AR context). Both philosophers,
while in favor of AR, look at arguments from the other side; in fact, the
latter one differs from other AR philosophers on the matter of marginal
cases and gives weight to the reciprocity argument John Mercer uses.
In addition, Rollin's work, what I've seen of it, presents both sides;
indeed, Rollin being shot at from both sides proves that, the AR folks
calling him a sell-out, one researcher once linking him to the Nazis.
The Finsen's book, _The Animal Rights Movement: From Compassion to
Respect_, while clearly pro-AR, has a section devoted to explaining the
positions of the various AR philosophers, which do differ, then also
presents objections to each of these views.
There is also a book that is neither pro- nor anti-AR called _Animal
Rights: Opposing Viewpoints_, which is a point/counterpoint-type of book.
While not pro-AR (or anti-AR), nothing would stop AR organizations from
referring to this book, or others, on a "Suggested Reading" list.
While it's more common in philosophy books to present opposing view points
than in a political debate, or in a propaganda war, it's still curious
that AR organizations don't seek to give their members the tools they need
to fully inform themselves or enhance their understanding of the issues.
The book by Sapontzis even gets a good review from a resident anti-AR
philosopher-type in t.p.a., and he has posted he's always wondered why
more AR people don't use it instead of Singer or Regan, since it is more
subtle and nuanced in its reasoning. And indeed it is a good one.
CherCohen1
Eitelbach) writes:
>In <3728FC...@albany.net> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote:
>
>> David Eitelbach wrote:
>> (...)
>> .> "Carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive nature"???
>> .>
>> .> I beg your pardon!
>> .>
>> .> I just gave an example in my post to you, about supporting a woman veg*n
>> .> in here troubled about what to do in social situations, quoting Singer.
I
>> .> could find more. But I'll stick that one below while I await a
retraction.
>>
>>
>> Since you generally characterize yourself as a 'fence-sitter', not
>> an Anti, none will be forthcoming. It isn't my fault that you have
>> forgotten what your stance is this week...
>
>No, but it is your fault you've lumped me in with them as an "anti" even
>recently. With your other face of course.
>
>So, you contend Martin and John have been "carefully avoided imparting
>anything of a positive nature"? Are you sure?
I was just thinking this over myself and realized I answered Michael too
hastily on this point. John hasn't been around lately, but Martin just posted
all that grain and environmental info to Charlie, and he very politely
explained to me why he eats eggs and dairy from small farms, including the part
about the treatment of battery hens. (In fact, Martin always answers my
questions without being condescending or rude in any way.) He also said
recently that he has some problems with ranching, something he wouldn't admit
if he were carefully avoiding imparting any info that could be considered
positive for the 'AR side'.
--Cheryl
dseitel . com
(CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <7gabh0$fd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
>
> >In article <19990429103902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> > cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
[...]
> >> Jesus Christ, Michael, you make it sound as if I plagiarized the man's posts
> >> without thinking for myself. What do you think of all the ethical veg*ns
> >>who go around parroting ARA propaganda virtually word for word?
> >
> > I think that they have accepted it from people that they trust, without
> > giving a lot of thought to it. It appears that you think the same of them.
> > In that case, why give at least the appearance of doing it with Mercer's
> > rants?
>
> Is that how it appears?
No, not in the least. You're straying from the fold and he's pulling you
back. And if you don't go back, you'll get arrows in your back from him
and others on that side. Not that the middle's any better. There you get
shot at from both sides. Like Rollin.
> That just kills me, because I've been bursting brain
> cells thinking about these issues so deeply, trying to sift through ALL the
> information I've been given and come to *my own* conclusions. I've been on
> this ng listening to John since last summer, and only now have I "parroted" him
> this way (grrr...).
You ought to burst a few more brain cells think about this deeply too.
Michael Cerkowski
to make them. I don't.
David: If I were trying to shut Cheryl up, I wouldn't have attempted to
drop this after a couple of posts. She wanted me to continue, so I did.
I find your accusation ironic, coming from the man who has posted
several tons of hate-filled drivel directed at me, including at least
one post in which you actually admitted that you wanted to shut *me* up.
Sad.
Cheryl: I wrote that the Antis wouldn't post anything positive about
"AR", not animal welfare or the possible environmental benefits of
vegetarianism. There are probably even exceptions to that, but they are
rare.
When will you be able to claim (partial) intellectual ownership of
the things you write? When you put them in your own words.
As for Martin always being polite and helpful when answering
questions...
Last comments, regardless of reaction: while the occasional pro-AR
person may not be driven off by hostile comments from ARAs, many will,
and it still seems to me that it makes much more sense to set them
straight in a friendly, helpful way than to jump on them and repeat
catchphrases (even ones that contain truth) from the opposition.
dseitel . com
(CherCohen1) wrote:
> In article <3731ce43...@enews.newsguy.com>, dseitel @ crl . com (David
> Eitelbach) writes:
>
> >In <3728FC...@albany.net> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote:
> >
> >> David Eitelbach wrote:
> >> (...)
> >> .> "Carefully avoided imparting anything of a positive nature"???
> >> .>
> >> .> I beg your pardon!
> >> .>
> >> .> I just gave an example in my post to you, about supporting a woman veg*n
> >> .> in here troubled about what to do in social situations, quoting Singer.
> I
> >> .> could find more. But I'll stick that one below while I await a
> retraction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since you generally characterize yourself as a 'fence-sitter', not
> >> an Anti, none will be forthcoming. It isn't my fault that you have
> >> forgotten what your stance is this week...
> >
> >No, but it is your fault you've lumped me in with them as an "anti" even
> >recently. With your other face of course.
> >
> >So, you contend Martin and John have been "carefully avoided imparting
> >anything of a positive nature"? Are you sure?
>
> I was just thinking this over myself and realized I answered Michael too
> hastily on this point.
Man, you are nothing if not honest! :-)
> John hasn't been around lately, but Martin just posted
> all that grain and environmental info to Charlie, and he very politely
> explained to me why he eats eggs and dairy from small farms, including the part
> about the treatment of battery hens. (In fact, Martin always answers my
> questions without being condescending or rude in any way.)
Martin also has explained, in Message-ID <353D22...@geocities.com>, in
here, what he is up to:
Interesting point but it would help me if you could elaborate
on it a bit more. One of my primary positions, or what I believe
I primarily try to get across in serious posts, is that I am
refuting arguments used to support the imposition of vegetarianism
by some people, not the adoption.
I find that positive -- telling us why and what he is trying to do.
> He also said
> recently that he has some problems with ranching, something he wouldn't admit
> if he were carefully avoiding imparting any info that could be considered
> positive for the 'AR side'.
Yes, and Martin has also stuck up for animals in t.p.a., which Michael has
read sometimes. In fact, Martin stuck up so much for the animals, another
anti went after him. :-) In Message-ID <6qmnt8$dji$1...@post.servtech.com>
Rich Young also gave valuable insights into the newsgroup dynamics and why
things proceeded the way they do. While his comments in here were in
response to me about t.p.a., the comments apply here as well. The value
of the comments took months to sink in with me, going through two plateaus
of understanding. As well, in Message-ID <3592AE2D...@usa.net>
Martin Martens explained a bit more about the "game" aspect of what's
really going on in here sometimes, responding to me with a comment about
mid-range and serious posts being ignored. I remember this because the
significance of this information (the "why" of it) only sank in recently.
Being kind of dense myself, I sometimes need things pointed out to me. I
don't see Rich, John and Martin as patron saints or anything, but
Michael's gone way to far with his well-poisoning remark, IMO.
I have a dim recollection that Martin helped on some grain earlier back,
but don't feel like finding more. I'm certain I could find some by John
too. For one thing, he's forever posting URLs where people can go read
stuff, check up on it themselves. Isn't that a positive contribution?
I don't want to deny it's mostly negative stuff posted, but, gee whiz!
[...]
dseitel . com
wrote:
> In article <372eba67...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> dseitel @ crl . com (David Eitelbach) wrote:
> > In <7gabh0$fd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> mj...@albany.net wrote:
> >
> > > In article <19990429103902...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> > > cherc...@aol.com (CherCohen1) wrote:
> > > > In article <7g8ji1$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mj...@albany.net writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Note Cheryl's explicitly expressed concern about *suffering* here:
>
> There's just one *small* problem...
Yes, you're right: there is a problem -- and it's *small*.
> > > > >there is no reason whatsoever for a
> > > > > vegetarian to eat meat to reduce suffering; there are much better ways
> > > > > to do that, and not wanting to participate in the deliberate slaughter
> of
> > > > > animals for food is far more than just an issue of aesthetics.
> Collateral
> > > > > deaths will never be greatly reduced unless people adopt, in large
> > > > > numbers, the idea that killing animals is wrong.
>
> ...those were my words, not Cheryl's.
Okay. Thanks for correcting me.
> Try to focus, David, and to focus on someone other than me...
What makes you think I'm focused on you? That de Bono guy says that when
we find an adequate explanation, it's especially important to seek others.
Otherwise, we fall into the trap of the merely adequate as you have here.
We can't know we have the best explanation until we find alternative ones.
> > > > Agreed.
>
> Or are you basing a whole post on Cheryl's single word above?
No, and I answered this before you asked it. (It's down below, Michael.)
> > > Then perhaps you agree that you shouldn't have reduced it to just body
> > > counting and aesthetics?
> >
> > She didn't do that! That's yet another one of your straw men, Michael.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is. You misrepresented her. Why?
> > She's made it abundantly clear in the thread about chicken suffering that
> > her concerns go way beyond JUST body counting and aesthetics.
>
> I was referring to a specific post in which she threw out everything but
> those two aspects, not to her entire posting history.
Man, another strawman. I was referring to something fresh in everyone's
mind (except yours, apparently) -- not her entire posting history.
If you were referring to one post, then the context was limited and you
shouldn't fault her TOTAL position. You're a victim of your own
explanation here, Michael.
We don't discuss every aspect at the same time. Conversations are
limited, linear. Since she *had* made separate and RECENT remarks that
showed beyond any doubt whatsoever her concerns went beyond body counts
and aesthetics, you were just screwing around with her. Why?
You could have just chimed in with the concern yourself, you know.
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
dseitel . com
<martin....@ragingbull.com> wrote:
> David Eitelbach wrote:
> [...]
> > The reasonable ones are heard. I'm setting up a lunch date now with a
> > *reasonable* ARA vegan woman from t.p.a. To talk. And, to listen.
>
> Karen again?
Yes.
> From what I've read of her background, she'd make a great
> character for a book.
She's very easy to talk with off-line. Quiet, calm, adult.
> All this lunch talk is interesting. I want to set up something next time
> I'm down in SF. I might even be in that area on a long term basis as my
> research interests are leading me to target my position search for that
> area.
Sounds good. You'd likely like it here. I'll e-mail you then.
Meantime, I'll look for a good Canadian restaurant. ;-)
--
David Eitelbach <dse...@crl.com>
dseitel . com
> My hands aren't going to allow separate responses, even if I desired
> to make them. I don't.
Yeah, right. Firing on one cylinder then, so to speak?
> David: If I were trying to shut Cheryl up, I wouldn't have attempted to
Yet another straw man! I said you were trying to bring her back into the
fold, not shut her up. She's pretty independent: neither I nor you could
shut her up -- and you know that.
> drop this after a couple of posts. She wanted me to continue, so I did.
> I find your accusation ironic, coming from the man who has posted
> several tons of hate-filled drivel directed at me, including at least
> one post in which you actually admitted that you wanted to shut *me* up.
> Sad.
I see. And your falsely and maliciously suggesting I was a physical
threat to you was what? Was that "sad"? I'd call it sick, Michael.
> Cheryl: I wrote that the Antis wouldn't post anything positive about
> "AR", not animal welfare or the possible environmental benefits of
> vegetarianism. There are probably even exceptions to that, but they are
> rare.
Those things all overlap, Michael. Especially AW and AR.
> When will you be able to claim (partial) intellectual ownership of
> the things you write? When you put them in your own words.
The context is adopting ideas, not the technicalities of copyright law.
All we regulars borrow phrases from each other. No harm done. I'm not
sure one has to contrive to conceal the source by swapping a few nouns or
adjectives in and out. I didn't sense any intent to plagiarize or PARROT.
I'm not sure your use of the verb "parrot" was well-advised, Michael.
It suggests Cheryl can't do her own thinking for herself:
par-rot (par'uht) n., v. <-rot-ed, -rot-ing>
n.
1. any of numerous gregarious, noisy, often
brilliantly colored birds of the order
Psittaciformes, principally of the
tropics and warmer regions of the
Southern Hemisphere: some species have
the ability to mimic speech when in
captivity.
2. a person who, without thought or
understanding, repeats the words of
another.
[...]
Not very "nice", Michael.
CherCohen1
writes:
>My hands aren't going to allow separate responses, even if I desired
>to make them. I don't.
I'm getting real tired of this, too. I think you and I can wrap this up
amicably in one more shot, though. I would certainly like to, Michael.
[...]
>Cheryl: I wrote that the Antis wouldn't post anything positive about
>"AR", not animal welfare or the possible environmental benefits of
>vegetarianism. There are probably even exceptions to that, but they are
>rare.
Okay, understood.
> When will you be able to claim (partial) intellectual ownership of
>the things you write? When you put them in your own words.
I really resent this. I *did* use my own words, Michael. If some of them were
similar to John's, it's only because I was raising a point I learned from
him--not absentmindedly mimicking some catchphrase. And the reason I brought
up the issue was all my own. I really don't think you're giving me enough
credit here, and I don't appreciate being accused of parroting him. Won't you
please try to understand that?
[...]
> Last comments, regardless of reaction: while the occasional pro-AR
>person may not be driven off by hostile comments from ARAs, many will,
>and it still seems to me that it makes much more sense to set them
>straight in a friendly, helpful way than to jump on them and repeat
>catchphrases (even ones that contain truth) from the opposition.
I agree with you, Michael. I may have jumped on Charlie's case, but I don't
think I was actually hostile towards him. I thought I was polite enough while
still letting him know how I felt about the morally superior issue, but I will
accept that I may have been too harsh, okay? And I didn't "repeat
catchphrases" from the opposition; I told Charlie the problems I had with the
position he was taking and used examples to flesh out my points. I wish you
could understand that.
Incidentally, if a certain argument "from the opposition" contains truth, I
think that argument *should* be openly acknowledged and discussed by ARAs.
--Cheryl
Michael Cerkowski
In article <372945...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
<mj...@albany.net>
writes:
> >My hands aren't going to allow separate responses, even if I desired
> >to make them. I don't.
> I'm getting real tired of this, too. I think you and I can wrap this up
> amicably in one more shot, though. I would certainly like to, Michael.
with
my hands and fingers.
[...]
> >Cheryl: I wrote that the Antis wouldn't post anything positive about
> >"AR", not animal welfare or the possible environmental benefits of
> >vegetarianism. There are probably even exceptions to that, but they are
> >rare.
> Okay, understood.
Good. I could have been more clear about that.
> > When will you be able to claim (partial) intellectual ownership of
.> >the things you write? When you put them in your own words.
.> I really resent this. I *did* use my own words, Michael. If some of
them were
.> similar to John's, it's only because I was raising a point I learned
from
.> him--not absentmindedly mimicking some catchphrase. And the reason I
brought
.> up the issue was all my own. I really don't think you're giving me
enough
.> credit here, and I don't appreciate being accused of parroting him.
Won't you
.> please try to understand that?
I do understand, and I don't think that you were mindlessly echoing
Mercer's words. I was addressing (or meant to, anyway) the way your
response *appeared*. We don't ever know for sure what the actual intent
is, so perception is important.
[...]
> > Last comments, regardless of reaction: while the occasional pro-AR
> >person may not be driven off by hostile comments from ARAs, many will,
> >and it still seems to me that it makes much more sense to set them
> >straight in a friendly, helpful way than to jump on them and repeat
> >catchphrases (even ones that contain truth) from the opposition.
.> I agree with you, Michael. I may have jumped on Charlie's case, but
I don't
.> think I was actually hostile towards him. I thought I was polite
enough while
> still letting him know how I felt about the morally superior issue, but I will
.> accept that I may have been too harsh, okay?
Ok.
.> And I didn't "repeat
.> catchphrases" from the opposition; I told Charlie the problems I had
with the
.> position he was taking and used examples to flesh out my points. I
wish you
.> could understand that.
I think I do understand. My position is that what you posted was
analogous to suggesting that people not buy goods produced by slave
labor, but instead kill just one person a year, to reduce the total
suffering. Replacing rice with meat makes no sense even if it does
reduce the death count, because there are better replacements than meat
available. It is flawed even as a thought experiment.
BTW, something I meant to bring up earlier: the problem you mention
re that darned "rules based" vegan diet and rice isn't really a problem
with rice; it's a problem with production methods. I could be stuffing
myself with hand-grown rice as I write this, and have no guilt. Since
production-related problems can occur with virtually any food, I don't
think that the argument was completely sound.
> Incidentally, if a certain argument "from the opposition" contains truth, I
> think that argument *should* be openly acknowledged and discussed by ARAs.
I agree. Pointing out collateral deaths is extremely valid.
Suggesting that a vegetarian replace grain with meat, however, is just
an Anti debating tactic.
--Cheryl
mj...@albany.net
dseitel @ crl . com (David Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> > CherCohen1 wrote:
> >
> > In article <372945...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
> > <mj...@albany.net>
> > writes:
> > All right. This really is IT, though. I'm having serious problems
> > with
> > my hands and fingers.
>
> newsgroup. Even today. No one suffering as badly as you pretend you are
> would have the time or the urge to troubleshoot Volvo problems.
In case anyone is still foolish enough to believe anything that David
says about me, I suggest you check out alt.autos.volvo and see just how
"busy" I was. I would appreciate it if David would become obsessed with
someone else for a while...
CherCohen1
writes:
>CherCohen1 wrote:
>
> In article <372945...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
><mj...@albany.net>
> writes:
>
>> >My hands aren't going to allow separate responses, even if I desired
>> >to make them. I don't.
>
>> I'm getting real tired of this, too. I think you and I can wrap this up
>> amicably in one more shot, though. I would certainly like to, Michael.
>
> All right. This really is IT, though. I'm having serious problems with
>my hands and fingers.
Okay, I don't expect you to respond unless you want to, but I have some final
comments of my own.
[...]
>Replacing rice with meat makes no sense even if it does
>reduce the death count, because there are better replacements than meat
>available. It is flawed even as a thought experiment.
The argument works extremely well to show that not eating meat isn't morally
superior to eating meat, which is exactly how I used it. And I think it also
works very well to help ethical veg*ns open their minds and *think* about their
beliefs instead of just accepting all pro-AR information and shutting out the
rest.
> BTW, something I meant to bring up earlier: the problem you mention
>re that darned "rules based" vegan diet and rice isn't really a problem
>with rice; it's a problem with production methods. I could be stuffing
>myself with hand-grown rice as I write this, and have no guilt. Since
>production-related problems can occur with virtually any food, I don't
>think that the argument was completely sound.
Actually, I didn't specify "rice" at all; what I said was that according to
"the rules of veganism, it is perfectly acceptable to eat any type of grain in
any quantity". I was not ignoring hand-grown rice but rather pointing out that
even the grains which cause the most animal deaths are perfectly acceptable
according to vegan rules.
I have a real problem with that, Michael.
>> Incidentally, if a certain argument "from the opposition" contains truth, I
>> think that argument *should* be openly acknowledged and discussed by ARAs.
>
> I agree. Pointing out collateral deaths is extremely valid.
But AR materials ignore collateral deaths altogether.
>Suggesting that a vegetarian replace grain with meat, however, is just
>an Anti debating tactic.
I wasn't suggesting that Charlie do anything. Helping a vegetarian realize
that ethical veg*nism is flawed and using examples to illustrate that point is
much more than a debating tactic.
I think it's important--crucial, even--that ethical veg*ns examine every side
of their beliefs so they have clearer, more complete understanding of the
degree to which their actions coincide or clash with their principles.
--Cheryl
CherCohen1
<martin....@ragingbull.com> writes:
>David Eitelbach wrote:
>[...]
>
>> That's right. Edward de Bono has coined a word for this *provisional*
>> accepting of an idea, the word is _po_, for "provocative operation". It
>> is designed to defeat the limits of our logical thinking which uses NO
>> gates to stop a course of thinking. PO instead uses MAYBE gates. You go
>> with it for a while. The principle behind this is the same as the
>> definition of provocation given by de Bono: "There may not be a reason for
>> saying something until after it has been said." It's a way of
>> circumventing the judgment system and is a *learning* tool.
>
>There's also the notion of group learning, in the case of what Cheryl is
>doing, I'd put forth the notion of usenet group learning. Learning that
>is beyond one person. Usenet groups are rather ephemeral, participants
>come and go. Even long term participants rarely last more than a few
>years. Yet notions and ideas that emerge within a newsgroup can last
>beyond any particular person.
I love this idea of group learning and the concept of PO as a method of
improving perception and dealing with new information. It's always interesting
to me when other people understand what I'm doing on a deeper level than I
understand it myself. ;o)
--Cheryl
dseitel . com
> CherCohen1 wrote:
>
> In article <372945...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
> <mj...@albany.net>
> writes:
>
> > >My hands aren't going to allow separate responses, even if I desired
> > >to make them. I don't.
>
> > I'm getting real tired of this, too. I think you and I can wrap this up
> > amicably in one more shot, though. I would certainly like to, Michael.
>
> All right. This really is IT, though. I'm having serious problems
> with
> my hands and fingers.
Not so much you aren't busy dispensing mechanical advice in another
newsgroup. Even today. No one suffering as badly as you pretend you are
would have the time or the urge to troubleshoot Volvo problems.
[...]
> > > When will you be able to claim (partial) intellectual ownership of
> .> >the things you write? When you put them in your own words.
>
> .> I really resent this. I *did* use my own words, Michael. If some of
> them were
> .> similar to John's, it's only because I was raising a point I learned
> from
> .> him--not absentmindedly mimicking some catchphrase. And the reason I
> brought
> .> up the issue was all my own. I really don't think you're giving me
> enough
> .> credit here, and I don't appreciate being accused of parroting him.
> Won't you
> .> please try to understand that?
>
> I do understand, and I don't think that you were mindlessly echoing
> Mercer's words. I was addressing (or meant to, anyway) the way your
> response *appeared*. We don't ever know for sure what the actual intent
> is, so perception is important.
<rolls eyes> Running away from your words. As usual.
[...]
> .> And I didn't "repeat
> .> catchphrases" from the opposition; I told Charlie the problems I had
> with the
> .> position he was taking and used examples to flesh out my points. I
> wish you
> .> could understand that.
>
> I think I do understand. My position is that what you posted was
> analogous to suggesting that people not buy goods produced by slave
> labor,
Comes the "transfer device" in which you try to link something bad to your
opponent however remote the connection.
> but instead kill just one person a year, to reduce the total
> suffering.
This is garbage. By your analogy all you veg*ns are slaveholders, you
just let someone else do the whipping, the buying, and the selling. So
you don't have to see it. You might be able to have fewer slaves if you
did things yourself, but you refuse to, so you let an indifferent
slave-driver do your dirty work for you, and some of you have more slaves
or slaves suffering more than some slave-holders that do their own dirty
work.
> Replacing rice with meat makes no sense even if it does
> reduce the death count, because there are better replacements than meat
> available. It is flawed even as a thought experiment.
No, it's relevant and necessary to hear for a person wanting to live by
the PRINCIPLE of reducing their toll on animals. For a religious DIET of
course, you'd be right. But it's not supposed to be about *diets* or
*people*. It's *supposed* to be about helping animals.
And of course you leave out of your religious propaganda here that many
veg*ns don't do what you say. And it's been the antis, not you, that
bring up the extraordinary high toll on animals from coffee, rice,
pregnancy test kits, bananas, grains, and all the rest of it.
Your religious diet, Michael, is just a LAZY way out of it. The answer is
to look at foods, and many veg*n foods are not animal-friendly. But the
focus is all on meat-eating. Something stinks here, Michael.
> BTW, something I meant to bring up earlier: the problem you mention
> re that darned "rules based" vegan diet and rice isn't really a problem
> with rice; it's a problem with production methods. I could be stuffing
> myself with hand-grown rice as I write this, and have no guilt. Since
> production-related problems can occur with virtually any food, I don't
> think that the argument was completely sound.
It's perfectly sound, but it has to be discarded in the face of your
religious beliefs that your DIET is the only Way.
> > Incidentally, if a certain argument "from the opposition" contains truth, I
> > think that argument *should* be openly acknowledged and discussed by ARAs.
>
> I agree. Pointing out collateral deaths is extremely valid.
> Suggesting that a vegetarian replace grain with meat, however, is just
> an Anti debating tactic.
No. It goes the point that many veg*ns are living by *rules* rather than
*principles*. It is therefore necessary to point out that IN SOME CASES
veg*ns COULD further reduce their toll on animals via meat and that in
some cases veg*n foods hurt animals more. That's simply how it is.
Spin away.