EPTYour argument that any given person can go vegan has already been demonstrated thoroughly false, though, and probably doesn't need a rehash. It'd be helpful to either provide more evidence that vegetarian diets can work for everyone or just let that one go. It's also on that same ground your diagram isn't really relevant.
Specie-cism and veganism - Page 11
| Blogs > Tony Campolo |
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
Your argument that any given person can go vegan has already been demonstrated thoroughly false, though, and probably doesn't need a rehash. It'd be helpful to either provide more evidence that vegetarian diets can work for everyone or just let that one go. It's also on that same ground your diagram isn't really relevant. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 09:24 jon arbuckle wrote: Well, the harm in not eating meat and becoming vegetarian, let alone ditching butter or milk and becoming vegan, is that getting my complete protein fix becomes substantially more difficult than eating a chicken breast. Some meat and vegetables fulfills a larger range of dietary intake with minimal exertion, whereas playing with soy and lentils takes more time and energy. N.B. You cannot say that there's little harm in not eating meat and becoming a vegan and then backing up when the argument turns to nutrition. Maintaining a healthy diet as a vegan is more difficult than as a conscious omnivore; whether an omnivore is more liable to eat fast food is irrelevant here, because the attention to diet required as a vegan is nearly impossible for someone reliant on fast food for nourishment. Likewise, you don't seem to be listening to me: I do not think that buying CDs in place of donating that money to starving children is remotely comparable to buying meat that is processed "cruelly" as opposed to not eating meat. How meat is processed by one company does not apply for the whole concept of meat eating, and the economic and political conditions that lead to starving children are wide-ranging and not easily fixed, while the condition that leads human beings to eat meat are even less so, not even economic but instinctive. You're evangelizing without a solid ethical premise and making analogies that don't work. When people talk about vegan elitism, I think that's what they're talking about. The fact that you seem to think protein is a significant concern to vegans simply shows that you don't know as much about health as you would like to think. The little known truth about protein is that most of us get too much, not too little of it. Women need about 45 grams per day and men need around 55 grams. One cup of tofu contains about 20 grams of protein, so women, eat some tofu and you’re almost halfway there! Lots of foods contain protein and if you’re eating a well-balanced diet, you’re probably consuming more than enough protein without even thinking about it. Even though it’s quite easy to get plenty of protein on a vegetarian or vegan diet, its a good idea to make sure you’re eating a variety of protein-rich foods. If you’re a lacto-ovo vegetarian, you’ll likely get sufficient protein from eggs and dairy without even trying, but if you’re vegan, here are some high protein vegan foods to include in your diet: tofu, seitan, veggie burgers, soy, lentils, chickpeas, nuts and seeds, brown rice and whole grains. Below is a list of the most common foods vegans use to obtain essential nutrients: •Protein: Wholegrains (e.g. wholewheat flour, bread and pasta, brown rice, oats, rye), nuts (e.g. hazels, cashews, brazils, almonds), seeds (sunflower, sesame, pumpkin), pulses (peas, beans, lentils), soya products (flour, soya milk, tofu, tempeh) •Carbohydrates: Wholegrains, pulses, potatoes, fresh fruit, dried fruit •Fats: Nuts and seeds (and their oils), vegan margarine, avocados •Vitamins: ◦A - Carrots, spinach, pumpkins, tomatoes, dark greens, vegan margarines ◦B - Nuts, wholegrains, oats, muesli, pulses (peas, beans, lentils), yeast extracts, green leafy vegetables, potatoes, mushrooms and dried fruit ◦B12 - Fortified yeast extracts (e.g. Marmite), soya milks (e.g. Plamil), TVP products, packeted veggie burger mixes, some cereals (e.g. Kellogg's Fruit & Fibre, Frosties or Common Sense Oat Bran Flakes). Seaweed and fermented products may contain some B12 but are not reliable sources. ◦C - Citrus fruits (e.g. oranges, lemons, grapefruit), red and blackcurrants, berries, green vegetables, potatoes ◦D - Action of sunlight on the skin, vegan margarines, some soya milks (e.g. Plamil) ◦E - Nuts, seeds, wholegrains, vegetable oils •Minerals: ◦Calcium - Nuts, seeds, pulses, molasses, parsley, figs, sea vegetables, grains, fortified soya milks, hard tap water ◦Iron - Nuts, seeds, pulses, grains, dried fruit, sea vegetables, parsley, green leafy vegetable | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 09:34 ShadowWolf wrote: I can't argue because it seems you're affirming what I said above. You've drawn arbitrary lines in the sand based on one of either protein production efficiency or their non-sentience. Since we have at least some evidence that plants likely have, at some level, an element of sentience (even if incomplete or less complex) and there's no existing scientific evidence to the contrary then your entire argument really is just that they're more efficient. I'm just having an issue seeing that it's more than just "I feel this way." Your argument that any given person can go vegan has already been demonstrated thoroughly false, though, and probably doesn't need a rehash. It'd be helpful to either provide more evidence that vegetarian diets can work for everyone or just let that one go. It's also on that same ground your diagram isn't really relevant. As in the first paragraph assumption that plants are sentient - if you really did care about how plants felt then in order to reduce plant 'suffering' then we ought to eat less meat, because the animal industry consumes far more plants than humans ever will be able to. Secondly, your argument that going vegan "has been demonstrated to be thoroughly false" is a thoroughly false statement. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
I said the effort required to fulfill dietary requirements as a vegan (and additionally to make that diet exciting, not monotonous) far outweighs that of an omnivore. An omnivore can eat meat to get their complete protein; a vegan has to play with soy or otherwise mix and match lentils with nuts throughout the day. It takes a lot of effort to make soy exciting; a steak or a chicken breast with a pan sauce takes maybe twenty minutes of actual preparation and cook time. (Not all proteins are the same, by the way, but this is not an argument about nutrition, it is about the life of a New Zealand cow.) | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
| ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
One sentence, without any pitiful descriptions of crying calves and their mournful moms: what is wrong about using animal-derived products for nourishment? - and we can move on from there. Additionally, "unnecessary slaughter" seems a little extreme, because veganism implies not animal-derived products whatsoever. It's larger than mere vegetarianism. At the end of the day, I eat almonds like the vegan folks, but I also really want to cook a souffle, and that's even harder to do without eggs and butter (and cheese, depending on what type of souffle). | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 10:19 jon arbuckle wrote: One sentence, without any pitiful descriptions of crying calves and their mournful moms: what is wrong about using animal-derived products for nourishment? - and we can move on from there. So basically you're saying - let's discuss ethics, but remove the premise for ethics. How do you expect a discussion about it if you're going to remove that? It's wrong because it causes suffering which can be prevented, and we ought to reduce suffering as much as we can. Just as if you saw a dog being cruelly killed, you'd probably want to stop it, likewise same with cows. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
(edit: I am trying to reduce your argument to its basic moral premises and strip away the rhetoric, which was the cause for this topic's wayward opening trajectory to begin with.) To suggest that the Earth could exist without any animal causing another animal pain is supremely idealistic. Humans are in such a position where we can at least not cause undue pain onto animals we breed, use, and slaughter, and I support that, but the idea that all suffering can be ameliorated is something I don't buy into. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 10:29 jon arbuckle wrote: But the cow can be raised and killed in such a way that the pain is minimized, unlike in the wild where a less discreet predator would rip it's neck out. To suggest that the Earth could exist without any animal causing another animal pain is supremely idealistic. Humans are in such a position where we can at least not cause undue pain onto animals we breed, use, and slaughter, and I support that, but the idea that all suffering can be ameliorated is something I don't buy into. Say there are a million cows in the wild. Then there are a billion cows in the slaughterhouses. The only reason the billion exist is because of the demand that is created by the meat industry - they are breed via artificial insemination, generally live their whole lives in stressful production lines (e.g. the dairy industry that causes their premature deaths). It would be better for (A) the million cows to die in the wild, than for (B) the million cows to die in the wild and the billion killed in slaughterhouses. You're right, it would be idealistic to prevent all cows from dying, but we can definitely affect a large proportion of them. And I've never argued in the absolute terms you are using, to alleviate all suffering. But we can easily alleviate a large proportion of it by not engaging in the industry that kills the most. Look up Earthlings Part 2 and 3 on YouTube if you think we are not causing undie pain on livestock animals. | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On February 14 2011 09:59 Tony Campolo wrote: As in the first paragraph assumption that plants are sentient - if you really did care about how plants felt then in order to reduce plant 'suffering' then we ought to eat less meat, because the animal industry consumes far more plants than humans ever will be able to. Secondly, your argument that going vegan "has been demonstrated to be thoroughly false" is a thoroughly false statement. I never claimed to really care what any suffering meant to anything, so that's non-sequitur. Secondly, the FDA disagrees with you and states that vegetarian diets should strongly consider taking supplements to alleviate missing vitamins: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm118079.htm. Ghandi disagrees with you as shown earlier. There's that anecdotal blog about that lady that tried to go vegan and was incredibly unhealthy as a result earlier. So I feel like my pov is pretty substantiated at this point. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a vegetarian diet is associated with lower levels of obesity and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.[15] According to the EPIC-Oxford study, vegetarian diets provide large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, which makes them rich in carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids, dietary fiber, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and magnesium.[4] The vegan diet is more restricted, and recommendations differ. Poorly planned vegan diets may be low in vitamin B12, calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, iron, zinc, riboflavin (vitamin B2), and iodine.[4] The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada said in 2003 that properly planned vegan diets were nutritionally adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and lactation, and provided health benefits in the treatment and prevention of certain diseases.[16] The Swiss Federal Nutrition Commission and the German Society for Nutrition do not recommend a vegan diet, and caution against it for children, the pregnant, and the elderly.[17] A vegan version of the nutritional food pyramid which normally includes meat and animal products. Click to enlarge.Physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Michael Greger, and nutritional biochemist T. Colin Campbell, argue that high animal fat and protein diets, such as the standard American diet, are detrimental to health, and that a low-fat vegan diet can both prevent and reverse degenerative diseases such as coronary artery disease and diabetes.[18] A 2006 study by Barnard found that in people with type 2 diabetes, a low-fat vegan diet reduced weight, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol, and did so to a greater extent than the diet prescribed by the American Diabetes Association.[19] The 12-year Oxford Vegetarian Study of 11,000 subjects recruited between 1980 and 1984 showed that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations that did meat-eaters. Death rates were lower in non-meat eaters than in meat eaters; mortality from ischemic heart disease was positively associated with eating animal fat and with dietary cholesterol levels. The study also showed that vegans in the UK may be at risk of iodine deficiency because of deficiencies in the soil.[20] According to the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, diets that avoid meat tend to have lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants, such as vitamins C and E, and phytochemicals. People who avoid meat are reported to have lower body mass index than those following the average Canadian or American diet. From this follows lower death rates from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.[4] A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease 26 percent lower among vegans compared to regular meat eaters, but 34 percent lower among lacto-ovo vegetarians (vegetarians who eat dairy products and eggs) and pescetarians (those who eat fish but no other meat). The lower rate of protection for vegans compared to pescetarians or lacto-ovo vegetarians is believed to be linked to higher levels of homocysteine, which is caused by insufficient vitamin B12, and it is believed that vegans who get sufficient B12 should show even lower risk of ischemic heart disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians. No significant difference in mortality was found from other causes.[21] [edit] Vitamin B12, iodine, cholineFurther information: Vitamin B12 deficiency and Iodine deficiency The Vegan Society and Vegan Outreach recommend that vegans eat foods fortified with B12 or take a supplement. B12 is a bacterial product that cannot be found reliably in plant foods, and is needed for the formation and maturation of red blood cells and the synthesis of DNA, and for normal nerve function; a deficiency can lead to a number of health problems, including megaloblastic anemia.[22] Iodine supplementation may be necessary for vegans in countries where salt is not typically iodized, where it is iodized at low levels, or where, as in Britain or Ireland, dairy products are relied upon for iodine delivery because of low levels in the soil. Iodine can be obtained from most vegan multivitamins or from regular consumption of seaweeds, such as kelp.[23] Vegans may also be at risk of choline deficiency and may benefit from choline supplements.[24] [edit] Iron, calcium, vitamin D A vegan burgerFurther information: Iron deficiency, Hypocalcaemia, and Hypovitaminosis D Iron deficiency may lead to anemia. Iron is less well absorbed from vegetarian diets (10 percent absorption from vegetarian diets, versus 18 percent from an omnivorous diet); vegetarians who exclude all animal products may need almost twice as much dietary iron each day than non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the iron status of omnivores and vegans appears to be similar, and body absorption processes may adjust to low intakes over time by enhancing absorption efficiency.[25] Molasses is a high-iron food source and many vegans take it in spoonfuls as an iron supplement.[26] It is recommended that vegans eat three servings per day of a high-calcium food, such as fortified soy milk, almonds, hazelnuts, and take a calcium supplement as necessary.[4] The EPIC-Oxford study suggested that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over meat eaters and vegetarians, likely because of lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than 525 mg/day had a risk of fractures similar to other groups.[27] A 2009 study of bone density found the bone density of vegans was 94 percent that of omnivores, but deemed the difference clinically insignificant.[28] Another study in 2009 by the same researchers examined over 100 vegan post-menopausal women, and found that their diet had no adverse effect on bone mineral density (BMD) and no alteration in body composition.[29] Biochemist T. Colin Campbell suggested in The China Study (2005) that osteoporosis is linked to the consumption of animal protein because, unlike plant protein, animal protein increases the acidity of blood and tissues, which is then neutralized by calcium pulled from the bones. Cornell wrote that his China-Oxford-Cornell study of nutrition in the 1970s and 1980s found that, in rural China, "where the animal to plant ratio [for protein] was about 10 percent, the fracture rate is only one-fifth that of the U.S."[30] Regarding vitamin D, Vegan Outreach writes that the only significant natural sources in foods are from fatty fish, such as cod liver oil, mackerel, salmon, and sardines; eggs, if the chickens have been fed vitamin D; and mushrooms if treated with UVB rays. Vegans are therefore advised to use supplements, though light-skinned people can obtain adequate amounts by spending 15 to 30 minutes in the sunlight every few days. Dark-skinned people need significantly more sunlight to obtain the same amount of vitamin D, and sunlight exposure may be difficult in some parts of the world during winter, in which case supplements are recommended.[31] [edit] Pregnancies and children Vegan version of a salad popular in Russia, with wakame, root vegetables, avocados, and vegan mayonnaise.The American Dietetic Association considers well-planned vegan diets "appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and lactation,"[4] but recommends that vegan mothers supplement for iron, vitamin D, and vitamin B12.[32] Vitamin B12 deficiency in lactating vegetarian mothers has been linked to deficiencies and neurological disorders in their children. [33] Some research suggests that the essential omega-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid and its derivatives should also be supplemented in pregnant and lactating vegan mothers, since they are very low in most vegan diets, and the metabolically related docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is essential to the developing visual system.[34] Pregnant vegans may need to supplement choline (see above). A maternal vegan diet has also been associated with low birth weight,[35] and a five times lower likelihood of having twins than those who eat animal products, though the article cited concludes that it is the consumption of dairy products by non-vegans that increases the likelihood of conceiving twins, especially in areas where growth hormone is fed to dairy cattle.[36] Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition, and some infant fatalities, have been associated with poorly planned, restrictive vegan diets, often insufficient in calories.[37] Dr. Amy Lanou, an expert witness for the prosecution in a case that went to court, wrote that vegan diets are "not only safe for babies; they're healthier than ones based on animal products". She wrote that "the real problem was that [the child] was not given enough food of any sort."[38] What's wrong with supplements? I don't take any, some people do. At the end of the day... Taking a supplement is hardly a significant factor to be worrying about - taking medically and scientifically approved pills as opposed to slaughtering an animal. Ghandi is famous for peace but there are many monks who can share opposing viewpoints regarding non-animal product diets. I can also link various blogs of people posting about how changing to a vegan diet has improved their health too in response to that girl's blog. | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
Not to mention you're still fighting against the mound of evidence showing that a diet containing a variety of meats and vegetables is superior to all other diets. | ||
|
Aruno
New Zealand748 Posts
This is a link to a raw vegan man who is currently 61 years old, yet could pass for early 40's. If you want to convince anyone of the benefits of veganism*in this case raw*. Then this man (and also his family) are a great subject to learn from. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 11:01 ShadowWolf wrote: The problem with taking a supplement is that not everyone can afford supplements and supplements are pretty much required for nearly anyone to actually do the diet. A good case in point is that many westerns in particular react fairly negatively to eating large amounts of Soy all the sudden. That pretty much means not everyone can be a vegan the same way that not everyone can eat an exclusively meat diet. I mean, people pull off staying on the Atkins diet for long, long periods of time. Similarly, you have to take a lot of supplements. Not to mention you're still fighting against the mound of evidence showing that a diet containing a variety of meats and vegetables is superior to all other diets. I'm not sure where you get the 'nearly everyone' statistics from. The reason why vegan diets may be unhealthy for meat-eaters is simply because most of them don't know what to replace their meat with to get the same nutrients. I was a vegetarian from 17 to 23 and have been vegan from 23 to 26. I have no adverse health issues nor have I needed to take supplements. Supplements are definitely a lot cheaper than buying meat. Supplements are not pretty much required. It's just about eating the right foods. Most people can easily switch to vegan diets - unfortunately most just would rather not have to face this option and would rather continue supporting the meat industry, whether for reasons of taste or convenience - but just use health as their default argument when in truth few of them have taken the time to research it. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On February 14 2011 10:34 Tony Campolo wrote: Say there are a million cows in the wild. Then there are a billion cows in the slaughterhouses. The only reason the billion exist is because of the demand that is created by the meat industry - they are breed via artificial insemination, generally live their whole lives in stressful production lines (e.g. the dairy industry that causes their premature deaths). It would be better for (A) the million cows to die in the wild, than for (B) the million cows to die in the wild and the billion killed in slaughterhouses. You're right, it would be idealistic to prevent all cows from dying, but we can definitely affect a large proportion of them. And I've never argued in the absolute terms you are using, to alleviate all suffering. But we can easily alleviate a large proportion of it by not engaging in the industry that kills the most. There does not exist a wild cow of the same breed that humans have domesticated, so more realistically there are no million cows in the wild. Ostensibly, we would be sending a species to extinction. (I will ignore the "artificial insemination"/"stressful production lines" remark because as I said before the cow probably doesn't have a barometer whereby it can be nostalgic for some forgotten past. There are no memories there of the Savannah.) I'm sorry to put your argument in such absolutist terms, but writ large you're suggesting this is the ends: to reduce suffering in any being, be it cow or fish or mollusk or whatever. I argue that this is impossible, and that if these cows are to exist, we ought to use them for the purpose that we domesticated them, over millennia, in such a way that is no more cruel than need be. (This is also ignoring that after nourishment food is cultural, more than anything else, and that many traditional cuisines aren't vegan, let alone even humane, according to the standard that at least I hold.) | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On February 14 2011 11:12 Tony Campolo wrote: I'm not sure where you get the 'nearly everyone' statistics from. The reason why vegan diets may be unhealthy for meat-eaters is simply because most of them don't know what to replace their meat with to get the same nutrients. I was a vegetarian from 17 to 23 and have been vegan from 23 to 26. I have no adverse health issues nor have I needed to take supplements. Supplements are definitely a lot cheaper than buying meat. Supplements are not pretty much required. It's just about eating the right foods. Most people can easily switch to vegan diets - unfortunately most just would rather not have to face this option and would rather continue supporting the meat industry, whether for reasons of taste or convenience - but just use health as their default argument when in truth few of them have taken the time to research it. You're not reading anything I'm writing or linking and now you're just going on with sweeping generalizations that are pretty frustrating to read. To be quite frank, I find them insulting, so I'm done. Thanks for the discussion though, I did learn a few things about vegetarianism. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
| ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 14 2011 11:20 ShadowWolf wrote: You're not reading anything I'm writing or linking and now you're just going on with sweeping generalizations that are pretty frustrating to read. To be quite frank, I find them insulting, so I'm done. Thanks for the discussion though, I did learn a few things about vegetarianism. Cheers. It's hard to discuss something with differing viewpoints when both parties feel the same way about each other's generalisations. At least it provides readers with both perspectives to gain information from. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
![[image loading]](http://cuteobsession.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/imagesa_20girl_20and_20elephant.jpg) In conclusion - it's hard for me to imagine that we are willing to kill one being just so the other can eat it, when we don't need to. If there is anything we can do to reduce the suffering, then we ought to out of compassion and empathy. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On February 14 2011 08:38 Tony Campolo wrote: Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. Likewise many creatures are exploited everyday - so why not at least do what we can, rather than continue on with it? Your logic is almost like saying well we carried out injustice on Indians so let's continue. Because you are saying we are committing injustices on animals, so let's just keep doing it. One step at a time. First, we can avoid eating them for food. This already takes out a large percentage of those that are killed everyday through painful methods. Then we can start addressing preserving the ecosystem and protecting animal conservation. My point is that not only do we engage in these injustices, but you do as well. You engage in these injustices. Right now. Those soybeans you eat. How many squirrels were displaced and or killed to clear the land to grow them? How many hares and snakes were dismembered by the combines that harvest them? The fuel you use to power your car. That fuel was purchased at the expense of tragedies like the Gulf Coast, in which untold numbers of our animal friends died slow choking deaths to the poison we released into the gulf. Do you use paper products? Do you think that sentient beings are not slaughtered mercilessly in the harvesting of the trees from which we derive those products? I’m really tempted here to post an excerpt from my “personal blog” about the rich home-lives of robins and how the big bad lumberjacks killed their children in their sleep. I don’t buy your “one step at a time” methodology. What you’re really suggesting, as I have pointed out before, is that we buy into your animal=human philosophy to the exact same arbitrary extent that you do. If you want me to believe that a human life and an animal life is equivalent. I’ll do that. But I would like to see that you believe that in the first place. I would like to have someone explain to me what the world would look like if we accepted that equivalency. But I don’t. All I see you believing is that you feel a little guilty about the treatment of cows and that you really think someone should do something about it. Your stance strikes me as purely emotional, masquerading as ethical. And honestly I don’t have it in me to brook that sort of worldview. On February 14 2011 08:34 Tony Campolo wrote: Just read your second post after finishing my reply. I won't even reply to it because you are claiming things that are completely ridiculous, for example that I am supposedly arguing for rights to commit bestiality. And at the end of the day - you can argue we may need to wake up in the morning, but we definitely don't need to eat animals. We can eat a large range of other foods which provide the same nutrients. We don't need to rape, steal or murder, because we can have a mutually loving relationship, earn money to buy items, and deal with issues with people we dislike through legal means. Again, this is what I predicted from the onset. You want me to believe in your principle of doing no unnecessary harm but only to the extent that you do. You don’t believe in doing no unnecessary harm. You believe in avoiding doing as much harm as is consistent with your current lifestyle, which strikes me as a fairly weak belief to proselytize. In the same vein, you ostensibly want to treat humans and animals as philosophically interchangeably. What it seems that you actually want is for me to treat them exactly like you do, no less compassionately and certainly no more. On February 14 2011 08:34 Tony Campolo wrote: As far as persuasion, it's a terrible strategy. It's offensive, alienating to your intended converts, and frankly ridiculous sounding to anyone who's not already a committed vegan. Well that's where you're wrong. I was once a meat-eater like you up until I was 17. I heard the exact same arguments, that it would be unhealthy, that animals don't know any better - from my parents and friends. But I saw the horrific cruelties being carried out on animals and decided it would be unethical to continue simply to gratify my own desire for the taste of flesh. When I look back now I realise that although my parents intended the best for me and that my friends simply weren't happy with me changing because they thought it was a challenge on their lifestyle, they weren't actually qualified to give such advice, and that there are nutritionists out there who can accommodate diets that don't involve animal products. The fact that these arguments were persuasive to a seventeen-year-old don’t really recommend them to me. I have taught seventeen-year-olds. They’re among the most fickle, short-sighted, malleable individuals on the planet. When I was a child, I thought as a child. But when I grew up, I put those childish thoughts behind me and became a grown ass man. And now glib arguments that—among their myriad other offenses—trivialize slavery don’t really hold the same fascination for me that they once might have. My first post to you in this thread was asking if you had anything to say to me that would prompt me to assume the same sorts of things about animal rights and morality that you do. But you never addressed that request. You have offered no such insights. You simply continue to reason from those assumptions as blithely as you did in post one, which leads me to believe that you’re not even aware of them, nor are you aware that other folks on this wide old earth might not share them. You’re the fresh-faced Jehovah’s witness on the doorstep. I’ll freely admit that I have a certain respect for what you’re doing. I’ll even accept a tract or two from you. But if I were you I wouldn’t count on seeing me next Sunday. | ||
| ||
