VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: I hate cowardly meat eaters Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-12-2015 02:26 PM
Jek the Immortal It is okay.
09-12-2015 05:48 AM
DTASFAB Never had it, sorry. No idea.
09-11-2015 07:08 PM
Jek the Immortal I don't know if I will ever be able to venture to NY (I live in Texas), so do you know if vegetarian plus vegan shrimp tastes realistic? I was disappointed at how it tasted more like hard chicken than shrimp to me when I tried another brand of vegan shrimp.
09-11-2015 05:25 PM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jek the Immortal View Post
I think that I have actually been vegan since summer 2012, yet I only started to use PETA's animal ingredients list at least ONE year ago. Does anyone know how to veganize shrimp fried rice? I miss it a lot.
I don't know how it's done, but V-Life in NY on 7th Avenue one block south of Madison Square Garden has a great fried "shrimp" side dish made with candied walnuts served over a bed of lettuce and it's amazing. I don't know how they make the shrimp so realistic, but mixing it with rice shouldn't be hard. Also, they have the best vegan bbq quesadilla I've ever had. Probably my favorite vegan dish in any restaurant anywhere, including good ones I've had at Blossom, Peacefood, and Candle groups.
09-11-2015 02:00 PM
Jek the Immortal I think that I have actually been vegan since summer 2012, yet I only started to use PETA's animal ingredients list at least ONE year ago. Does anyone know how to veganize shrimp fried rice? I miss it a lot.
09-10-2015 05:20 PM
Jek the Immortal Thank you.
09-10-2015 04:11 PM
LedBoots I was thinking to post to @Jek about your very cool avatar, and then I read your post, and you explained it. 😊
09-10-2015 04:02 PM
Jek the Immortal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasminedesi16 View Post
You have no one in your life that you love that isn't vegan? Would you want your family members in jail or you spouse in jail for eating meat? There are good people in the world who eat meat. Putting people in jail isn't the answer to get people to become vegan.



And Welcome Jek! I know its hard but just ignore them. We all have deal with people making fun of us and saying mean comments to us once in a while.


Thank you for the words of encouragement, Jasmine. People have been telling me never to act on these impulses of mine which is advice I follow considering my ignorance of whether or not you are allowed to be vegan in prison and because I don't want to represent veganism in a violent light. What I originally meant to say was how enraging and idiotic *some* meat eaters can be.
In regards to whoever told me I can't undo anything, your idea of redemption is what I meant to say. I did indeed have peer pressure from my grandfather at the time that I went fishing (which was a time when I was not considering vegetarianism in general) if anybody wanted to know whether I did... I think I remember someone asking that. And considering how that fishing took lives, I still hate myself for it.
Since my Original post was in the new member introduction section, I will say why I call myself by a sci-fi character I made up, Jek. He is a character in a story I am trying to write who was in charge of the operation of abducting a human and then experimenting with him psychologically in order to determine whether humans should be one of their food sources if they ever drive other species into extinction. This occurs because the aliens that Jek dictates over are carnivorous. He is their autocratic ruler, being one of the aliens himself. As you may be able to tell, I am trying to implicitly influence people towards veganism if I ever get this book published... I am paranoid about someone stealing my story ideas including the specifics about Jek's personality (which is in the form of tragic villainy if I'm writing this right), but he is a well-intentioned terrorist (he uses purges to try to protect his empire later in the series). He is an immortal as you may have guessed. I refer to myself as Jek because whenever I get really violent thoughts, it helps me to imagine if I had his power ... And to me only (until now) it is an inside joke about how people portray AR vegans as extremists whenever they are actually relatively peaceful.
09-09-2015 07:57 AM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I think i see what you're saying: that it's not particularly effective to jail smokers or meat-eaters OR to suddenly outlaw the production of cigarettes or meat without sort of easing into it first? I could get behind that, and in fact I think that's how it's likely to happen. I think we're already heading in that direction. As plant-based alternatives to animal products become progressively cheaper and more readily available, and as the environmental impact of animal agriculture becomes more apparent to the general public, more and more people will voluntarily choose to give up animal products until the production of these products is no longer profitable, at which point the whole system will collapse. That is my fervent hope, at least. It certainly seems preferable to me than suddenly outlawing anything.
It's not about "easing into it." It's about eliminating demand through education, which will result in the supply drying up. It's not about compliance, which can be legislated. It's about a paradigm shift that moves collective society away from speciesism and allows the masses to make educated moral choices without legal obligation. Morality cannot be legislated.

Ban the circus, and you help a few elephants and lions, which is great, but the people who are left disappointed that their chosen form of entertainment has vanished are unlikely to understand that circuses enslave animals and that enslavement is only allowed because of speciesism. In turn, they are unlikely to even begin to contemplate what speciesism is, and banning the circus does nothing to eliminate the consumption of animal products for food or clothing.

Attack the cancerous tree at the root, not by cutting off branches as they grow.
09-08-2015 08:42 AM
Jasminedesi16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
we need to pass laws that put meat eaters in jail.
You have no one in your life that you love that isn't vegan? Would you want your family members in jail or you spouse in jail for eating meat? There are good people in the world who eat meat. Putting people in jail isn't the answer to get people to become vegan.



And Welcome Jek! I know its hard but just ignore them. We all have deal with people making fun of us and saying mean comments to us once in a while.
09-08-2015 12:30 AM
rasitha.wijesekera
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwibird08 View Post
There is not "tolerance and complacency" towards murder here, there is an understanding of the wider problem affecting the majority of the populations perception of animal exploitation.



Most meat eaters aren't bad people and they don't deserve jail. You should learn more about cults, and then apply the difficulty of "deprogramming" cult members to a global scale. Meat eaters are *so* conditioned and brainwashed into believing meat is essential to human health, killing animals for food is a "necessary evil" and that humans are "better" than animals that they cannot see the error of their ways.



Most vegans have realized aggressive "scare tactics" do not work on the majority of the population, and are now looking for a different approach that is more effective.

There's more levels you have to think about. Even if it's a cult and they are brainwashed, people who see the correct way would still punish the cultists if they consider their acts heinous enough.

It's true that scare tactics don't work, coz there is no practical way to scare people into not eating meat. there's too little people on the side of animals.
09-07-2015 06:37 PM
Kiwibird08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
agree to disagree but if this is a vegan forum ...

cannot believe the complacency and tolerance for murder here
There is not "tolerance and complacency" towards murder here, there is an understanding of the wider problem affecting the majority of the populations perception of animal exploitation.

Most meat eaters aren't bad people and they don't deserve jail. You should learn more about cults, and then apply the difficulty of "deprogramming" cult members to a global scale. Meat eaters are *so* conditioned and brainwashed into believing meat is essential to human health, killing animals for food is a "necessary evil" and that humans are "better" than animals that they cannot see the error of their ways.

Most vegans have realized aggressive "scare tactics" do not work on the majority of the population, and are now looking for a different approach that is more effective.
09-07-2015 06:05 PM
rasitha.wijesekera
I hate cowardly meat eaters

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
If you were to outlaw the production of meat, then it follows that any farm would be illegal. Human trafficking is also illegal. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The point of the cigarette analogy isn't that smoking cigarettes and eating meat are morally identical. The point is that if you wanted to do away with smoking, you would make the production of cigarettes illegal. You wouldn't throw smokers in jail.

Do you *really* believe that people who are currently eating meat have committed a jailable offense? You think that most people's grandmothers should be locked up? That the majority of the population of the world is guilty and deserving of imprisonment? Really?

No I don't, It wouldn't be practical. There'd be riots and stuff. Additionally, you can't punish people for commuting offenses that were done before the law was passed.

If it would work whatever way I want to, I'd first pass laws. Ban meat production entirely. production would be the highest punishable offense. Eating meat would be a less punishable offense but still punishable.

It's like punishing people for purchasing child porn. The consumers don't directly abuse children. But it's only because of them the industry exists and children are abused.
09-07-2015 02:11 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post
I agree with everything you've said here, but your comments are still relevant. You posted:


This is clearly inconsistent with educating people and completely consistent with brute force. You want people to stop smoking? Don't tell them why, just ban cigarettes. You want people to stop going to the circus? Don't tell them why, just ban the circus. You want people to stop exploiting unwilling, underage prostitutes? Anyone who doesn't understand why that's wrong probably can't be reasoned with anyway.
I think i see what you're saying: that it's not particularly effective to jail smokers or meat-eaters OR to suddenly outlaw the production of cigarettes or meat without sort of easing into it first? I could get behind that, and in fact I think that's how it's likely to happen. I think we're already heading in that direction. As plant-based alternatives to animal products become progressively cheaper and more readily available, and as the environmental impact of animal agriculture becomes more apparent to the general public, more and more people will voluntarily choose to give up animal products until the production of these products is no longer profitable, at which point the whole system will collapse. That is my fervent hope, at least. It certainly seems preferable to me than suddenly outlawing anything.
09-07-2015 01:45 PM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
This was the comment that I have been responding to in my posts. Being familiar with Necter's posts, I interpreted it literally. I am pretty sure that it was meant literally, as in: "we need to pass laws [effective immediately] that put [current] meat eaters in jail," which is a concept that I personally find ridiculous. I hope that it was, as you say, just venting. If so, then my own comments on the matter aren't really relevant anymore. I agree with you that we as individuals bear responsibility for our own consumption of animal products. That's why I'm vegan, after all. I do not, however, believe that everyone who hasn't already given up animal products is in any way deserving of punishment of any kind, certainly not imprisonment. I feel that it's a matter of education and persuasion rather than brute force and totalitarianism.
I agree with everything you've said here, but your comments are still relevant. You posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
It's like advocating for the jailing of cigarette smokers rather than outlawing the production and sale of cigarettes: pointless and misguided.
This is clearly inconsistent with educating people and completely consistent with brute force. You want people to stop smoking? Don't tell them why, just ban cigarettes. You want people to stop going to the circus? Don't tell them why, just ban the circus. You want people to stop exploiting unwilling, underage prostitutes? Anyone who doesn't understand why that's wrong probably can't be reasoned with anyway.
09-07-2015 01:31 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
we need to pass laws that put meat eaters in jail.
This was the comment that I have been responding to in my posts. Being familiar with Necter's posts, I interpreted it literally. I am pretty sure that it was meant literally, as in: "we need to pass laws [effective immediately] that put [current] meat eaters in jail," which is a concept that I personally find ridiculous. I hope that it was, as you say, just venting. If so, then my own comments on the matter aren't really relevant anymore. I agree with you that we as individuals bear responsibility for our own consumption of animal products. That's why I'm vegan, after all. I do not, however, believe that everyone who hasn't already given up animal products is in any way deserving of punishment of any kind, certainly not imprisonment. I feel that it's a matter of education and persuasion rather than brute force and totalitarianism.
09-07-2015 01:20 PM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
We're not talking about some abstract concept of blame, or the effect that an individual can have on the market (which I agree is substantial.) We're talking about punishment-- literally putting people in jail for purchasing a product which is entirely legal and socially acceptable. Are you really advocating for locking up kindergarten teachers and grandparents?
We're talking about a lot more than literally putting people in jail. I don't believe in imprisonment as punishment as a general concept, and I never said that anyone should be put in jail.

The comment made by one or two other people was not to be interpreted literally in my opinion, even if it was intended to be interpreted that way by the writer(s). I see those comments as nothing more than venting and an expression of frustration. If a northerner screamed from the top of a mountain in 1850 to jail all slave owners, would that be substantially different from a moral standpoint than someone posting on the internet today that human traffickers should be imprisoned? The social acceptance and legality of a behavior or practice has no bearing on its morality. Slave ownership was wrong then and it's wrong now. Just because imprisoning slave owners at the time wouldn't have been supported by the courts or by public opinion doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done, nor does it mean it shouldn't have been said at the time, whether or not the speaker understood the impracticality of actually doing it.

If you don't understand the concepts on an abstract level, it's impossible to first implement them into your own current life in practical, concrete ways. Additionally, it's impossible to envision the possible paths that our society might take in reaching our desired destination of a more compassionate, egalitarian, vegan world that somehow resembles the utopia written about by John Lennon (another flawed hypocrite, by the way - but the art stands for itself) in Imagine.
09-07-2015 12:29 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post
This post started off great and then went completely off the rails. Whole Foods was started as a tiny store that sold only vegan products. When asked why they got in bed with HSUS and "happy" meat producers, CEO John Mackey explained, "This is what people want."

All that matters in a free market is supply and demand. It's true that the suppliers try to manipulate the end users into buying more more more, but if the consumers were both smart enough to resist the manipulation of advertising and compassionate enough to recognize that harming animals is wrong, they'd all stop buying. Whether you kill an animal personally and then eat the corpse or kill the animal by remote control (by paying someone else to do the killing for you, behind closed doors, so you don't have to get your hands dirty or even witness the barbarity of it) doesn't matter. It's your consumption of the animal that causes that animal to be bred for the sole purpose of being killed. Truck drivers, butchers, and store owners in the middle of the supply chain are acting immorally, but they're only middle men.

The two quotes that forced me into veganism when I really didn't want any part of it (I was happily ovo-lacto-veg and great at rationalizing that decision) were from Gandhi and Thoreau. First, the Gandhi quote said, "What you do may be insignificant, but it's very important that you do it." The quote from Thoreau, when combined with the Gandhi quote, made it all click for me: "Only individuals act. Therefore, only individuals act unjustly."

As the end user and final consumer of eggs and milk, I was the individual acting unjustly and causing harm to cows and chickens. As you stated, if everyone stopped consuming animal products, demand would dry up, and production would decrease until it finally reached zero. Trying to blame producers, transporters, suppliers, etc., is merely a red herring. That's not to say they're blameless. But they're merely accomplices. The actual criminals are the end consumers, who as rasitha.wijesekera accurately pointed out, usually tend to defend their actions even when confronted with the most damning evidence.

I'm guilty of it. First I rationalized eating meat by excusing it through moral relativism, although I didn't know the name of it at the time. After I stopped eating meat, I rationalized eating eggs and milk by believing that it was possible, at least in theory, to produce eggs and milk for human consumption harmlessly. And in turn, just because no human was smart enough to figure out how to harmlessly put these theories into practice on a massive scale, I had decided that wasn't my fault, and I was going to blame the producers for the harm suffered, rather than blaming myself. Gandhi and Thoreau combined to beat some sense into me and I haven't looked back since. I could no longer blame the advertisers, farmers, society, culture, etc.

Paul McCartney (a non-vegan) wrote this: "You tell me it's the institution, Well, you know, You'd better free your mind instead."

The problem wasn't the institution. It was me. The institution was only problematic to the extent that it attempted to manipulate and control me, but I was able to overcome it, and so can anybody else who wants it badly enough. Eight years ago today I turned vegan, and I still feel shame and bewilderment at my previous selfishness and thick-headedness. I'm not proud of the past eight years. I'm ashamed of the previous 28.

I understand why it's important to not take too hard a line when trying to educate people because it can be a turn-off, depending on where they're coming from. But if we let go of all our anger, we become complacent and too accepting of things the way they are.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
We're not talking about some abstract concept of blame, or the effect that an individual can have on the market (which I agree is substantial.) We're talking about punishment-- literally putting people in jail for purchasing a product which is entirely legal and socially acceptable. Are you really advocating for locking up kindergarten teachers and grandparents?
09-07-2015 12:17 PM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
If you were to outlaw the production of meat, then it follows that any farm would be illegal. Human trafficking is also illegal. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The point of the cigarette analogy isn't that smoking cigarettes and eating meat are morally identical. The point is that if you wanted to do away with smoking, you would make the production of cigarettes illegal. You wouldn't throw smokers in jail.

Do you *really* believe that people who are currently eating meat have committed a jailable offense? You think that most people's grandmothers should be locked up? That the majority of the population of the world is guilty and deserving of imprisonment? Really?
We need a complete paradigm shift that changes the culture to prevent people from wanting cigarettes, meat, eggs, underage prostitutes, and circuses. This requires people to think and decide, on their own free will, to stop consuming these "products."

You can achieve 100% compliance by banning the circus in your town, but that will leave most attendees confused and bitter. It's the perfect example of why single-issue campaigns ultimately fail and end up doing more harm than good. The better way to handle it is to educate people about why the circus is bad, and get them to knowingly stop paying for tickets. Lack of demand will make the circus fold, and the circus will be eliminated everywhere, not just in the towns that have banned them. This is part of the NIMBY syndrome - not in my backyard. It's ok over there, just don't bring it here. Banning the circus does nothing to effectively cause the paradigm shift we're looking to achieve.

If meat, eggs, milk, fish, etc., all became socially unacceptable, there would still be an underground demand, and this demand would result in a black market supply. I think that's the point rasitha.wijesekera was making about human trafficking.
09-07-2015 12:07 PM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
No. If most people abhor meat, then farms won't exist and meat will no longer be available for purchase. There isn't any need to pass laws which imprison people for eating meat. I don't understand why you're focusing on consumers (who are, in fact, innocent people who happen to have been born into a society which normalises the commodification of animals) rather than on the industry which is actually producing and profiting off these animals. It's like advocating for the jailing of cigarette smokers rather than outlawing the production and sale of cigarettes: pointless and misguided.
This post started off great and then went completely off the rails. Whole Foods was started as a tiny store that sold only vegan products. When asked why they got in bed with HSUS and "happy" meat producers, CEO John Mackey explained, "This is what people want."

All that matters in a free market is supply and demand. It's true that the suppliers try to manipulate the end users into buying more more more, but if the consumers were both smart enough to resist the manipulation of advertising and compassionate enough to recognize that harming animals is wrong, they'd all stop buying. Whether you kill an animal personally and then eat the corpse or kill the animal by remote control (by paying someone else to do the killing for you, behind closed doors, so you don't have to get your hands dirty or even witness the barbarity of it) doesn't matter. It's your consumption of the animal that causes that animal to be bred for the sole purpose of being killed. Truck drivers, butchers, and store owners in the middle of the supply chain are acting immorally, but they're only middle men.

The two quotes that forced me into veganism when I really didn't want any part of it (I was happily ovo-lacto-veg and great at rationalizing that decision) were from Gandhi and Thoreau. First, the Gandhi quote said, "What you do may be insignificant, but it's very important that you do it." The quote from Thoreau, when combined with the Gandhi quote, made it all click for me: "Only individuals act. Therefore, only individuals act unjustly."

As the end user and final consumer of eggs and milk, I was the individual acting unjustly and causing harm to cows and chickens. As you stated, if everyone stopped consuming animal products, demand would dry up, and production would decrease until it finally reached zero. Trying to blame producers, transporters, suppliers, etc., is merely a red herring. That's not to say they're blameless. But they're merely accomplices. The actual criminals are the end consumers, who as rasitha.wijesekera accurately pointed out, usually tend to defend their actions even when confronted with the most damning evidence.

I'm guilty of it. First I rationalized eating meat by excusing it through moral relativism, although I didn't know the name of it at the time. After I stopped eating meat, I rationalized eating eggs and milk by believing that it was possible, at least in theory, to produce eggs and milk for human consumption harmlessly. And in turn, just because no human was smart enough to figure out how to harmlessly put these theories into practice on a massive scale, I had decided that wasn't my fault, and I was going to blame the producers for the harm suffered, rather than blaming myself. Gandhi and Thoreau combined to beat some sense into me and I haven't looked back since. I could no longer blame the advertisers, farmers, society, culture, etc.

Paul McCartney (a non-vegan) wrote this: "You tell me it's the institution, Well, you know, You'd better free your mind instead."

The problem wasn't the institution. It was me. The institution was only problematic to the extent that it attempted to manipulate and control me, but I was able to overcome it, and so can anybody else who wants it badly enough. Eight years ago today I turned vegan, and I still feel shame and bewilderment at my previous selfishness and thick-headedness. I'm not proud of the past eight years. I'm ashamed of the previous 28.

I understand why it's important to not take too hard a line when trying to educate people because it can be a turn-off, depending on where they're coming from. But if we let go of all our anger, we become complacent and too accepting of things the way they are.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
09-07-2015 11:48 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasitha.wijesekera View Post
Not really, people could still keep their own animals, run their own farms. Most people don't like human trafficking but it still happens coz a few wants it.

Anyways, Meat eaters aren't innocent because they were bred into this society which accepts animal abuse.
Show a random person a cruelty expose, show them facts about farming and environmental impact, what do you think most people would do? They ll make excuses as to why they are still right and we are wrong.

There's also a difference between drugs and meat. Drugs atleast mainly harms the user, whereas meat mainly harms the animals.
If you were to outlaw the production of meat, then it follows that any farm would be illegal. Human trafficking is also illegal. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The point of the cigarette analogy isn't that smoking cigarettes and eating meat are morally identical. The point is that if you wanted to do away with smoking, you would make the production of cigarettes illegal. You wouldn't throw smokers in jail.

Do you *really* believe that people who are currently eating meat have committed a jailable offense? You think that most people's grandmothers should be locked up? That the majority of the population of the world is guilty and deserving of imprisonment? Really?
09-07-2015 11:25 AM
rasitha.wijesekera
I hate cowardly meat eaters

Not really, people could still keep their own animals, run their own farms. Most people don't like human trafficking but it still happens coz a few wants it.

Anyways, Meat eaters aren't innocent because they were bred into this society which accepts animal abuse.
Show a random person a cruelty expose, show them facts about farming and environmental impact, what do you think most people would do? They ll make excuses as to why they are still right and we are wrong.

There's also a difference between drugs and meat. Drugs atleast mainly harms the user, whereas meat mainly harms the animals.
09-07-2015 11:00 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasitha.wijesekera View Post
If most people (maybe 95%) abhor meat, then laws will be passed to put people in jail for eating meat.
No. If most people abhor meat, then farms won't exist and meat will no longer be available for purchase. There isn't any need to pass laws which imprison people for eating meat. I don't understand why you're focusing on consumers (who are, in fact, innocent people who happen to have been born into a society which normalises the commodification of animals) rather than on the industry which is actually producing and profiting off these animals. It's like advocating for the jailing of cigarette smokers rather than outlawing the production and sale of cigarettes: pointless and misguided.

Quote:
I don't know why vegans(in this thread) overwhelmingly oppose a law against meat consumption, coz I remember another thread where everyone was saying damn I wish a law was in place to ban meat. (I believe it was a thread about overpopulation)
You're misremembering that thread. Someone had suggested passing a law which would punish people for having more than one child as a weird, roundabout way of decreasing meat consumption rather than using that same power to simply outlaw meat consumption entirely. Either one is a gross misuse of power. That’s hardly the same as saying "damn, I wish a law was in place to ban meat" (which is, itself, an entirely different thing from "putting meat eaters in jail.")
09-07-2015 09:14 AM
rasitha.wijesekera
I hate cowardly meat eaters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
we need to pass laws that put meat eaters in jail.

Society doesn't work that way, Modern society still largely accepts animal abuse(specially farmed animals). If most people (maybe 95%) abhor meat, then laws will be passed to put people in jail for eating meat.

I don't know why vegans(in this thread) overwhelmingly oppose a law against meat consumption, coz I remember another thread where everyone was saying damn I wish a law was in place to ban meat. (I believe it was a thread about overpopulation

And please, if you eat meat without any care about the plight of the animals you aren't innocent, specially in the modern society where information is available.
09-07-2015 07:58 AM
DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
See, I don't actually believe that the extremists put people off veganism (because nobody makes important life decisions based solely on the attitudes of random activists they encounter primarily on the Internet), but at the same time I don't think they do any good. It's more of an annoyance, I think, to those of us who are already vegan. I find myself rolling my eyes so hard it's almost painful whenever I hear someone wish death or misery upon meat eaters. It's dishonest at best, sociopathic at worst, and just plain misguided all around.
It all depends on how it's framed. (see below)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jek the Immortal View Post
I didn't know where the animal products I was eating came from and was raised in that typical sort of family... Except, there may be something I was guilty of, about when I fished, aware of their sentience. Unless it is true that I could still be evil, that event makes me suffer from an inferiority complex, for it makes me want to make examples out of those illogical people not because I ignore that I once was a speciesist... But to try to scare people so much that it would undo my evil actions.
I knew where the flesh and bodily secretions I was consuming came from and I continued to eat them. I didn't stop eating meat until I was 24 and I didn't become fully vegan until I was 28. That was eight years ago today by coincidence. You are never going to undo your actions (more on whether they're evil written below). You did it. Start the cycle of self-loathing, redemption, and self-acceptance. You may never complete this cycle. I'm 36 now and I'm somewhere around the T in redemption.

There are so many factors at play that will cause someone who is relatively young to not make the courageous moral choice. Just to name three, there is immense social pressure to conform from other kids, the selfishness of actually enjoying the animal products combined with immaturity that limits one's ability to be empathetic and selfless, and the manipulation and brainwashing suffered when the "happy" meat industry promotes the idea that "use" but not "abuse" of animals is somehow better than full fledged exploitation and destruction, while hiding their operations behind closed doors, benefiting from ag-gag laws just as much if not more than factory farms benefit from them, and ultimately, destroying the animals much the same as if they'd been on factory farms. It's so easy to be manipulated by mainstream, status quo protecting propaganda campaigns. For every vegan, rights-based, abolitionist message a teenager hears today, she's probably hearing at least 100 messages promoting some sort of exploitation.

Additionally, a fourth reason is that humans tend to naturally accept whatever culture they're part of without challenging it, and this cannot be overlooked. We are complex creatures, and we are way too smart and clever for our own good. In other words, we're so smart that we're stupid, and the stupid is what manifests itself in our behavior. Over the course of centuries, we repeat the same mistakes, because we are much better at learning from our own mistakes (i.e., personal mistakes, as individuals, within a single lifetime) than we are at learning from the mistakes of others. This is a huge reason why I am so misanthropic.

It becomes even more difficult to learn from the mistakes of previous generations when history is wiped clean or rewritten by whoever controls the narrative, and typically, those controlling the narrative are capitalists who are amoral and willing to do whatever it takes to become profitable. Yet more reason to be misanthropic.

There's a relatively new group that I haven't looked at yet closely called carnism. I don't know if I agree with any of their ideas or not. I suppose I have to look into it more and only time will tell. From what I've gathered so far, they're trying to attack the entire culture of animal consumption to promote a vegan world, rather than trying to educate people one at a time. I can easily see how this might go sideways and turn into yet another welfarist propaganda machine that focuses on single issue campaigns and exploits one disadvantaged group for the benefit of another, but I'm not familiar enough with their planned strategy, so I have to reserve judgment. The one premise of theirs that I know is true is that the culture is definitely one that revolves around the exploitation and destruction of animals who belong to any species other than homo sapiens. Perhaps this is why so many meat eaters take offense to vegans, even when the vegans are completely silent and non-confrontational about everyone's food choices. Perhaps veganism is seen by meat eaters as an affront to the entire culture we live in, as well as that culture's entire history.

Therefore, if this premise is valid, it's not hard to jump to the next conclusion, which is that to merely stop participating in the consumption of animal products requires one to overcome so much resistance not only from external forces, including from one's immediate family, but from internal ones as well (cue the misanthropy). When I was in 4th grade, I was flabbergasted when the teacher explained that human beings are part of the animal kingdom with a genus and species just like all other mammals. I don't buy the idea that we're not born racist and that it's a learned behavior. I don't buy that we're not born speciesist. I also don't buy that we have to learn empathy and that we're not born with it. I think we're born with all these things, and the battles first occur within each individual before they occur out in the world. This is a huge source of internal conflict for anyone perceptive enough and introspective enough to recognize their own tendencies. Some of these tendencies are good and others are bad, but they're all part of human nature. The mere fact that I have judged some of these tendencies might be bad, in and of itself, because that judgment is in direct opposition to the teachings of buddha. Again, a lot of this is not about winning the battles in the outside world, but about winning the battle of self-acceptance. And is it really a battle at all? Maybe the yin and the yang are not necessarily about conflict and battles, but merely about opposing forces lacking subjectivity.

I've heard it said that becoming vegan now is a lot easier than it was 30-60 years ago, and that's probably true. But the reasons it's true have more to do with simply the increased availability of meat and egg substitutes in stores. It's also because the postmodern culture we live in has become ever-so-slightly more accepting of individual choices. However, this postmodern culture is a double-edged sword, because it promotes moral relativism rather than absolutes, which in my opinion hurts the animal cause.

As I said, we are complex creatures and we've created an intricate society and highly sophisticated (in a bad way) culture that is very hypocritical and inconsistent (more misanthropy here). All this leads me back to references to "evil" actions. When I was 17, Pulp Fiction came out, and I quickly memorized the entire passage from Ezekiel 25:17, which refers to "the tyranny of evil men" and lots of violent vengeance. Because of this, it took a long time for me to realize that evil doesn't actually exist. There are only two things: selfishness and empathy. Evil is just a word we use to describe our own desire for vengeance against those who, as a result of their selfishness and lack of empathy, cause pain and suffering and violate the inalienable rights of their victims. But it's important to remember that the desire for vengeance is itself selfish. This is what Jules meant when he said he was trying to be the shepherd. That's not to say, necessarily, that perpetrators don't deserve punishment. I'm merely pointing out that killing convicted murders with the electric chair or lethal injection is all about vengeance and not the slightest bit about so-called "justice." Capital punishment (not to mention government on the whole and every law that has ever been passed) is a complete farce, and yet another reason to cue the misanthropy. But I digress. The point here is that our entire culture is corrupt, it has no legitimate moral authority to enforce any laws whatsoever, and I don't see it getting any better. Not soon, not ever. The reason for this goes back to earlier in this post. We're so smart, we're stupid. We have problems caused by technology and we try to solve them with more technology. We have problems caused by previous failed attempts to correct bad policies and we fix them by inventing and instituting brand new, cutting edge bad policies.

And therefore, I find it completely valid to hold the entire human species, as well as all human cultures, which are perhaps more flawed than the humans themselves, in contempt. Since I believe we are unfixable, the only viable solution is our peaceful removal from existence through refusal to breed.

If I'm wrong, and the world shifts towards veganism faster than I anticipate, the reasons for the shift have to be considered. And perhaps I wouldn't be so wrong after all. Obviously the VHEMT ideal of zero human procreation starting immediately isn't going to happen. People are not going to stop having sex, and even if they all intended to not make babies, there would be accidents. So then we can start talking about sustainability and survival of the entire human species. If things don't change soon, we're headed on a path toward self-inflicted mass destruction of ourselves and the entire eco system, and it's going to be extremely unpleasant. The entire premise of the VHEMT philosophy is to slowly die out without any major catastrophic event, and the last person standing can shut off the lights, quite literally. If the culture changes and adapts quickly in its shift toward veganism, will the real reason be a result of a collective spiritual enlightenment that causes people to become empathetic towards animals? Or rather, would it be out of necessity and the selfish desire for elitist human survival? I can't see how it would be the former. The only question would be whether to negatively judge the resulting culture for the latter, or to simply embrace it and take our victories any which way we can get them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJustBob View Post
You have a lot to learn, Jek.

Your post was full of hate and images of violence. It reflects very poorly on vegans as a whole.

You will never change anyone's mind by bludgeoning them over the head. In general, the harder you push, the harder they will resist.

I suggest simply living your life in as virtuous a manner as possible. When you encounter people who, at that time in their own lives are open to change, you will have an impact upon them and inspire them to change.

Maybe they will change because they see the great health benefits being a vegan has brought you. Maybe it will be because they see what a kind and compassionate person you are. I absolutely guarantee it won't happen if you are annoying, preachy, or self-righteous.

Knowing that there are 16-year-olds as passionate about animal welfare as you are makes me feel good about the future.
This post (mostly just the first three sentences) turned me off more than seeing Pizza Hut and KFC commercials during football games in which cowhide is used to manufacture the balls and shoes worn by the players. Haven't you realized that you're not going to convince a 16 year old of anything by using condescension and contempt? (see what I did there?)

I understand your desire to distance all vegans from images of violence, but absent the violence, is it really wrong to find perpetrators of violence contemptible?

If you're going to make criticisms of teenagers who ultimately share your ideology, but who are rough around the edges due to inexperience and haven't yet developed tact, you have to bury and hide those criticisms by surrounding them with lots of praise, which in this case was ample in quantity, so it shouldn't have been difficult. Leading with criticism is never going to achieve your intended effect.
09-07-2015 07:05 AM
silva
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
See, I don't actually believe that the extremists put people off veganism (because nobody makes important life decisions based solely on the attitudes of random activists they encounter primarily on the Internet), but at the same time I don't think they do any good. It's more of an annoyance, I think, to those of us who are already vegan. I find myself rolling my eyes so hard it's almost painful whenever I hear someone wish death or misery upon meat eaters. It's dishonest at best, sociopathic at worst, and just plain misguided all around.
I agree about the people who are already taking it seriously, I meant more those who are considering trials, or just changing their opinion on the issue of animal rights in general. As in being on the fence. Those may have read an article, seen a documentary, are newly wanting to know more. Someone who is so demeaning, harsh, and extreme in how they present it can push them back over with a new found distain and disbelief.

The people I've met from a local AR group fits that description. Most unpleasant people I've met in a long time, and I've regretted not being more upfront about it.

I have know two people who were 'on the fence' about AR and veganism that were put off for years from press. I feel I helped them finally make the transition by not having it seem so crazy
Just because we all feel it's 100% obvious that animal suffer without need, most everyone else see it as an opinion without enough proof

Oh yeah, one of those people started the Dr Esselstyn heart disease diet without ANY regard for ethics--only as his last chance for life. He changed his life by following a plant based diet, and his attitude changed along with the results. He is now vegan
09-07-2015 06:32 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post
You mean that hypothetical "we". The hypothetical "if 90% of the world were vegan instead of 1%"

That line of thinking threatens the existing 1%
How about we strive to make being vegan seem obtainable and beneficial instead?

You seem to think that if someone says they thought about trying veg'n but all the extremists drove them away are lying.
I may not have totally converted anyone (ASAIK), but I have gotten many who have felt that way to eat veg'n a whole lot more, after they had completely turned to think it was a stupid idea
See, I don't actually believe that the extremists put people off veganism (because nobody makes important life decisions based solely on the attitudes of random activists they encounter primarily on the Internet), but at the same time I don't think they do any good. It's more of an annoyance, I think, to those of us who are already vegan. I find myself rolling my eyes so hard it's almost painful whenever I hear someone wish death or misery upon meat eaters. It's dishonest at best, sociopathic at worst, and just plain misguided all around.
09-07-2015 06:18 AM
silva
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
we need to pass laws that put meat eaters in jail.
You mean that hypothetical "we". The hypothetical "if 90% of the world were vegan instead of 1%"

That line of thinking threatens the existing 1%
How about we strive to make being vegan seem obtainable and beneficial instead?

You seem to think that if someone says they thought about trying veg'n but all the extremists drove them away are lying.
I may not have totally converted anyone (ASAIK), but I have gotten many who have felt that way to eat veg'n a whole lot more, after they had completely turned to think it was a stupid idea
09-07-2015 05:44 AM
LedBoots Yes, I don't think jail is the answer, even if there were enough cells to go around. Besides, give the government power like that, and you never know what you end up with.

09-07-2015 04:40 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
agree to disagree but if this is a vegan forum ...

cannot believe the complacency and tolerance for murder here
Nobody here condones animal slaughter, but if you genuinely believe that sending innocent people to jail for eating meat is a viable and just solution, you will find yourself in the minority.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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