vegan police... - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 09-12-2003, 08:05 AM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by majake View Post

I did actually read a post by a vegan with a superiority complex here on VB, i won't point it out



Shoot, I thought I had deleted it.
Kurmudgeon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 09-12-2003, 08:26 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Feliner writes:

========

Soilman.. phbt, that is a lame opinion to have. Really thoughtless. Comparing a loving relationship between two species, to one of slavery and abuse.

============



Personally I do not see much difference between keeping a cat for companionship, on one hand, and keeping a lion for use as a circus entertainer, on the other hand.



(1) Not all circus lions are abused. One can keep a lion and train it, and not abuse it. Not all circus lions are "captured" in the wild, either. Some may be lions abandoned by former owners, that were "saved" from euthanasia.

(2) Not all people who keep "companion-cats" love their ctas or treat them kindly. Many of them got their cats from cat breeders.



The comparison between bad and worse should not be made between circus and lion on the one hand, and private owner and domestic cat on the other hand, rather, it is should be made betwen kind treatment of captive animals, on one hand, and abusive treatment, on the other hand.
soilman is offline  
#33 Old 09-12-2003, 08:34 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Also, in the "loving" relationship between 2 adult humans, if one is mistreating the other, the mistreated one has some recourse. It is a relationship of equals. In the "loving" relationship between an animal and a human, if the animal is being mistreated, and no other humans are aware of this, or care to interfere -- then the animal has no recourse. It is a relationship of unequals.



But this is offtopic, and a debate should be put in another thread. So I am not going to continue to debate this here. I was just trying to define veganism, not start a debate. I already admitted that it is possible to own an animal and conform to the definition of vegan -- as long as you don't kill it or keep it for it's milk, hair, eggs, etcetera.



But I am going to "coin" a new phrase, and, I'm quite sure, be remembered by posterity for coining it: anti-hunting and anti animal-husbandry advocate.
soilman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 09-12-2003, 08:45 AM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

(2) Not all people who keep "companion-cats" love their ctas or treat them kindly. Many of them got their cats from cat breeders.



All people? You compared vegans with companion animals to Circus people with animals for entertainment, and now you seem to suddenly change it from "vegans" to "people" in general. Are you saying not all vegans treat their companion animals kindly? Is that what you are saying?
Kurmudgeon is offline  
#35 Old 09-12-2003, 10:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
catmorrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 524
Quote:
If you do something under the veganism label, it reflects on all vegans, atleast to people who are not familiar with vegans.





Well this is perhaps, contrary, to what I have heard many veg*ns say.

Actually many of them do not want orgs like Peta, Alf, Elf, to be representative of what the veg*n philosophy is, else it paints too wide a brush, IMHO, and even a negative one.

So to claim that something done under the veg*nism label reflects on all veg*ns, I think is inaccurate.
catmorrison is offline  
#36 Old 09-12-2003, 10:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Feliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by catmorrison View Post

Well this is perhaps, contrary, to what I have heard many veg*ns say. So to claim that something done under the veg*nism label reflects on all veg*ns, I think is inaccurate.



I think the point of that statement was to say "people stereotype". It's true of anything, sometimes it's done subconsciously. When somebody does something, especially under a label (religion, diet, political, etc) it leaves an impression with those unfamilar with X that "this is what X is all about". For example, if someone meets a person who says they're vegan, except they wear 2nd hand leather, then they get the impression that vegans wear leather. Perhaps they're even told that this isn't the rule, but the impression is already made. This doesn't mean, IMO that people should strive to "represent" a certain ideal. That's ridiculous. But perhaps blatant (like fish eating vegetarians) misuse should be avoided.
Feliner is offline  
#37 Old 09-12-2003, 10:43 AM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliner View Post

But perhaps blantant (like fish eating vegetarians) misuse should be avoided.



Fat chance that'll happen; "Fish eating vegetarianism" is gonna plague us for a long time yet. I have a wedding to go to in a week and was asked "are you still vegan?" Yes I am (it's not like some fad). "Do you eat Fish?" WTF? No I don't. All this from supposedly professionally trained nutritionists (towing some sort of industry line).
Kurmudgeon is offline  
#38 Old 09-12-2003, 01:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
majake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by catmorrison View Post

Well this is perhaps, contrary, to what I have heard many veg*ns say.

Actually many of them do not want orgs like Peta, Alf, Elf, to be representative of what the veg*n philosophy is, else it paints too wide a brush, IMHO, and even a negative one.

So to claim that something done under the veg*nism label reflects on all veg*ns, I think is inaccurate.





You don't need comma before and after contrary, but you should have them before and after perhaps.



This didn't make any sense. On one hand you write a sentence that supports my proposition then on another you say it isn't so. Please make up your mind.
majake is offline  
#39 Old 09-12-2003, 10:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Peebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by majake View Post

veganism isn't about superiority, it is about animals.



Well put.
Peebs is offline  
#40 Old 09-12-2003, 10:56 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
I disagree with the idea that veganism is "about animals."



My veganism is about me, and about other humans.



I do it not so much because I care about animals, but because I care about me and other people. I don't want to be a person who kills animals unnecessarily, especially when an entirely plant-based food is no harder for a population of people to subsist on, than a mixed diet containing some animal-based food. I think the idea of killing and eating animals, or raising them and using their milk, is esthetically repellant. It is really all about me, my view of myself, and my view of want kind of life I want to have. I don't want to live the life of an animal-slaughterer and eater. I want to live a more pleasant, and less bloody, less violent life, and do so among other people who also try to live a less bloody, less violent life. It is simply -- more pleasant for me that way, and more pleasant for the other people, too. Not because I like animals so much, but because violence is ugly. It is pleasanter, for me, to live without killing and eating animals, than to be immersed in killing and eating them. And I think it would be pleasanter for other too, if they stopped practicing such unnecessary violence.



Being that all vertebrates look astonishingly similar when you cut them up into little pieces, violence toward animals looks astonishingly similar to violence against humans, and to violence against me -- and this kind of violence is really atrocious. I care about my physical integrety and that of other humans, more than I care about that of animals. I care about people very much. But since violence toward animals looks so much like violence against people, I don't want to see violence against animals either, any more than I want to see violence against people. It strikes the same chord inside me.



My veganism is all about me, and my relationship to other humans. I want the choir of humanity to sing a more pleasant cord, and not linger on a chord that is grating, and unpleasant.
soilman is offline  
#41 Old 09-17-2003, 05:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
1vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,440
Veganism is not only about animals.



The slogan of the english vegans says for people, animals and envrionment.
1vegan is offline  
#42 Old 09-20-2003, 10:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Veganism is not only about animals.



The slogan of the english vegans says for people, animals and envrionment.



But:

1) People are animals (human animals)

2) At least for me, environment has no value per se, "in itself" - only to the extent that it's important for human and non-human animals' well-being. So, environmental harm is harm to the animal species living in the environment.

-----

3) For people, animals and environment = for animals



(I know this is nit-picking, but I just had to.)

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#43 Old 09-20-2003, 01:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
chiaraluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,704
This is not worth fighting about. We are all doing our part to help the animals. The details are unimportant.
chiaraluna is offline  
#44 Old 09-20-2003, 03:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Marie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,153
Yeah.. Let's fight about something else!
Marie is offline  
#45 Old 09-20-2003, 07:45 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
chiaraluna writes:

=================

This is not worth fighting about. We are all doing our part to help the animals. The details are unimportant.

============



Edited to fix the mistaken quote that Marie calls my attention to, in a subsequent message:



Marie writes:

===========

Yeah.. Let's fight about something else!

=============



My response is: Hehehe.



I had put it between my quote lines intead of putting the quote there, and I had left the quote out altogether.




We are not fighting; we are debating. There is a big difference.



As long as we are debating, perhaps you didn't read my last post above. I am not intentionally trying to help animals. I am just not going out of my way to harm them, for no good reason. That is all I aspire too, in regard to animals. Not harming them if there is a way to get food clothing or shelter just as easily, without harming them. If they wanted help, they would ask for it.
soilman is offline  
#46 Old 09-20-2003, 07:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Marie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,153
I didn't say "Hehehe"
Marie is offline  
#47 Old 09-20-2003, 07:55 PM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

If they wanted help, they would ask for it.



So would young humans who are being sexually abused.
Kurmudgeon is offline  
#48 Old 09-20-2003, 08:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
I didn't say "Hehehe"



..but I went "hehehe" reading that, thinking how odd it is to misquote someone as saying just "hehehe".



---

Quote:
I am just not going out of my way to harm them, for no good reason.



I would be interested in knowing what "good reasons" might be.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#49 Old 09-20-2003, 08:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Marie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

..but I went "hehehe" reading that, thinking how odd it is to misquote someone as saying just "hehehe".



It was odd.
Marie is offline  
#50 Old 09-20-2003, 09:12 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Sevenseas writes:



===============

I would be interested in knowing what "good reasons" might be [for harming animals]

==============



There are any number of reasons that harming an animal might be necessary, just like there are any number of reasons that harming a human might be necessary. I don't think I need to list any of the more obvious ones. But I'll list 1 anyway: The animal attacks you and would harm you if you didn't harm it first.
soilman is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off