Unpopular Opinions Society

[mlp]

You can sun dry as much as you need. It still counts as raw.

Sure, sundried counts as raw. There's a reason sundried tomatoes are expensive - it's a long process in which a lot of spoilage occurs if weather and other factors aren't just right. There's also a reason why not a lot of different vegetables and fruits are sundried - many/most are not suited to the process.

You were the one who brought up raw as the *ultimate* animal friendly diet, and I pointed out that it's not a way that large numbers of humans (much less current population numbers) can sustain themselves. I don't think that anything you've said since then refutes that.

But that is beside the real point, which is, as many weaknesses as you or das_nut want to find in other people's ethical stances, other people can find in yours. All this really is is a "I'm more vegan than vegans" pissing contest, and the vegans didn't start it. Not saying you did, of course.

All ethical stances have weaknesses, especially any ethical stance that's intended to be broad enough as to govern or at least influence how one lives one's life.

I don't think I'm more vegan than vegans, because I don't think I'm vegan at all, nor is it something to which I aspire. Dogma has never been appealing to me. I'm more interested in the effect of one's actions, and I'm more interested in the rationale behind the rules than in the rules themselves. For instance, I think that the Golden Rule is an underlying rationale for the Ten Commandments, and it's actually a better guide for one's day to day decisions than the Ten Commandments.

I'm not one being defensive in this discussion. As I pointed out early on, I recognize and acknowledge that a good portion of the world's omni population causes less nonhuman suffering and death than I do. Likewise, I'm sure that there's a very sizeable percentage of members of this board who have a substantially smaller negative impact on nonhuman animals than I do. It's by recognizing things like that, and thinking about them, that I think that I've managed to do a (very) little better in the way I live my life over the course of that life. I hope that I never come to the point where I am certain that my way is the way; I would really hate for that to happen to me.

 

[mlp]

I don't like soft cookies, they seem undercooked to me.

Deal. You can have all of the hard, brittle cookies, just send the soft ones my way.

 

[das_nut]

If I thought that this would generate so much discussion, I'd have created a new thread.

I don't believe that I was trying to argue a "more vegan than thou" viewpoint.

All my original post in this thread said was that it was "fine for vegans" in certain limited circumstances to take actions that aren't usually considered vegan as long as those actions have an end result of reducing and eliminating animal suffering.

I only got a tad testy when someone started to argue a strict "veganism is only about not wearing, using or consuming animal products" definition, and did not admit the possibility that veganism could be defined as living one's life in a way that minimizes the human-caused suffering of animals.

I suspect the defensiveness came a lot from those who hold the above definition. It's hard to realize that even "vegan" actions can harm animals, even if it is unintentional.

Really though, both of the definitions share more actions than they differ. To all practical degree, people who follow either definition aren't going to be trying to acquire new non-vegan items or have the intent of consuming non-vegan food. And to all practical degree, in the real world, both definitions will result in unwanted harm to animals.

 

[KLS52]

Soft cookies are ok if they are chewy soft, not crumbly soft.

 

[ledboots]

Soft cookies are ok if they are chewy soft, not crumbly soft.

If chocolate is in any way involved, chewy or crunchy or crumbly doesn't matter.

 

[Pickle Juice]

You were the one who brought up raw as the *ultimate* animal friendly diet...

No I didn't. I listed it as one example of a way to use fewer resources for those whose main goal is to save the environment, and as a lower-energy-consuming alternative to dining out. A person with this concern could also cook in volume on their day off, and eat the food during the week without re-heating.

My main goal though, was to show the folly of telling people that if they aren't willing to do what oneself is willing to do, they aren't as ethical as oneself. Judging by your reaction to my suggestion that people who care about the environment ought to go raw, you don't care to be told you aren't doing enough for the environment because you cook your food any more than some of the other people in this thread care to be told that they aren't vegan or don't care about animals if they refuse to eat meat that was given them in error. I was never seriously suggesting that you or das_nut go raw to show you care about collateral death. I was just trying to show that it is just as ridiculous to tell you guys to go raw as it is to tell us we must eat wasted meat or stop considering ourselves vegan.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I only got a tad testy when someone started to argue a strict "veganism is only about not wearing, using or consuming animal products" definition...

Next time go get testy with the Vegan Society.

 

[beancounter]

Veg*n or not, Oreos are gross.

 

[das_nut]

Next time go get testy with the Vegan Society.

Why?

 

[Ansciess]

I don't believe that I was trying to argue a "more vegan than thou" viewpoint.

Oh really? You "care too much about animals to be vegan" and you don't think you were trying to argue that you're better than vegans?

I only got a tad testy when someone started to argue a strict "veganism is only about not wearing, using or consuming animal products" definition, and did not admit the possibility that veganism could be defined as living one's life in a way that minimizes the human-caused suffering of animals.

I suspect the defensiveness came a lot from those who hold the above definition. It's hard to realize that even "vegan" actions can harm animals, even if it is unintentional.

Nice straw man you're building, but who the hell has argued that being vegan means you have no harmful effect on animals? Don't you think we've all read about deaths of field mice, etc.? The fact that we're living humans means we have negative impact on animals, whether we're vegan or not.

Veganism has a specific definition, and it includes not consuming animal products. Do you want to redefine it so that you can call yourself vegan here? Does it matter? You could call yourself vegan and we'd believe it even if you ate chicken IRL because none of us would know it.

 

[beancounter]

Steward Post

Please discontinue the " more vegan than thou" discussion, or start a new thread.

 

[Pirate]

Veg*n or not, Oreos are gross.

They taste burnt to me!

 

[mlp]

Veg*n or not, Oreos are gross.

I agree. No flavor otherv than *sweet*.

Huh. I just noticed what an odd looking word "sweet" is.

 

[das_nut]

Not as odd as the word "otherv" is.

 

[mlp]

Not as odd as the word "otherv" is.

People tend to forget about that silent "v."

 

[Blobbenstein]

I don't really agree with the sterilising of animals.
I suppose that there isn't much alternative, but I think animals have a right to bodily integrity.

 

[mlp]

There really isn't an alternative.

We could snip their tubes rather than spaying and neutering. For female cats, that would mean they would experience pretty much nonstop heat during their lifetimes. Apart from the health consequences, a female cat in heat is not a happy or content cat. It would make for constantly miserable cats, and pretty miserable humans.

An unneutered male cat, even one whose tubes have been snipped, will continue to have all the mating, spraying and fighting urges of a tom cat.

As a practical matter, it would greatly reduce the number of homes available. Multi cat households wouldn't be possible. Apart from the cat's misery, it would drive me crazy to have a cat who is in heat all the time, and how many people would be willing to live with constant spraying?

 

[Freesia]

I agree that they have the right to bodily integrity but unfortunately that would result in a lot of pets in shelters. In fact it has already.

 

[mlp]

I know we're not supposed to post about that subject any more, but I thought you all might be amused to hear this: A member of the parrot forum of which I am a member posted that she had just watched a documentary about factory farming, and that she has decided to go vegan. Another member posted that she had tried to be vegetarian some years ago, but that it was just too hard, and that being a "conscientious omni" (buying locally and from small producers) was just as good as being vegan.

I posted that no, it is no harder to be a conscientious vegan or vegetarian than it is be a conscientious omni, with the added benefit that no animal is being killed to satisfy your taste buds for five minutes.



I also suggested that the original poster might want to join VV.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I tried to be a vegan for a week back in the 90s, but it was too hard back then....now I am a pretty strict veg, and it doesn't seem that hard....partly it is the normalisation of veganism, that I have got from VB and here, and partly it's because vegan cheese is a lot better.

So someone who tries veg*nism, and gives up, might well do better at a later stage.