The 'instant-vegan' quote ...

[Blobbenstein]

someone said on VB that there was some sort of fruit farm where the farmer killed birds that were trying to eat his fruit. And then there is the transport of fruit, sometimes using air transport, just a little harm to the environment.
Tomato plants can be grown hydroponically, as is lettuce, so excluding lettuces(a non fruitarian food) wouldn't make sense, critter wise, would it?

 

[Second Summer]

I know sometimes birds can get caught in the nets used to protect berry bushes from birds. This can obviously cause injuries and death to birds.

 

[Clueless Git]

I am now convinced that I was right not to turn fruitarian.

 

[FortyTwo]

How about we all just accept that there's literally no way to eliminate every bit of suffering from our lives? This world is dynamic and violent and cruel by nature. We can make the best of it but we can't improve every single facet. There are going to be different degrees of practicality that people can pull off, and it's going to vary enormously from person to person.

And before any dramatic over-reactive statements are made, let me just say comparisons to slavery and the like are ridiculous because we are living right here, right now, with the present public opinion and no other, and if we want to make a good impression and actually save more lives rather than just righteously stand up for ideals and never get anything done then we need to accept that some people might not be able to fulfill every single ethical requirement that is proposed by veganism - maybe not right now, maybe not for the rest of their lives - and we need to not slap those people in the face and act superior simply because we are doing more to eliminate suffering in our own situations, in our own lives, not theirs.

Because when it comes right down to it you can make as many hypothetical situations and rhetorical questions and comparisons between ideologies and philosophies as you want, but this is the real world, and practicality is important here because the stance that demonizes vegetarians and condemns small leaps of progress simply because they aren't large enough in a world where these ideological leaps aren't even taken seriously is a stance that will just cause more animal deaths in the long run by slowing progress down.

It is all about public acceptance. If we want to save more lives we cannot afford to be self-righteous and damage our own movement. This is a process that is going slow enough as it is, and discouraging progress from being made simply because it's not a lot of progress is just as damaging as, if not more damaging than, letting those small leaps of progress continue and accumulate.

That is all I have to say. I am not willing to be grilled about the ethics of totally unrelated situations and subjected to statement- and question-dodging, so I think this will be my official exit from this conversation.

 

[Clueless Git]

Can't eliminate every bit of suffering from our lives so pretend more suffering is the same as less .. Check.

Surrender to majority opinion ... Check.

Popularity more important than ideals ... Check.

Barbeque at my place anyone?

 

[FortyTwo]

Can't eliminate every bit of suffering from our lives so pretend more suffering is the same as less .. Check.

Surrender to majority opinion ... Check.

Popularity more important than ideals ... Check.

Barbeque at my place anyone?

Oh Christ I was avoiding this but I need to respond.

What part of my post says that more suffering is the same as less? I am not making excuses for those who do not eliminate as much suffering as they can from their lives. I told you before, I agree with you on this, otherwise I probably wouldn't be vegan. Being vegan definitely eliminates more suffering than being vegetarian. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise would make a fool of themselves on principle alone.

Surrendering to majority opinion is a terrible way of putting the fact that majority opinion is and always will be majority opinion and, if one intends to influence it, must be considered as such, and responded to with the knowledge that more people hold that opinion than don't. I hate to say this, but ideals don't mean much alone. You are fond of rhetorical questions, so respond to this one: who is doing more good, a vegan standing up for ideals and converting few omnivores into veg*ns, or a vegan acknowledging that they are, ideologically, in a pretty grim situation, and using the majority opinion to convert more omnivores to veg*ns and therefore reduce animal suffering?

Ideals really do only mean very little if there isn't any action associated with them. It's all fine and dandy to prevent suffering in your own life, to your own extent, and look down on others who don't, but you're not going to make much of a difference.

Maybe I should put it this way: what's more important, believing really strongly in something to the point of exhaustion even without making a difference, or using your strong belief to actually change the world, even if concessions have to be made in the short term?

Because if you believe it's the first then we're debating in vain and there is nothing I can do to sway you.

In which case I will finally, actually leave the debate for real.

At least until someone brings up slavery.

 

[Clueless Git]

Being vegan definitely eliminates more suffering than being vegetarian. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise would make a fool of themselves on principle alone.

That would mean that either;

1. There is a wisdom in the lesser elimination of suffering.

2. The lesser elimination of suffering is foolish/unwise on principle alone.

 

[Clueless Git]

At least until someone brings up slavery.

I'm glad you mentioned that ...

Open question:

Holding humans in captivity and holding animals in captivity differs, in principle, in which particular way(s)?

 

[FortyTwo]

Okay, look. You keep bringing up ideological questions, which are far from the point I was trying to make.

Why can't you see that I agree with you ideologically? I think it's wrong to exploit animals for the benefit of humans. I think this applies in any situation, whether it is meat or dairy or eggs or even honey. Any situation. I don't think holding animals captive is principally different from holding humans captive. And I think in most cases, vegetarians probably aren't doing quite as much as they physically could.

That's why I'm vegan; I believe in these things and I apply them to my life to the extent that I am capable of.

But I can recognize that this is my ideology, and that trying to apply it to every single person is not within the realm of possibility. If you want to know why I understand this to not be practical and in fact consider it self-destructive behavior, read any of my previous posts in this thread.

What you don't seem to grasp is that I'm not here to engage in ideological or philosophical banter. You have continuously assaulted me with questions that are either gross extrapolations or entirely based in principle, and answering these is not part of what I came here to do.

I am here to address two points. One, creating a thread like this in a space of the board specifically designed to accommodate vegetarians is nothing short of an attack. Two, demonizing vegetarians and excluding them from the animal rights movement on the grounds that they aren't doing enough is not in the best interest of those who actually want to save the lives of animals.

Have I not addressed those points sufficiently enough? Does there need to be additional ideological banter and proposal of hypothetical questions to make these points? They're both secular, grounded, and have been addressed in every aspect multiple times by me.

 

[Blobbenstein]

"Instant Vegan's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right in the head....."

 

[Clueless Git]

Okay, look. You keep bringing up ideological questions, which are far from the point I was trying to make.

Idealogical questions explore if a point being made is idealogicaly sound.

This in the same way that we might;

1. Use logical questioning to explore if a purportedly logical argument is supported by logic.

2. Use factual questioning to see if a purportedly factual statement is supported by facts.

 

[Clueless Git]

One, creating a thread like this in a space of the board specifically designed to accommodate vegetarians is nothing short of an attack.

McDonalds, KFC, etc, could be said to be "spaces specificaly designed to accomodate omnis".

Would it be "nothing short of an attack", constituting "self destructive behaviour" by "demonizing omnis" and "excluding them from the animal rights movement on the grounds that they aren't doing enough" if we were to, say, peacefully hand out veg*an leaflets at places such as those?

 

[FortyTwo]

Idealogical questions explore if a point being made is idealogicaly sound.

This in the same way that we might;

1. Use logical questioning to explore if a purportedly logical argument is supported by logic.

2. Use factual questioning to see if a purportedly factual statement is supported by facts.

I understand how to reason, don't belittle me.

In this case, ideological questions are not being used to explore if a point is ideologically sound, they are being used to dodge the actual content of my posts and simply reply to conversational hooks that you think will support your argument.

McDonalds, KFC, etc, could be said to be "spaces specificaly designed to accomodate omnis".

Would it be "nothing short of an attack", constituting "self destructive behaviour" by "demonizing omnis" and "excluding them from the animal rights movement on the grounds that they aren't doing enough" if we were to, say, peacefully hand out veg*an leaflets at places such as those?

There is a difference between the two. This board is designed to accommodate both vegetarians and vegans, hence the slogan "Vegan and vegetarian forums." A section of the forum titled "Vegetarian Forum" is for vegetarians to post in about lacto-ovo vegetarian issues, not for vegans. If a vegan wants to talk about why vegan ideology is ethically superior to vegetarian ideology, then it might be posted in the "Vegan Forum," a section of the board designed specifically for vegan issues and not for vegetarian ones.

McDonalds, KFC, and other restaurants that serve meat are not spaces for omnivores. There is no "omnivore section" or even "vegetarian section" at these restaurants. They are establishments that serve food, some of which happens to be veg*an, some of which happens to contain animal products. Now, to act like these places intentionally serve vegetarian food or are trying to tap into that market would be silly. They are businesses, and businesses exist to make money. Most people are not vegetarian, so blah blah blah, I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you because it's common sense. But these are public spaces for all people to come and go, to buy and consume goods.

This is a message board. It is not the same scenario in the slightest.

That being said, handing out pamphlets at a restaurant that doesn't even pretend to be interested in vegetarians would be a pretty silly idea... you'd get laughed out of the place. You'd make much more of a difference handing these pamphlets out in a place where you'd get people who are more likely to be interested; organic markets, say, or festivals with many types of people.

Once again, practicality trumps all.

 

[Clueless Git]

I understand how to reason, don't belittle me.

99% of people would agree that you understand how to reason very well, I would think

99.6% of people (according to vegetariantimes) can't understand the principles and ideals behind veganism though.

Once again, practicality trumps all.

Practicality usualy trumps principles and ideals, yes.

It is the reason why principled and idealistic people are as rare as rocking horse droppings.

 

[Second Summer]

So just to see if I understand the disagreement here, if there is one. CG, you thing vegetarianism is fundamentally wrong. 42, you seem to agree? And CG, you'd like to challenge the vegetarian views now and again, is that it? I certainly don't have a problem with that, just like I think challenging veganism is fine, just out of courtesy do it here in the Debate forum. I'm sure most of us will read it anyway.

Looking at the recent poll, it seems a lot of us are already vegans, and out of those who aren't it seems many have nevertheless accepted the arguments for veganism "in spirit" if not yet entirely in practice.

 

[Clueless Git]

.. just out of courtesy do it here in the Debate forum.

NP, IS.

I was purely thinking that a lot of vegetarians may not have considered the 'slaughter is a by-product of vegetarianism' angle before.

Quite honestly I had never considered it in quite that light before myself.

 

[FortyTwo]

So just to see if I understand the disagreement here, if there is one. CG, you thing vegetarianism is fundamentally wrong. 42, you seem to agree?

Yeah, the debate has turned mostly from the ethics of posting a thread griping about vegetarians in the Vegetarian subforum to a discussion of whether or not upholding veganism and not allowing for vegetarianism in your ideology is actually helpful to the movement.

 

[Mischief]

Have those who uphold fruitarianism is being "better" given any thought at all to the number of acres of land needed to feed a single human fruitarian? I suspect not, because if you had, you would have realized the devastating impact on the environment, ecosystems, and most nonhuman species of trying to feed a significant portion of the human population (not to mention the entire human population) on a fruitarian diet. The same thing holds true, to a somewhat lesser extent, of raw foodists. The environmental footprint (and thus the negative impact on nonhuman species) of a fruitarian is much greater than that of a conscientious vegan or vegetarian. (By "conscientious" I mean someone who takes care to consume wisely, with a minimum of waste or excess.)

 

[Clueless Git]

Yeah, the debate has turned mostly from the ethics of posting a thread griping about vegetarians in the Vegetarian subforum to a discussion of whether or not upholding veganism and not allowing for vegetarianism in your ideology is actually helpful to the movement.

Vegetarian idealogy is not against animal slaughter and animal abuse now?

 

[Clueless Git]

Have those who uphold fruitarianism is being "better" given any thought at all to the number of acres of land needed to feed a single human fruitarian? I suspect not, because if you had, you would have realized the devastating impact on the environment, ecosystems, and most nonhuman species of trying to feed a significant portion of the human population (not to mention the entire human population) on a fruitarian diet. The same thing holds true, to a somewhat lesser extent, of raw foodists. The environmental footprint (and thus the negative impact on nonhuman species) of a fruitarian is much greater than that of a conscientious vegan or vegetarian. (By "conscientious" I mean someone who takes care to consume wisely, with a minimum of waste or excess.)

I'm interested ...

(Genuinely. I hold fruitarianism to be a higher ethic than veganism but have never explored the practicalities in any detail.)

Facts, figures, sources?