Post Reply
Page 14 of 94  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 94 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Cow Flees Slaughterhouse
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:55PM #131
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,034

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:31PM, christine3 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:


The problem is that when one says "vegetarianism is a more enlightened way of eating' then one is automatically putting meat eaters down as 'unenlightened' and claiming that vegetarians are better because they're 'enlightened.'


When you claim that those that eat meat and defend meat eating based on sound research are making excuses to justify 'mindless habits' then you are putting that group down and implying that those that don't eat meat are somehow smarter, which isn't the case.


Words matter. Perception matters.





I see what you mean.  Perhaps when the words "more enlightened approach" just means about the approach itself, not that meat eaters are dummies.  There is the very large problem on the world (I think), at this time, which is that other people raise our food in overly industrialized economies, so we don't know the process of the food from start to finish, and it is mostly inhumane to animals.  Factory owners keep costs down in order to make a profit.  The ones who suffer are the animals and the overworked, underpaid workers.  Can't we begin to make small changes to change this system?  It's not going to happen overnight.




Thanks.

I absolutely agree that we should me working on small changes, but I think the area to focus on is humane treatment of animals and not condemnation of anyone that eats meat.


Focus on education that allows folks to understand why eating free-range meat is the better alternative and worth the extra money, which could in turn help with the cost issue if more folks start purchasing that type of meat.


We should focus on educating people on the resources that are out there that would allow them to buy meat from a local farmer rather than their local grocery store that sells Tyson or Perdue. In my area, one can buy meat from local farmers and split the cost with others. Right now, it's more expensive, but if more people do it then the cost could could go down.


Education is the key and one can't educate others if one is trying to do so in a manner that is perceived as judgmental.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:56PM #132
Erey
Posts: 18,386

Look, for a general hot topics board there are A LOT of animal welfare and vegetarian related posts.  Which is fine if that is what people are interested in posting.  I do find alot of diologue by vegetarians and vegans to be rude and offensive (redneck assholes anyone) towards those that eat meat or hunt or will kill the vermin that invade thier home . 


If you want to post about these subjects, fine your choice.  If you want to be rude and insulting to those that eat meat, fine also your choice.  But don't act all flabbergasted and touchy when people respond in an annoyed manner to this kind of banter.  I realize by the comments that many of the vegetarians/vegans here can't seem to recognize when their banter is insulting.  I personally think it is pretty obvious but if you can't see it I recomend you go back and read through some of the comments.  Other than that I can't help you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:57PM #133
christzen
Posts: 6,276

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:31PM, christine3 wrote:



I see what you mean.  Perhaps when the words "more enlightened approach" just means about the approach itself, not that meat eaters are dummies.  



 


No,if you read all the remarks from this poster in context,it is clear that they regard people who eat meat without worrying overly much about it as beneath them on the evolutionary ladder.That is par for the course with many vegetarians,and most of the ones who proslytize about it,and I have seen such attitudes displayed by them in every single discussion I have ever read.


 


Besides,saying your "approach" is more enlightened is just another way of saying that those who use the other "approach" are uncaring Neanderthals practicing a less enlightened lifestyle.


 


If vegetarians wish for more cordial and philsophical discussions,I can tell you from long experience that the first step is for them to quit insinuating the other side is less "enlightened" and a lower form of human being.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:58PM #134
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,034

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:


When you claim that those that eat meat and defend meat eating based on sound research . . .



What “sound research” are you referring to, by which people defend human meat-eating?





There is plenty of research out there that shows that eating meat/fish is healthy and not at all something that everyone should ban from their diet.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:58PM #135
rabello
Posts: 20,369

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:48PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:


When you claim that those that eat meat and defend meat eating based on sound research . . .



What “sound research” are you referring to, by which people defend human meat-eating?




Good question!


Perhaps other example of words that matter are "mythinformation" and "junk science", both of which are used to deny current research reports that say eating meat is NOT "perfectly" healthy

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:07PM #136
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,034

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:49PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:


The problem is that when one says "vegetarianism is a more enlightened way of eating' then one is automatically putting meat eaters down as 'unenlightened' and claiming that vegetarians are better because they're 'enlightened.'




Being of the opinion that vegetarianism is a more enlightened way of living is a legitimate opinion to hold, just like being of the opinion that not smoking is a more enlightened way of living. 


I disagree, but then I don't feel the need to put myself above others. I don't smoke, but I'm certainly not better than those that do. I've just made different choices in my life.


If meat eaters and smokers choose to feel "denigrated" by other people's commitments, that is their problem to deal with. 


Ah yes, the old "well, it's not my fault if you choose to be offended by what I say" argument. No one here has a problem with someone's commitments, but some do have a problem with the claim that one person is more 'enlightened' than the other because of those commitments.


No vegetarian is trying to get possession of red meat criminalized, afterall.


The proof in this is that it takes effort and commitment to be a vegetarian.  It takes no effort or commitment to stop at McDonalds, Burger King, Bob's Big Boy, KFC, or Domino's for a "meat lovers pizza" on the way home from work.   


It takes effort to eat healthy no matter what you do. A vegetarian isn't more enlightened or putting in more effort than someone that eats meat and chooses to purchase free-range, make meals at home, and incorporate all aspects of a healthy diet into their daily routine.


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:


When you claim that those that eat meat and defend meat eating based on sound research are making excuses to justify 'mindless habits' then you are putting that group down and implying that those that don't eat meat are somehow smarter, which isn't the case.




Do you really believe those who continue to pollute the earth by idling their cars in the drive up window to Wendy's or Dairy Queen at all times of day or night, are practicing "mindful habits"?   I don't. 


I know quite a few people that put a significant amount of effort into their diet and ensuring that they eat healthy, but still make the choice to go to Wendy's or Dairy Queen sometimes. You just chose to judge a group of people based on your perception of their eating habits and yet you wonder why someone might get offended?


Probably nobody who posts here goes to that extreme, but you wouldn't know it by the defensiveness and feigned hurt feelings by the "carnivores" here.


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Words matter. Perception matters.




True for both sides. 


Yes.


"Moderation" is a good one to consider the mulitple meanings of. 


Yes, but we don't get to discuss what that means because some claim that there is no such acceptable thing as 'moderation' when it comes to eating meat.


Another is "mindless follower" and a whole bunch of other insulting words used to name-call.

If one is going to claim to be more enlightened, then one has to act it, right? Or does one get to claim the more 'enlightened' title and use 'well, everybody else is being mean so I can too' argument?





"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:09PM #137
mountain_man
Posts: 38,737

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:31PM, christine3 wrote:

I see what you mean.  Perhaps when the words "more enlightened approach" just means about the approach itself, not that meat eaters are dummies.


No, it is a judgement. You are claiming to be "more enlightened" than those that eat meat. It's a judgement based on your personal beliefs and a personal attack.


There is the very large problem on the world (I think), at this time, which is that other people raise our food in overly industrialized economies, so we don't know the process of the food from start to finish, and it is mostly inhumane to animals.


Another judgement based on the false belief that most adults don't know where their food comes from. It's also a personal attack.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:14PM #138
mountain_man
Posts: 38,737

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:55PM, Girlchristian wrote:

...Education is the key and one can't educate others if one is trying to do so in a manner that is perceived as judgmental.


There is no way their arguments cannot be judgmental. One personal attack is the belief that meat eaters need to be "educated." Just because we don't agree with them doesn't mean we are not educated.


Why can't the vegetarians decide for themselves and leave everyone else alone? What gives them the right to preach, or "educate," anyone that doesn't agree with them?



Again, for the record; a "personal attack" is not calling someone names, it is finding something wrong with the person instead of the argument. Saying that someone is uneducated is finding something wrong with the person.


There is nothing "wrong" with eating meat or with those that choose to eat meat.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:34PM #139
rabello
Posts: 20,369

Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


I disagree, but then I don't feel the need to put myself above others. I don't smoke, but I'm certainly not better than those that do. I've just made different choices in my life.


Ah yes, the old "well, it's not my fault if you choose to be offended by what I say" argument. No one here has a problem with someone's commitments, but some do have a problem with the claim that one person is more 'enlightened' than the other because of those commitments.




You have a different understanding of the word "enlightened" than I do.  It doesn't mean superiority.  In this context, it means questioning the status quo of the dominant culture, and the mores one grew up with and takes for granted, and finding both wanting, and making an affirmative change in one's lifestyle.   To come to the conclusion that a cow has "rights" would be considered a form of "enlightenment."


The activism that is detested on this board is not about eating meat....it is about killing animals.  


There most certainly is (or was) a lot of intolerance of smokers even if some individuals, like you, don't mind being around them.



Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


It takes effort to eat healthy no matter what you do. A vegetarian isn't more enlightened or putting in more effort than someone that eats meat and chooses to purchase free-range, make meals at home, and incorporate all aspects of a healthy diet into their daily routine.




Until one has a heart attack or is diagnosed with CAD, that is...then everything changes. However, the status quo of this culture is meat-eating not vegetarianism, and it takes more effort to find vegetarian foods, cook vegetarian meals, find vegetarian restaurants, find vegetarian markets -- certainly not the supermarket that captures the lion's share of the market.  Buying free range is nice for those who can afford it....it doesn't address the issue of killing animals though, which is what the "carnivores" who post here mistake for intolerance of meat eating.



Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:



I know quite a few people that put a significant amount of effort into their diet and ensuring that they eat healthy, but still make the choice to go to Wendy's or Dairy Queen sometimes. You just chose to judge a group of people based on your perception of their eating habits and yet you wonder why someone might get offended?




There is no more reason to be offended by the fact that some people -- a distinct minority -- find going to fast food junk places a bad idea than a smoker has reason to be offended that some people think sitting next to them in a smoking section is a bad idea.  People, if not internally conflicted by something they are doing, should do what they do, proudly, not be martyrs about it.


Perhaps you can understand why people who think killing animals is immoral would feel "offended" by having their perspective mocked and misrepresented?


Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Yes, but we don't get to discuss what that means because some claim that there is no such acceptable thing as 'moderation' when it comes to eating meat.




We don't get to discuss much of what we'd like on threads such as this one because of the concerted efforts of a few to derail it before it even begins.


Frankly, I can see no reason that THIS thread should have degenerated into contentiousness the way it did by the 4th or 5th post.



Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:



If one is going to claim to be more enlightened, then one has to act it, right? Or does one get to claim the more 'enlightened' title and use 'well, everybody else is being mean so I can too' argument?






Again, you have a different understanding of the word enlightenment.   It take "enlightenment" to overcome years of social conditioning to question the status quo and come to the conclusion that animals possess an inherent right to life, same as humans.  Doesn't mean those who defend the status quo are inferior or anything else the carnivores on this board choose to say it means.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:43PM #140
rabello
Posts: 20,369

Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:14PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:55PM, Girlchristian wrote:

...Education is the key and one can't educate others if one is trying to do so in a manner that is perceived as judgmental.


There is no way their arguments cannot be judgmental. One personal attack is the belief that meat eaters need to be "educated." Just because we don't agree with them doesn't mean we are not educated.


Why can't the vegetarians decide for themselves and leave everyone else alone? What gives them the right to preach, or "educate," anyone that doesn't agree with them?




I wonder why you are addressing GirlChristian, here, of all people -- she's on your side aferall.   She said education is key in getting people to become mindful of more humane ways of harvesting one's meat -- buying free range, etc.  Do you disagree with that?  Or are you telling GirlChristian she personally attacked meateaters by saying they need to be "educated"


Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:14PM, mountain_man wrote:


Again, for the record; a "personal attack" is not calling someone names, it is finding something wrong with the person instead of the argument. Saying that someone is uneducated is finding something wrong with the person.




So stop doing it, why dontcha?


Wink and who does that sound like? Wink




Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 14 of 94  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 94 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook