Newly Vegetarian

[Enigma]

If we followed the Bible word for word we could also stone our wife if she's not a virgin. 

[Karaten]

I think all of the bible worshipers have run off already.

[SWM]

If we followed the Bible word for word we could also stone our wife if she's not a virgin. 

thats sounds like fun, maybe i could become a christian after all.

*joke*

[Ajna]

wow you guys totally missed the point lol... 
Im not suggesting in any way shape or form that the bible is a significant source of philosophy or should be thought as such in anyway.

My point is not "the bible says this, so that is significant, and you should do it"

We brought up the subject of plants being considered as legitimate life forms. I find it interesting that the bible says that about the diet. It makes me consider why it feels that is the cleanest way to eat... (which i feel no reason to reiterate, because i already explained it once).

Your reactions are awfully defensive. Like im attacking your way of life. The things im saying are significant and legitimate points to consider... I feel like your taking it as eating meat being category A, and anything but eating meat in category B, and your placing yourself in category A and have to defend it from category B. These categories dont exist though. Philosophy is individualistic.

[voodoo scientist]

You're mistaking offense for defense. I find your expressed beliefs insufferably ignorant; your points vague at best and outright irrational at worst. "Philosophy is individualistic" is yet another hollow phrase intended to dismiss the argument and thus prevent the realization that your philosophy has no basis in reality, thereby preventing any potential discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance. It comes down to this:

A) Your reasons for believing in moral vegetarianism are founded in logic and reality, in which case you will be able to demonstrate your reasoning (ref. my post on page two)

OR

B) They are not founded in logic and reality, in which case you will demonstrate imperfect or no reasoning for believing in moral vegetarianism.

You are because I've made no connection to morality when it comes to vegetarianism, nor anywhere else.

It's interesting you chose to respond to that particular bit. I put that in there as a bit of information that would be easy to react to without taking a stand on the issue. It's the only bit of information like that in the post - to respond to anything else, you'd have to make at least one relevant, verifiable assumption, which would leave you open to being proven definitively wrong. Did you choose to ignore the rest consciously or unconsciously?

[Karaten]

It's interesting you chose to respond to that particular bit. I put that in there as a bit of information that would be easy to react to without taking a stand on the issue. It's the only bit of information like that in the post - to respond to anything else, you'd have to make at least one relevant, verifiable assumption, which would leave you open to being proven definitively wrong. Did you choose to ignore the rest consciously or unconsciously?

Which part was I supposed to respond to?

Let us review your post:

I put that label on you as a concrete way of expressing my prediction that you are unable to clearly express the base assumptions you made in presenting your stance on moral vegetarianism, presumably because you are not conscious of them and are simply reacting to the argument at hand. So far, I'm not wrong.

Oh, I guess I responded to the whole thing because it was one big point.  If you mean the thread in general, I've been doing so before you bumbled in with your off track comments saying I somehow related any of my statements to morality, when in fact, my entire point is on the basis that 1.Humans evolved to eat meat and 2.A purely vegetarian diet is neither natural nor healthy.

I have made no assumptions on morality relevant to such because, quite frankly, I don't care about the moral implications.

If you mean my earlier post, the point was that the ideology that anyone has ever came to a moral conclusion through logic is ridiculous, as morality has little to do with logic simply because a moral conclusion can be reached with no realistic basis.

"It's wrong to kill anyone, no matter what."

Can be concluded, even if killing someone could save a million lives.

As such, morality is an idiotic concept to apply to an intellectual conversation and it's especially idiotic to conclude that you can base reality on moral ideologies.

Also, please don't pretend you have had some plan set for me to respond that way, as that can shown to be false for several reasons, firstly being your ridiculously slow response relevant to other posts by you even within this own thread, and of course, the fact there was no other point to your post besides my moral connection to vegetarianism that simply doesn't exist.

[voodoo scientist]

There's no need for pretense. You haven't yet provided the basis for your stance and are evidently unaware that all conclusions have a basis in something, even if the person is not conscious of it. I'm not even sure you understand the difference between "the conclusion" and "the reasoning" at this point, given your reiteration of your conclusion and the moral example you gave.

No, I didn't have some master plan for you to respond that way - that would be incredibly pretentious. The post contained two types of different information. The first half revolves entirely around me and my ideas, while the second half is entirely within your purview. That is to say, there's no way for me to directly prove that I'm right about the second half because I'm not in your head, so I elected to set up a hypothesis:

If you were simply reacting to the thread at hand and not expressing a well-founded opinion, you would consciously or unconsciously choose to reply to the bit of information you couldn't lose on. If you were expressing a well-founded opinion, you would have refuted my admittedly quite rude and cheap attempt.

So, the question remains, do you or do you not have a basis for the ideas you express here or are you just reacting? If you're just reacting, that's fine, but then you have no basis for attacking Ajna's baseless beliefs. If you have a basis for your ideas, I'd like to hear them. For instance, I can't imagine how you ended up at a conclusion like "...I don't think animals need to be treated as bad as they are, but it's not a logic issue, it's an issue of unnecessary torment. Unnecessary and illogical is not the same, mind you. It's simply that some people don't care enough about animals to do something about it."

Why do you think that? How much suffering is the right amount of suffering the animals must go through to for us to eat them without it being "wrong"? It's not logical. Either the reasoning points to it being undesirable for animals to suffer and thus that we should all work to prevent it, or it's not undesirable for animals to suffer and we all should not give a crap if animals suffer or not. Regardless of which it is, you need to explain why it's undesirable instead of just implying that it is.

"Quite simply, morality is too opinionated.  In order to see anything from an angle of right or wrong, you must discard that which makes it right or that which makes it wrong." is equally nonsensical - it doesn't logically follow at all. Maybe you'd find morality easier if you used more concrete words like undesirable and desirable instead of vague religious slogans like right and wrong.

"For me, it comes to a point where you must simply accept that things suffer, and move on." - This seems to outright contradict what you said in the post before that. Here, you make the argument that if things will inevitably happen at some point on a given timeline, there's no effective difference regardless of when it happens and thus no need to concern oneself with it. This is obviously inconsistent with your earlier "unnecessary torment" argument, implying (whether or not it was intentional) there is a difference between the current, unnecessary level of animal torment and "ideal" level of animal torment.

I think you try to actively avoid making assumptions because it protects you. You can't be wrong if you never make any assumptions, leaving you free to take snipes at other people's methodology and end up seeming on top if everyone else is wrong. It's not a bad strategy, honestly, but the tricky part is maintaining consistency when you're cooking up your arguments in response to a very limited set of information - apparently the post at hand.

[Karaten]

There's no need for pretense. You haven't yet provided the basis for your stance and are evidently unaware that all conclusions have a basis in something, even if the person is not conscious of it. I'm not even sure you understand the difference between "the conclusion" and "the reasoning" at this point, given your reiteration of your conclusion and the moral example you gave.

There is no reasoning to morality. That's the point.

No, I didn't have some master plan for you to respond that way - that would be incredibly pretentious. The post contained two types of different information. The first half revolves entirely around me and my ideas, while the second half is entirely within your purview. That is to say, there's no way for me to directly prove that I'm right about the second half because I'm not in your head, so I elected to set up a hypothesis:


If you were simply reacting to the thread at hand and not expressing a well-founded opinion, you would consciously or unconsciously choose to reply to the bit of information you couldn't lose on. If you were expressing a well-founded opinion, you would have refuted my admittedly quite rude and cheap attempt.

The hypothesis is flawed, you made an attack on me, so I focused on it. It is that simple.

So, the question remains, do you or do you not have a basis for the ideas you express here or are you just reacting? If you're just reacting, that's fine, but then you have no basis for attacking Ajna's baseless beliefs. If you have a basis for your ideas, I'd like to hear them. For instance, I can't imagine how you ended up at a conclusion like "...I don't think animals need to be treated as bad as they are, but it's not a logic issue, it's an issue of unnecessary torment. Unnecessary and illogical is not the same, mind you. It's simply that some people don't care enough about animals to do something about it."

Some people include me by the way, and I stated that simply as an abstract compromise to better identify exactly what the central view is on the focus of animals and their suffering. I was trying to set up a preemptive for potential associations to logic and morality, which apparently was pointless as everyone ignored it. Oh well.

Why do you think that?

Well, they could be treated better. Remember that this one statement had nothing to do with my point, also, note my above point.

Ideally, an ad infinitum.

How much suffering is the right amount of suffering the animals must go through to for us to eat them without it being "wrong"? It's not logical.

There's no gauge of right or wrong, that's my entire point. There's no logical way to conclude what is too much pain and what is too little.

Either the reasoning points to it being undesirable for animals to suffer and thus that we should all work to prevent it, or it's not undesirable for animals to suffer and we all should not give a crap if animals suffer or not. Regardless of which it is, you need to explain why it's undesirable instead of just implying that it is.

I explained why I said that already, I was trying to identify the key source of the opposing views ideology. Technically, they could be treated better. That's not a false statement. There was no basis on my beliefs in it.

"Quite simply, morality is too opinionated.  In order to see anything from an angle of right or wrong, you must discard that which makes it right or that which makes it wrong." is equally nonsensical - it doesn't logically follow at all. Maybe you'd find morality easier if you used more concrete words like undesirable and desirable instead of vague religious slogans like right and wrong.

Desire is an emotional statement for positives or negatives, morality is on the basis of a religious scale, or a scale of beliefs if you feel better with that term. As stated above, it comes to a point where people simply state "Well, that's too much suffering" without any real basis, which brings me back to my original point. The logic comes after the fact, not before.

"For me, it comes to a point where you must simply accept that things suffer, and move on." - This seems to outright contradict what you said in the post before that. Here, you make the argument that if things will inevitably happen at some point on a given timeline, there's no effective difference regardless of when it happens and thus no need to concern oneself with it. This is obviously inconsistent with your earlier "unnecessary torment" argument, implying (whether or not it was intentional) there is a difference between the current, unnecessary level of animal torment and "ideal" level of animal torment.

I think my earlier point addresses that. I stated a simple fact, it had no belief behind it.

I think you try to actively avoid making assumptions because it protects you. You can't be wrong if you never make any assumptions, leaving you free to take snipes at other people's methodology and end up seeming on top if everyone else is wrong. It's not a bad strategy, honestly, but the tricky part is maintaining consistency when you're cooking up your arguments in response to a very limited set of information - apparently the post at hand.

Honestly, I try to avoid assumptions as much as I can, and if I make one, it usually has a firm reasoning behind it. The main issue is your misunderstanding of my wording and my intent, that being, if all my past statements are consistent, and one seems out of place, it's best to simply observe that statement as something besides methodology and simply a shallow fact. If you observe my previous posts in this thread, you'll note that I've been quite active and I have not avoided any part of the thread until now. I hope this resolves the issue but if not I'll be happy to continue until you understand better.

[SWM]

wow you guys totally missed the point lol... 
Im not suggesting in any way shape or form that the bible is a significant source of philosophy or should be thought as such in anyway.

My point is not "the bible says this, so that is significant, and you should do it"

We brought up the subject of plants being considered as legitimate life forms. I find it interesting that the bible says that about the diet. It makes me consider why it feels that is the cleanest way to eat... (which i feel no reason to reiterate, because i already explained it once).

Your reactions are awfully defensive. Like im attacking your way of life. The things im saying are significant and legitimate points to consider... I feel like your taking it as eating meat being category A, and anything but eating meat in category B, and your placing yourself in category A and have to defend it from category B. These categories dont exist though. Philosophy is individualistic.

i do actually get your point, more than understanding your perspective actually, i admire you for being able to define and adhere to clear rational principles. it is apparent that you have thought deeply about how you sustain your own life and have considered how other organisms are destroyed for your sustenance and the moral dilema that such transactions create.

you have even taken this one step further and arrived at a personal morally satisfying solution to this dilema.

i failed at being vegetarian and have been eating meat for the last 2 years having been veggy for the previous 6. partly because i find it difficult to satisfy my appetite on the produce that is available locally, and partly because meat is very tasty.

[Ajna]

i do actually get your point, more than understanding your perspective actually, i admire you for being able to define and adhere to clear rational principles. it is apparent that you have thought deeply about how you sustain your own life and have considered how other organisms are destroyed for your sustenance and the moral dilema that such transactions create.

you have even taken this one step further and arrived at a personal morally satisfying solution to this dilema.

i failed at being vegetarian and have been eating meat for the last 2 years having been veggy for the previous 6. partly because i find it difficult to satisfy my appetite on the produce that is available locally, and partly because meat is very tasty.

My appreciations for your kind words!

Your story is very surprising to me. I have only been vegetarian for 4 years and some change, and if you were to cook a steak in the next room, the smell would turn my stomach!!
While the greatest staple of my diet is rooted in philosophy, its been very easy to continue because I do not desire meat. I feel that if i were to eat it my body would reject initially.

Which brings up a very intriguing point.... if only after 4 years of no meat, my body has already adjusted beyond being able to go back without having a conscious reason to... why is it that your body was not only still craving meat but was able to go back to it so quickly after six long years of not consuming it?

a few questions come to mind...
1) Did you eat fish? Eat soups with chicken/beef stock?
2) Whats your blood type?

I was having a conversation with someone once about vegetarianism, and was telling her about the nutritional aspects/benefits. But she brought up a very interesting point to me that different blood types are suppsed to be more prone to vegetarianism than others... such as A (my blood type) are more likely to enjoy a vegetarian diet... while type O is less likely to easily adapt to it... This is, from what i could ascertain in my brief discussion, because of certain balances of nutrients in each blood type. I havent studied this much since then, so I cannot speak of its validity... but I find it interesting!

The Japanese have a term for the quality of taste that is very specific to meat called "umami". If you were still exposing yourself to animal based broths, or fish- your sensitivity to umami would probably not alter that much. Especially because, umami aside, you are still consuming the animal matter. I have become very sensitive to this, and it makes it very easy to continue the way I eat.

[SWM]

when i was veggie i could not stand meat, i could cook it and i could hold it, although extremely conscious of the fact it was a dead animals flesh and blood. at the time i could not have eaten it the thought would make me wretch.

at the same time i could never be satisfied by the foods that are available. i was often hungry when i was a veggie. especially in work or around town. if i wanted to grab a quick snack my choices where limited. but i would always be presented with meaty food, which i did not want but my hunger wanted me to want.

when i began to eat meat again, i would physically reject it. there was instance in a restaurant where i had ordered chicken, i had one bite and it made me wretch and vomit. i could not eat it, left it on my plate to be taken away.

for a few years i ate nothing that would be considered an animal. then i began to eat fish. i hoped it would give me a better source of protein and i might not be as hungry. i never ate any thing such as soups, gravy, sauces or any flavourings produced from animal products. i would eat dairy though.

no idea what my blood type is.

[Ajna]

I heard a story once about a man who was lost at sea and ate nothing but fish day in and day out for a very long period of time. After some time he began to become very ill, and malnourished. One day when he was staring at his would be fish meal he decided to eat other parts of the fish that he would normally never consider eating such as the scales, eyes and organs.
Not only did he get better, but he described the parts of the fish as delicacies when he ate them. This is because, one must assume, that his body needed those vitamins and nutrients so badly that it made the food that contained them taste delicious.

This story was told to me by a previous employer of mine. I was a dishwasher and he was the head chef. He was really into nutrition and food (clearly), and told me that i always looked pale and tired. I also frequently had issues getting full and content like you described in the early stages of my vegetarianism.
Several years later, i am now the healthiest Ive ever been in my life, and have energy to do whatever I wish.

The difference, other than doing some basic research on nutrition and what I wasnt receiving enough of.... is listening to my intuition. If i crave fruit, i make sure I get some. When im hungry, i go through a list in my head of all the things i can eat... the food that sets off an alarm in my head as something i really want or that sounds fulfilling is what i go with. Your body calls out for what it needs, and the more sensitivity you build to that voice, the easier it will be to get your necessary nutrition. The obvious one that people have trouble with is protein. All vegetables have amino acids, that in certain combinations create protein, such as beans and rice. Also there are high protein alternatives to meat such as Tofu, Tempeh, protein shakes etc. If you feel like you dont like tofu or tempeh, it is likely that you havent experienced enough varieties of it. They are both very absorbent, and come in several different textures, so you can make it taste and feel like whatever you want. I had a tempeh reuben once that blew my mind!!!  Something like iron (which O blood types supposedly lack?) can be found in spinach and mushrooms. The list goes on forever, and if you get your necessary nutrition its actually much healthier because your cutting out the negative aspects of meat and keeping the positive.

You are clearly quite conscious of your eating habits, and are capable of making your own moral decisions based on such. but if you ever decide to go veggie again, shoot me a pm, I would love to help you out!!

[Junomike]

wild animal also been kill to keep consumers gets what they want (freak beast).. if most of the people realize whats going on now, i think they will try to stop taking meat.. keep up vegetarian!! let this world know what they are doing!! love life? love all..

[VeggieTeen92]

I agree w/you Liza123, thats why I have been avoiding posting here again. I just can't believe people. hmmm.

[Enigma]

So the harsh face of reality is too much for your teenage mind to handle?  If my sense of self worth was so fragile that it can be easily degraded by random people on internet forums then I'd avoid posting too.