Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View another aspect to vegetarianism...
7 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 10:23PM #11
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753

OK, so what is the bottom line here, anyway?


The way I see it, at least where diet is concerned, the average human being puts the importance of the five- or ten-minute taste experience of meat above everything else.  Instant gratification is what it's all about, right?


You can educate people until you're blue in the face, show them study after study about the amount of methane the cattle farms put into the atmosphere, or give links to the many, many articles detailing the horrors of the factory farms system.  You can point out that, really, no human needs to eat animal flesh in order to be happy and healthy.  And you can show all sorts of statistics proving that vegetarians/vegans really are, in general, healthier than meat-eaters.


But none of that counts!  All that matters is that brief taste experience.


And when you try to point this out to people, what do you get back?  They tell you you're ranting.  Or you get the equivalent of a shrug and a blank look.  Or, you get attitude.


Why is it that the average human does not seem to be capable of even considering a different paradigm, let alone actually (perish the thought) adopting it?  Why is it that this 'we've-always-done-it-so-it must-be-all-right' attitude is so pervasive in human society?


Sure, humans can eat flesh and not fall over dead.  But, since when does can equate with should or even must?


Why can't people at least just come clean and admit that they don't give a sh*t about the animals' pain, or the effect of farming on the environment, or even what a bad diet could do to their health?


Why not just say: Hell, I couldn't care less if pigs suffer, as long as I get my morning bacon.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 10:29PM #12
Erey
Posts: 21,730

You are ranting a bit.  i believe we do best with a moderate meat intake.  I really believe that.  Now you might be better suited to veganism than the average person and others might wither without larger more frequent servings of meat but I do believe for most people meat is an important albeit over used part of the diet. 


Ideally meat raised without antibiotics, hormones and are free of dangerous parasites.


Now you disagree, I am sure.  Back to the chimpanzees you referenced in a different post.  Even a chimpanzee, in a forest full of fruits and bugs will on occasion actually hunt and eat another mammal.  They don't do it everyday but since I tend to find large primates facinating pretty much all of the natures shows featuring them describe this behaviour. 


I like tofu, I like those meatless protien crumbles which tend to taste alot like meat.  yes I like the taste of meat but I can live without it taste wise. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 11:17PM #13
Paravani
Posts: 798

Hi, All!


I spent a year or two when I was younger as a modified "lacto-ovo vegetarian".  I ate milk products, eggs, fish, and chicken, but wouldn't touch anything that had a "mama".  So no pork, beef, or other mammals.


I eat everything now because I accept that I'm an omnivore by biology, and I don't accept that animals are somehow more valuable and less edible than plants.  I empathize deeply with animals, but also with plants; should I give up eating everything then?


The zero-karma diet involves eating nothing in such a way as to kill it.  It's possible, but not easy...


Allowed foods:  leaves and stems are okay, but not roots.  Fruits are okay, but not their seeds, and no nuts or grains (which are potential life).  Un-fertilized eggs are okay -- birds often lay eggs on a regular schedule whether they've been fertilized or not, so there's no harm in exploiting this natural source of important protein.  And of course all dairy products are fine.


Nah, I don't eat that way.  But I could.


Honestly, I'm getting older now, beef doesn't digest as easily and beef hormones make me fat, so I only eat organic beef on a now-n-then basis.  Sometimes I just crave the iron, that's all.  Vegetables and vegetable protein -- soy and hummus -- are easier to digest, with occasional servings of chicken and fish.  Thank heavens I haven't become lactose-intolerant, because I do love my milk and yogurt!


Americans DO eat way too much meat per capita, and since the FDA approved hormones to fatten cattle before slaughter in 1995, we've also become much fatter.  I think it would be a good idea for both our health and the global environment if we ate less meat.


But sorry, solfeggio, suffering is life for people, animals, and plants alike.  I'm not going to feel guilty about my occasional chicken, fish, steak, nuts, or carrots.


Love,


-- Claudia


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 12:08AM #14
Abner1
Posts: 6,624

Solfeggio wrote:


> OK, so what is the bottom line here, anyway?


IMO, the bottom line is that you're proceeding about your attempts at conversion of others by an ineffective path, and as a result you're getting frustrated and beginning to lash out at people - which doesn't do anything to make them think you're right, and may well be more likely to drive potential converts away.


There are two basic ways to attempt to convert someone to your views using logic:


1. Start from your own premises, follow to your conclusions, and then get upset when other people who are starting from different premises don't accept your conclusions because they don't logically follow from *their* premises.  Proceed to browbeat them about how they should use your premises instead.


2. Learn what premises the other people are starting from, and try to find a logical argument from their premises to your desired conclusion.


Most people do the first approach, which is entirely ineffective - even counterproductive.  That seems to be a lot of your approach here.  The second approach is far more effort, takes a lot longer, requires dealing with the targets one on one to find their respective premises, and only works if you find their premises also lead to the desired conclusion ... which often isn't the case.  Very often if their premises also led to your desired conclusion, they'd already be there.  I don't think I've ever seen you take the second approach.


There is a third way that isn't really all that logical ...


3.  Try to convince them that your premises are better than their premises.


The third approach is usually an emotional approach rather than a logical one, and is also inefficient because it usually relies on making someone feel better about your premises than their own.  More often what happens is that you make them feel worse about you, not about their premises.


You also do a lot of the third approach.  For example:


> The way I see it, at least where diet is concerned, the average human being puts the


> importance of the five- or ten-minute taste experience of meat above everything else. 


> Instant gratification is what it's all about, right?


That's an attempt to abuse people into replacing their premises with your own.  Since the targets stated other things and can see that this is just deliberate misrepresentation of their stated reasons for the sake of abusing them, they're far more likely to reject Solfeggio than to reject their stated reasons.


> And when you try to point this out to people, what do you get back?  They tell you


> you're ranting.  Or you get the equivalent of a shrug and a blank look.  Or, you get attitude.


Maybe they feel that you don't care about their premises, you don't listen to their arguments based on those premises, and your education attempts basically can be summed up as "I'm right, you're wrong, so stop being evil idiots and do what I say" ... more or less.


> Why is it that the average human does not seem to be capable of even considering


> a different paradigm, let alone actually (perish the thought) adopting it?


It's a basic human trait to see everything through the lens of your own paradigm.  Some people can manage to step outside that and see things through the views of others, some can't.  The people who can do that are the most effective teachers.  Those who can't are generally ineffective.


You are being ineffective in promoting your views.  I think your inability to understand the views of those of other paradigms is why ...


> Why can't people at least just come clean and admit that they don't give a sh*t about


> the animals' pain, or the effect of farming on the environment, or even what a bad diet


> could do to their health?  Why not just say: Hell, I couldn't care less if pigs suffer, as


> long as I get my morning bacon.


And unfortunately your translate everything said by everyone who disagrees with you into the above statement, entirely ignoring what they actually said ... which means that you don't really ever address what they actually said.  Basically, all your attempts at 'education' are aimed at the idea that everyone who disagrees with you is a selfish, evil, cruel waste of oxygen.  *shrugs*  Ah well, if you want to waste your time proceeding in a completely ineffectual way that actually makes people feel worse about your cause, that's your right, but I think that if you *really* want to make progress - rather than just feeling better about yourself at the expense of abusing others - then you really need to adjust your approach to approach #2 - it's slow, it's difficult, but it's the only way that's likely to actually work.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 1:30AM #15
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Jun 29, 2011 -- 10:23PM, solfeggio wrote:


OK, so what is the bottom line here, anyway?


The way I see it, at least where diet is concerned, the average human being puts the importance of the five- or ten-minute taste experience of meat above everything else.  Instant gratification is what it's all about, right?


You can educate people until you're blue in the face, show them study after study about the amount of methane the cattle farms put into the atmosphere, or give links to the many, many articles detailing the horrors of the factory farms system.  You can point out that, really, no human needs to eat animal flesh in order to be happy and healthy.  And you can show all sorts of statistics proving that vegetarians/vegans really are, in general, healthier than meat-eaters.


But none of that counts!  All that matters is that brief taste experience.


And when you try to point this out to people, what do you get back?  They tell you you're ranting.  Or you get the equivalent of a shrug and a blank look.  Or, you get attitude.


Why is it that the average human does not seem to be capable of even considering a different paradigm, let alone actually (perish the thought) adopting it?  Why is it that this 'we've-always-done-it-so-it must-be-all-right' attitude is so pervasive in human society?


Sure, humans can eat flesh and not fall over dead.  But, since when does can equate with should or even must?


Why can't people at least just come clean and admit that they don't give a sh*t about the animals' pain, or the effect of farming on the environment, or even what a bad diet could do to their health?


Why not just say: Hell, I couldn't care less if pigs suffer, as long as I get my morning bacon.


 





I don't know many who eat bacon on a regular basis. Most are too busy to cook breakfast. We eat cold cereal or drink a nutrional supplement. My parents and even grandparents thought bacon or sausage fairly unhealthy.


Eggs and bacon were reserved for special brunches.


A bit of beef, pork, lamb or chicken at dinner is more common. And that is not a ten-second taste choice, even though that is what you think. It is a nutritional choice, too. My sister-in-law had very pasty-faced kids because they didn't get enough protein--her husband had to have bacon for breakfast but wouldn't buy protein for their kids.


Our rosy-cheeked kids, who all became supreb athletes*, ate balanced meals and drank fruit juice and milk not soda. As a teen superb athlete our son ate cereal and milk for his evening snack.


State your case, if you must, but try not to denigrate those who disagree. We just don't buy the message.


*Our son was the State Champion in all categories in the mile and two mile races as a hs senior. He received an appointment, one of about 130 to the Coast Guard Academy, where he served for two years, leaving because he did not want his persona over-ridden by the military attitude--quite a decision for a 20 yr-old.They were not happy to see him leave. He was then granted a full athletic xc and track scholarship by GA TECH, his alma mater. And he was raised on moderate meat, potatoes and veggies. His  kids eat much as he did and his son just aced his freshman year on very substantial scholarship at MIT.


This is my case.

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 7:40AM #16
costrel
Posts: 6,227

Jun 29, 2011 -- 11:17PM, Paravani wrote:

Hi, All!The zero-karma diet involves eating nothing in such a way as to kill it.  It's possible, but not easy...


Allowed foods:  leaves and stems are okay, but not roots.  Fruits are okay, but not their seeds, and no nuts or grains (which are potential life).  Un-fertilized eggs are okay -- birds often lay eggs on a regular schedule whether they've been fertilized or not, so there's no harm in exploiting this natural source of important protein.  And of course all dairy products are fine.


Nah, I don't eat that way.  But I could.


As you probably are aware, according to the vegan karma diet prescribed in the great Zen Buddhist monastic code Chanyuan quinggui, "[e]ven in times of sickness, a monk should sacrifice his body even to the end of his life, rather than consume wine or meat" (Fascicle 1.16; Yifa translation). I think there is a certain irony here -- that is, that in order to eat ethically, one must be willing to sacrifice one's own body and even commit ethical suicide rather than eat any meat or animal products such as milk or cheese (which violates the first precept) or drink any wine (which violates the fifth precept).


And as the Dalai Lama notes, eating eggs is fine, so long as those eggs do not come from chickens that are cruelly imprisoned in battery cages.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 8:21AM #17
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,839
Abner, for obvious reasons, I'm not quoting your analysis of Solfeggio's approach. I simply want to compliment your acuity.

You've summarized precisely why I no longer attend to most of what she says because she appears incapable of acknowledging that I gave up vegetarianism because my digestion couldn't deal with that much fiber.

I don't suffer gladly fools or fanatics devoid of compassion and consideration for others, plain and simple.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 9:09AM #18
Abner1
Posts: 6,624

DotNotInOz wrote:


> Abner, for obvious reasons, I'm not quoting your analysis of Solfeggio's approach.


Understood - if nothing else, the sheer length of it is a flaw.  I've never gotten the gift of brevity.


> You've summarized precisely why I no longer attend to most of what she says


> because she appears incapable of acknowledging that I gave up vegetarianism


> because my digestion couldn't deal with that much fiber.


I think the best definition of fanaticism is when ideology starts becoming more important than people ... or perhaps when hypothetical people become more important than actual ones.  Ah well, I doubt Solfeggio and I will ever succeed in convincing the other of anything, but bridging the divide is worth trying once in a while.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 9:25AM #19
piecesofthewhole
Posts: 1,380

Jun 30, 2011 -- 9:09AM, Abner1 wrote:


but bridging the divide is worth trying once in a while.





Yes, always!  and good attempt on your part!

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 11:00AM #20
IreneAdler
Posts: 2,849

Jun 30, 2011 -- 9:25AM, piecesofthewhole wrote:


Jun 30, 2011 -- 9:09AM, Abner1 wrote:


but bridging the divide is worth trying once in a while.





Yes, always!  and good attempt on your part!





Abner- yes, really nice post. Dot pretty much sums up my take as well.


 In fact, I have decided to drop any and all plans to follow vegetarian/vegan eating plans solely because of Solf's dismissive attitude towards other posters. It's hard to buy the vegan/vegetarian eating plan because of the lack of scholarship displayed. If even I can see the inaccuracies, then surely there is a problem.


 


Irene.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook