Best argument for omnivorous lifestyle

[sandra]

However, if you do not (and there is no way of telling who is right - in the absence of religion anyway) then there is no reason why you should avoid products whose production has harmed animals.

I disagree that there is 'no way of telling who is right'.........surely the very fact that animals visibly suffer and feel pain (whether you believe them to be equal or not) is enough to demonstrate that they deserve to be treated better.

Just because someone has 'fundamental views' it doesn't make them right. Throughout history peoples views on many things have changed as we have 'progressed', e.g. slavery.
If humans believe it is acceptable to cause pain and suffering to other living beings then I think we should be 'preaching' (in a nice way of course ;)) to change this attitude. :)

[puffin]

The only three reasons i can think of is,
People enjoy meat
They dont care about animals
They dont know where to start being veggie

I say they dont know where to start because i have had a few friends say they would like to be veggie but dont really know what to cook because they have been eating meat all there life and learnt to cook from there mother and got into a habit of cooking a certain way. I have offered suggestions and recipes but they have never asked for them, so i think i will add people are lazy to the list.

[starlight]

But what I am interested is how they justify their choices, what reasoning they use to defend them - so that we (well, I) can formulate a reasonable counter-argument.


Hi Klytemnest

You are imagining a conversation with a fairly combative tone - using words like "defend" and "counter-argument". I'm not sure I would relish being in such a conversation, or that it would lead anywhere except to more entrenched views.

Another way is to think about what we have in common and work on that. Surely, most people care about the suffering of animals (even if they don't link it to their actions). Surely, most people care about being healthy. Surely, most people care about living in a beautiful and stable world.

If you talk about things you have in common, it brings them to the forefront of the mind and perhaps arouse their passion and interest so they want to investigate for themselves.

Let your life be an example to others.

I believe eventually they will come round (even if it takes years or lifetimes), because in the end it's the rational and inevitable outcome.

[Klytemnest]

lol I think they like to be refered to as whatever their tribe name is, it gets reeeeallly complicated, especially with the Chumash here. But as a group i think the most politically correct term is now Ingenious People...but thats the last i heard. I've spent a lot of time around different tribes, i grew up with a bunch of archeologists and at pow wows.

Its actually been quite overcast but it starts to burn off in the afternoon. I actually move to Ojai a few months ago...its always hot here...i think its 87 degrees F right now, its always interesting going from home to work ( i work in Ventura) once you get over the hill the weather is totally different...I've never eatten there before!! I must try it! Next time you are in Ventura go to Mary's Secret Garden...best Vegan food ever!!! If you need an address just PM me!!

I had no idea you were so close to me Rami!

Yes, I am about 110 miles from Ventura. In a few weeks I plan to go to Santa Barbara to celebrate my becoming a US citizen! Woohoo! Can't wait to go to SpiritLand again!

Ojai is beautiful. I hope you will be happy and contented there. Actually I made my operatic debut in Ventura, back in 1995... I also sang with the Ventura Chamber Music Festival in 2000... So the whole area is dear to me.

[Klytemnest]

I disagree that there is 'no way of telling who is right'.........surely the very fact that animals visibly suffer and feel pain (whether you believe them to be equal or not) is enough to demonstrate that they deserve to be treated better.

Just because someone has 'fundamental views' it doesn't make them right. Throughout history peoples views on many things have changed as we have 'progressed', e.g. slavery.
If humans believe it is acceptable to cause pain and suffering to other living beings then I think we should be 'preaching' (in a nice way of course ;)) to change this attitude. :)

I think this is an interesting subject. How is what is right and what is wrong decided? As runnerboy suggested, in the case of religion one can often get "moral guidance" from holy scriptures because God is the origin and arbiter of morality. But in the absence of religion, who is the judge? Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

I think it is a matter of consensus. But it is not a matter of merely voting according to what is convenient. A system of morality needs to have internal cohesion. It has to be reasonable and fair.

Ethics are ultimately about suffering vs happiness, about minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness. We don't like to suffer. We like being happy. We avoid suffering. We think suffering is something to be avoided. We understand that other sentient beings (beings capable of feeling) also have an interest in avoiding suffering. Of course, the world, such as it is, necessitates the suffering of some. Carnivores, in order to exist, have to cause the suffering of their prey. So, some suffering is unavoidable and, alas, necessary. But some suffering is avoidable and unnecessary. And (I take it as axiomatic) suffering is something that is to be avoided. So, it follows that one should make an effort to avoid or prevent unnecessary suffering; one should not deliberately cause suffering if it is unnecessary. To deliberately cause such suffering would be unjustified.

That is the logical thread I followed that led me to veganism. That is all I needed and I honestly do not see any loppholes in this argument. Unfortunately, when debating veganism with omnis, we sometimes get stuck at the issue of justification. Is it justified to cause unnecessary suffering? I say no, they say yes. How is it justified? They like the taste. Or they want the protein. Or some other bs. So they treat it as if it were a matter of subjective judgment. And the dialogue cannot continue past that point.

Have any of you had similar experiences with omnis?

I agree with Sandra. I feel that if we really care about minimizing suffering and deliberate torture of animals, the least we should do is "preach" - engage people in conversation on this, bring it to their attention, at least. But, from experience, I know how off-putting and counter-productive evangelism and witnessing are. So, what's the answer? I don't know.

[Klytemnest]

The only three reasons i can think of is,
People enjoy meat
They dont care about animals
They dont know where to start being veggie

I say they dont know where to start because i have had a few friends say they would like to be veggie but dont really know what to cook because they have been eating meat all there life and learnt to cook from there mother and got into a habit of cooking a certain way. I have offered suggestions and recipes but they have never asked for them, so i think i will add people are lazy to the list.

I know what you mean. In a few days we are going over to my former teacher's house for dinner. She asked me "What don't you eat." I told her I ate no animal products. She then asked me "OK. Do you eat fish?" Hahaha! This actually happens all the time to me. Anyway, after I said no, she said "OK... what vegetables do you like?"

I think you are right that most people don't even know where to begin. I sure didn't, back in 1992 when I first attempted going vegetarian. People think all we do is eat salads and vegetables. I think they seriously have no idea how rich a delicious our diet is, or can be.

Anyway, Jane is a wonderful cook and I am sure she will make something delicious and satisfying. But, bless her heart, she is a meat-and-potatoes kind of gal. This whole vegan thing must seem really odd to her...

[Klytemnest]

[quote=starlight;492150]Hi Klytemnest

You are imagining a conversation with a fairly combative tone - using words like "defend" and "counter-argument". I'm not sure I would relish being in such a conversation, or that it would lead anywhere except to more entrenched views.


Hi starlight. Nice name! Thank you for joining this conversation.

I think of these terms as standard debate terminology; I did not intend for them to convey a combattive attitude.

On the other hand, you bring up a good point about how sometimes discussions lead to merely becoming more resistant to the other side and becoming more entrenched in one's views.


Another way is to think about what we have in common and work on that. Surely, most people care about the suffering of animals (even if they don't link it to their actions).

Oh, how I wish I could believe that... I think we humans have a remarkable ability to disconnect our compassion. You've seen the way people kill spiders, flies, mosquitoes. I've done it (in my pre-vegan days). You've seen those awful videos of factory farm workers abusing animals. And you have seen how inhumane we can be toward other humans. I am not entirely sure most people care about the animals. I think they have the capacity to care for them, but I think for many, if not most people, compassion for the animals is dormant.

In my own life, I connected to this compassion when I saw my dad suffering in the hospital. He was tied to his bed, unable to move, unable to speak (he was intubated), unable to eat, hardly able to breathe. And then my cat was diagnozed with cancer. I realized that countless creatures, human and non-human suffer in the same way. And I thought that suffering is something that has to be minimized. And so I became a vegan. But different people have different experiences and are led to different paths...


Surely, most people care about being healthy. Surely, most people care about living in a beautiful and stable world.

Yes, those are more selfish concerns. And sometimes I think that if we care about the animals, these are the virtues of veganism we should extol. Become a vegan and you will live a longer, healthier life and you will be saving the planet for your children. Dennis Kucinich, who is a vegan, was on Real Time with Bill Maher. The host asked him about his being a vegan (he pronounced it "vay-gun"). And Kucinich talked only about what veganism has done for HIM. He did not address the issue of animal suffering. And hey, if that is what it takes to get people to adopt a vegan lifestyle, fine. This is why my mother eats vegan most of the time. She thinks my whole "obsession" with animal rights is just "maniacal", but she eats mostly vegan because she thinks it's better for her health.


If you talk about things you have in common, it brings them to the forefront of the mind and perhaps arouse their passion and interest so they want to investigate for themselves.

That's a good point.


Let your life be an example to others.

I appreciate your saying that. I am trying. I hope it's making a difference.


I believe eventually they will come round (even if it takes years or lifetimes), because in the end it's the rational and inevitable outcome.

You know, that is how I feel too! I know it's arrogant, but I feel that there is no other rational resolution than veganism. I am trying not to sound as if I have found "The Truth", but at this time veganism is the only logical conclusion for me. Clearly, I am not going to get an argument from anyone on this board.

Thanks again for your post, starlight.

Oh, and please call me "Rami".

Ciao,

Rami

[Klytemnest]

[quote=Korn;492000]
I'm not always convinced that you are convinced :)


You are not just being cute, are you? Convinced of what? Veganism?


No need to, but maybe you can help me with responding to the questions I just posted in that other thread... as I wrote over there, I'd like to make a questionnaire for non-vegans, and since you are the main 'humans are natural omnivores' guy here, you're the perfect beta tester for such a survey! And by the way, I think the 'humans are natural omnivores' topic is highly relevant to the topic of this thread...

You know, after the last experience on that thread, I promised myself not to go back there. Besides, I really feel that I have nothing else to add. But we'll see.

The reason I think it is an irrelevant, moot point regarding whether or not one should led a vegan lifestyle is that it is ethically irrelevant. And it was ethics that led me to veganism, so to me it is an irrelevant thing to discuss. The fact is that we do not need animal products in order to exist and be well. Therefore, the deliberate use of animal products (which continutes to animal suffering) is unjustified. End of story - for me.

The argument "But humans are omnivores; nature made us to be omnivores, so there is nothing wrong with eating meat" is not an ethical argument. It is a mere attempt at justification which is easily trumped by the ethical argument that it is unjustified to deliberately cause unnecessary suffering.

I do not blame you for wanting to discuss this, as it is an excuse that is often voiced by non-vegans. I choose to trump it with the ethical argument; you choose to attack it head on. If it's OK with you, I'll just sit this one out.


Invalid myths may trigger something in me, but you don't piss me off.

Really? OK. I'll try harder, then. :D Kidding!


Plus, again: we don't kick people out for their opinions (unless they are anti-vegans, in which case they have come to the wrong site)...

You told me that I was spamming and that if I wanted to maintain my membership, I should answer your questions.

I am afraid the same thing is going to happen, Korn. I don't know what more I can contribute on that thread that I have no said already. It's just going to lead to bad feelings. You doubt my veganism enough already. I don't want to make it worse by appearing to argue FOR the omni position. So, I am not going enter into that conversation again. Not here, anyway.



It's very relevant for the 99% of the population that aren't vegans...!


It may be relevant to them because it is a convenient justification, but in terms of ethics it is a moot point.

However, for many people the ethical argument for becoming vegan is irrelevant. Some become vegan because of health, some because of environmental concerns, etc. So, it is a discussion wirth having. I simply choose to abstain from it.


Apparently he's a vegetarian, but due to your quoteophobia, you set up what I wrote so it seems that he said what I actually said. :)

Sorry about that. I thought that was what he said. I am going to QA (quoteophobic anonymous) on Thursday nights. They think my name is Klytemnest...


So - sorry, but no Platonic hug yet

Fine, be that way. I'll hug Sandra instead. :p



- please answer my questions first. It's good for your blood pressure!


You are trying to kill me, aren't you?

Bye for now.

Rami

[Korn]

I don't know what more I can contribute on that thread that I have no said already.

What about answering the questions you claim you already have answered? :)


You doubt my veganism enough already.
No, but referring to what you have explained, veganism is relatively new to you, and maybe you intuitively feel that it's the right thing, but haven't thought of all the comments that may pop up when you discuss veganism with others. We've had several threads from people who almost ask 'what should I answer if an omni says this or that', and while we all probably agree that 'group think' and cultism is something we want to stay away from, it's 101% legitimate to ask how others would respond to certain questions.




I don't want to make it worse by appearing to argue FOR the omni position.
Since you told us that you have decided to go vegan only 1 year and three days ago, you're a valuable source here, Klytemnest! I have never been pro eating animals products, so I sometimes have a hard time understanding how people can defend hunting, factory farming or keeping animals in captivity for their milk and then kill them when they're not useful anymore. You can help all the non-vegan visitors (non-members, or course, since this is a site for vegans only) by just inserting the answers to those questions the way you would have answered them if you wouldn't have been a vegan (just mention, again, that these opinions aren't your own, if that makes you feel more comfortable!).

I have encouraged you to participate in two way communication, and answer similar questions before, but you instead claimed that you had answered these questions but that I didn't get the answer I was looking for - which is plain wrong.

I'm seriously not worried about whether you or others agree with me or not. Our site even welcomes non-vegans as long as they eat vegan and don't use our bandwidth to promote use of animal products. I really hope you will consider looking at those questions, because you claim that you have answered the other questions, and you simply haven't - instead you repeated your conclusions many times - with increased intensity - but not how you got there. You claim that humans are natural omnivores, but to be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean by 'natural'... or even 'omnivores'.

Maybe you're just confused - and while that's totally fine, when I make a real effort of finding out what you mean by 'adapted' (can we really consider ourselves adapted to a diet if it is associated with a number of serious health problems?), you don't really respond, but instead move from "I guess are adapted to an omni diet' to claiming that humans being adapted to meat is an "indisputable fact". Many vegans think this 'fact' is disputable, but to just state that it's indisputable just doesn't cut it for us... it may even give the impression that you don't respect our viewpoints, or prefer to ignore them.

You left the other discussion (the one you started with a link to a youtube movie made by someone who claim humans are omnivores), and now you start a new thread focusing on pro-omnivorous arguments. Since the most common "argument" used by omnivores is to claim that we are all "natural omnivorous", that specific topic is essential when looking for the 'best' pro-omnivorous arguments, isn't it?

You have claimed that humans are omnivores in the Roadkill-thread, in the Did Humans Always Eat Meat-thread and in several other threads. Last fall you told us that you had not encountered a single argument for adopting an omnivorous lifestyle that you could not defeat, this year you talk about eating meat without feeling bad about it ("obey nature"), and that 'the facts are on their side"...

Your many anti-religious posts were reported as 'spam' last year, and I'm sure you remember that you got a warning from a mod about that. I have encouraged you to actually answer the questions re. natural omnivores, because otherwise, your posts look like spam/trolling, but you haven't answered them (yet), and in another thread today, people are questioning how you discuss religion again... My humble suggestion is that you decide if you actually want to discuss with and respond to others, or if you mainly want to promote your own conclusions... and (and I'm not threatening you here, I'm encouraging you to answer questions directed to you as part of discussions you have brought up) if you don't want to participate in this kind of two way communication - which this forum is all about - why not just let go of the discussions here...

I really want to understand what you mean about that 'natural omnivores' thing, and spent almost two hours this morning setting up detailed questions about that very topic, and if you want to avoid 'bad feelings', as you call it, I'll just repeat that for many of us, 'disagreement' doesn't feel bad, and that running away from a topic you brought up when the questions get difficult (I may be totally wrong, but that's what it looks like for me) is neither necessary or make any of us feel better. :)

Communication is so much more interesting than verbal 'fights' - and we're all vegans, so we are used to disagreeing with others... so please, please don't worry about that part. :)

[frank language]

Meat is delicious; that's the only reason you need.

I hear it again and again: "I love meat! I respect vegetarians and treat them nice, but I love meat too much to give it up." Case closed.

[Ruby Rose]

@ Korn - your posts are always so thoughtful and interesting to read, but I hope you'll allow me to say that on this issue, you and Rami are going round in circles and it's a repetitious and not very edifying read. You seem to be saying over and over again "answer questions about the notion of a "natural omnivore".", Rami is saying "I don't want to" over and over again. It's definitely taking this thread off-track. Would it be better to leave the discussion with Rami where it is on this thread - and if he wants to pick up on the survey thread, he can?

[Klytemnest]

[quote=Korn;492226]and while we all probably agree that 'group think' and cultism is something we want to stay away from, it's 101% legitimate to ask how others would respond to certain questions.

I am glad to hear it. And that is what I did with this thread. But despite my statement that I was not "backsliding" and that I simply wanted to hear your opinions so I could better debate with omnivores, I still sense that you are suspicious of my motives - by saying


now you start a new thread focusing on pro-omnivorous arguments

Am I just being sensitive, or are you implying that you suspect this may be my way of promoting pro-omnivorous arguments?

Like I said, some arguments are more reasoned, more reasonable than others. I know none of the arguments are "good" - if I thought they were, I wouldn't be a vegan. I was simply asking the forum members to tell me what they thought was the most reasonable pro-omnivorous argument so that I could form a better counterargument.

Since you told us that you have decided to go vegan only 1 year and three days ago, you're a valuable source here, Klytemnest!

I have been vegan since the summer of 2006. So it's been two years now.


I have never been pro eating animals products, so I sometimes have a hard time understanding how people can defend hunting, factory farming or keeping animals in captivity for their milk and then kill them when they're not useful anymore. You can help all the non-vegan visitors (non-members, or course, since this is a site for vegans only) by just inserting the answers to those questions the way you would have answered them if you wouldn't have been a vegan (just mention, again, that these opinions aren't your own, if that makes you feel more comfortable!).

I am sure you mean well, Korn, but I gotta be honest with you. I am slightly resentful of this. It sounds like, in the absence of omnis on this board, you are asking me to represent them, to perhaps even argue on their behalf. Why me? I am not the most recent vegan on this board. And besides that, I have not been an omnivore since 1999 (when I became an ovo-lacto-pesco "vegetarian"). I cannot help but wonder if you feel that I am the member of this forum who is most sympathetic to the omni viewpoint. I hope I am just being sensitive, but I feel that I have to honestly tell you, I am not comfortable with this. You say that I can state that these opinions are not my own, but experience has taught me that such disclaimers are ineffective. If I represent the omni point of view, sooner or later the members' perception of me will be colored by these responses.


Maybe you're just confused - and while that's totally fine, when I make a real effort of finding out what you mean by 'adapted' (can we really consider ourselves adapted to a diet if it is associated with a number of serious health problems?), you don't really respond, but instead move from "I guess are adapted to an omni diet' to claiming that humans being adapted to meat is an "indisputable fact". Many vegans think this 'fact' is disputable, but to just state that it's indisputable just doesn't cut it for us... it may even give the impression that you don't respect our viewpoints, or prefer to ignore them.

I do not recall exactly how it all went down, nor do I care to refresh my memory, as the whole experience was very unpleasant for me. Part of the reason I left the discussion was your tone. And then the warning. I am afraid it is going to happen again. So I don't want to go down that road again, Korn. With all due respect.


You left the other discussion (the one you started with a link to a youtube movie made by someone who claim humans are omnivores), and now you start a new thread focusing on pro-omnivorous arguments. Since the most common "argument" used by omnivores is to claim that we are all "natural omnivorous", that specific topic is essential when looking for the 'best' pro-omnivorous arguments, isn't it?

Well, that's a good point. OK. So, your answer to my question is "the argument that humans are natural omnivores." And I know how you defend your position. Thank you; I appreciate your input. I'd love to hear if other members have any comments on the subject.


You have claimed that humans are omnivores in the Roadkill-thread, in the Did Humans Always Eat Meat-thread and in several other threads. Last fall you told us that you had not encountered a single argument for adopting an omnivorous lifestyle that you could not defeat, this year you talk about eating meat without feeling bad about it ("obey nature"),

But I did not present that as MY point of view, Korn. This was me presenting their argument. This is why I offered a disclaimer. I KNEW this was going to happen.


and that 'the facts are on their side"...

I have no idea what this is about. Can you include the context in which I allegedly wrote this?


Your many anti-religious posts were reported as 'spam' last year, and I'm sure you remember that you got a warning from a mod about that. I have encouraged you to actually answer the questions re. natural omnivores, because otherwise, your posts look like spam/trolling, but you haven't answered them (yet), and in another thread today, people are questioning how you discuss religion again...

Let me guess...


My humble suggestion is that you decide if you actually want to discuss with and respond to others, or if you mainly want to promote your own conclusions...

Why do you think I started this thread, asking for opinions? I am asking for discussion. I am asking for opinions. So, go ahead, opine. I think that is an unfair accusation, Korn.


and (and I'm not threatening you here, I'm encouraging you to answer questions directed to you as part of discussions you have brought up) if you don't want to participate in this kind of two way communication - which this forum is all about - why not just let go of the discussions here...

What does that mean, "let go"? "Leave"?



I really want to understand what you mean about that 'natural omnivores' thing, and spent almost two hours this morning setting up detailed questions about that very topic, and if you want to avoid 'bad feelings', as you call it, I'll just repeat that for many of us, 'disagreement' doesn't feel bad, and that running away from a topic you brought up when the questions get difficult (I may be totally wrong, but that's what it looks like for me) is neither necessary or make any of us feel better.

You are indeed totally wrong. I did not run away from conversation because the questions got tough. I did not like the way you were talking to me. And then you told me that if I wanted to keep my membership privileges I should answer your questions. That is why I left that discussion. And this is why, even though I am very interested in discussing it, I am reluctant to re-enter it.


Communication is so much more interesting than verbal 'fights' - and we're all vegans, so we are used to disagreeing with others... so please, please don't worry about that part. :)

I appreciate you saying that. But I am getting a funny vibe. So, if you don't mind, for right now, I would like to just mind my own business and return to the topic of this thread.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about this, Korn. I know it's time-consuming. One of these days I may feel differently. But for right now, I'd prefer not to enter that conversation. I hope you understand.

[Klytemnest]

@ Korn - your posts are always so thoughtful and interesting to read, but I hope you'll allow me to say that on this issue, you and Rami are going round in circles and it's a repetitious and not very edifying read. You seem to be saying over and over again "answer questions about the notion of a "natural omnivore".", Rami is saying "I don't want to" over and over again. It's definitely taking this thread off-track. Would it be better to leave the discussion with Rami where it is on this thread - and if he wants to pick up on the survey thread, he can?

You are right, Ruby Rose. I just posted another long post saying basically the same thing "I don't want to." That will be the last one. Korn and I can continue via PMs. (Oh, my goodness, that spells PMS!)

OK, so we are back on track. Go!

Rami

[Klytemnest]

I have always found in discussions with omnivores they usually can't 'justify' their choices. They try all the usual statements and then petulantly state, 'Well, I like the taste of meat' as if that makes it all right then.
Heaven forbid we get to the stage where we all do what we like just because we 'want' to. :rolleyes::)

I know... So how do we argue that doing whatever we want to animals is wrong? I mean, who is to stop us? Time and again they argue that God is cool with it. Without an ultimate authority, our conscience becomes the only thing stopping us. And if someone's conscience is not bothered by the deliberate unnecessary enslavement, torture and killing of innocent animals, then what's to be done?

Another poster said to me "You think it's unethical; I don't. You are welcome not to eat meat; I will continue to."

So where do we go from there? Have any of you had such conversations?

[Klytemnest]

Meat is delicious; that's the only reason you need.

I hear it again and again: "I love meat! I respect vegetarians and treat them nice, but I love meat too much to give it up." Case closed.

I know. That is a common response. If you think about it, though, what they are really saying is "I don't have to justify it. I do what I want and you have no right to tell me not to." I think reasoning with such people is usually futile. Don't you think?

[Korn]

You seem to be saying over and over again "answer questions about the notion of a "natural omnivore".", Rami is saying "I don't want to" over and over again. ?

I'm probably being to vague, and I'm sorry for that.
Rami is posting the same stuff over and over again about religion, it has been reported by several members, but I've been too busy and too Rami-friendly to really look into this - and apologize for that. He has received a warning by a mod (who agrees that he has been going way too far) about this issue many months ago, which he acts as if he hasn't.


He is also posting the same kind of 'arguments' meat eaters normally are, and has repeated that he is playing the Devil's Advocate, but doesn't want to answers questions directed to him about the opinions he promote, which is what we want people to do if they repeatedly promote/defend viewpoints used by anti-vegans.


We have this rule: "This forum is about two-way communication, and we expect people to participate and respond, not only to promote companies, sites, themselves or their ideologies". Rami has been accused for doing this by several people, and instead of answering questions, he now claims that he has answered them - which he hasn't - he even claims that the problem is that "I'm not getting the answers I was looking for" - which is plain nonsense.

The difference between spam/trolling and a real discussion is that people who troll/spam don't really want to respond to questions, they just keep claiming something event if others present stuff showing that what they promote obviously isn't backed up/followed up/founded in facts.

Rami has also recently posted typical stuff omnivores say, claiming that these aren't his opinions, but has posted exactly the same stuff earlier as his own opinions. According to himself, he is both playing Devil's Advocate and representing himself.

In short: We want two way communication - especially when people post this typical omnvore-myth based stuff normally used to defend use of animal products. Actually, the only way to troll here is to claim that you are a vegan but to keep posting things (and focusing on things) that omnis normally use to defend their use of animal products. I'm not saying that he is a troll/spammer, but certainly has behaved like one on several occasions, and has both received warning about it and a public message from myself about two-way communication being a criterion for discussing here (at least when people are busy repeating 'omni myths'). Maybe they aren't myths, maybe they are facts, but then someone representing these viewpoints should explain why they are facts and not myths.

Rami doesn't want this, and I see that he now has posted two new long posts and several others (which he apparaently have time/willingness to post), but still don't want to answer some simple questions challenging the myths he is so eager at backing up.

Instead of being vague and polite, I'll just deactivate his account for troll/spam like behavior, which I would already have done if I wouldn't have stretched my patience longer with him and his troll/spam like behavior than we normally do. I've been repeating my wishes for him to answer, but he obviously rather want to repeat his stuff (claiming that they are indisputable facts etc) instead of discussing with people who represent other viewpoints than his own.

The problem isn't that he hasn't got time to respond, or that the he has the opinions he has, but that he refuses to follow our guidelines, and instead accuses me for posting 'threats', and that I'm 'not getting the answers I look for' etc. A short glimpse on the two long posts after yours suggests that he seem to have time and energy for everything but a discussion about some of the rather extreme viewpoints he has chosen to represent (viewpoints which I'm pretty sure even omnivores who claim that humans are natural omnivores wouldn't have posted). It's his choice, he has been told what the requirements for being a member here is, and he clearly states that he doesn't want to put energy into meeting those requirements (which basically are 'please discuss if you have something to discuss').

Of course he is welcome back as a member if he decides to follow our board rules.

[Qaxt]

If authorities that were using the latest knowledge and studies three hundred years ago said that we needed meat and they are supposedly wrong, why can't the authorities that are using the latest knowledge be wrong now? There could be undiscovered nutrients that we can get from meat but not from plants!

Disclaimer that we've all been saying: these are NOT my opinions.


Against the "meat is tasty" argument:
I've had it before and, yes, honestly, I did find it tasty (at least it was, I'm not sure if it would still be tasty after abstaining from it for long periods of time). But, if you really want to, there are vegan "meats" that taste just like the real thing (if you're willing to search; I've had some like that, but most are a bit off, probably because nobody would buy them if they were exact!).

[Korn]

[QUOTE]
It sounds like, in the absence of omnis on this board, you are asking me to represent them, to perhaps even argue on their behalf. Why me?
Because you already have been busy doing that over the last few days, and repeatedly posted why you are doing it (playing the Devil's Advocate'. It was a suggestion, you didn't have to...


I cannot help but wonder if you feel that I am the member of this forum who is most sympathetic to the omni viewpoint. All I know is that you have the one most interested in promoting that humans are omnivores, and also recently started a new thread (this one) where you first post omni viewpoints and then tell us that they are not yours.



nor do I care to refresh my memory
Fair enough, but I can't refresh your memory for you.




But I did not present that as MY point of view, Korn. This was me presenting their argument. This is why I offered a disclaimer. I KNEW this was going to happen. This is completely wrong, and if you at some point want to refresh your memory, looking at your older posts will confirm this




I have no idea what this is about. Can you include the context in which I allegedly wrote this? See above.





And then you told me that if I wanted to keep my membership privileges I should answer your questions. That is why I left that discussion.
You admit that you have received a message that participating in discussing the viewpoints you promote is a requirement for being a member here, and then you decide to not participate in that discussion, but leave it. The fact that you posted what you just did makes it a little easier for me to deactivate your account. And again, I apologize to those who have left the board because/reported that K. has been having 'similar activities' in his hundreds of posts about religion. I haven't had energy to look into that - a mod sent him a warning, which he seems to have ignored - but based on what has happened in his omni/vegan discussions, all I can say so far is that its very likely that the same thing has happened in other threads.

I also apologize for having been to vague (or 'polite') in this context. We simply don't want people who refuse to respond to questions (about opinions they eagerly promote) and post false accusations instead.

[starlight]

Without an ultimate authority, our conscience becomes the only thing stopping us. And if someone's conscience is not bothered by the deliberate unnecessary enslavement, torture and killing of innocent animals, then what's to be done?


Education?

It's possible that:
- there is no ultimate authority, and
- veganism is the natural choice of wise and compassionate people, and
- many people are not (yet) compassionate and wise but they have the capability to become so

[xjvoorheesx]

i think when dealing with omnivores you have to leave the right/wrong aside concerning the killing of animals and focus on the treatment (humane/inhumane) up to the death. typically i have found that someone who is completely fine with the murder will agree that abusing an animal is wrong (use a dog or cat or horse as an example in order to be relevant to their lifestyle). get them to admit that if a person on the street in public sight was kicking, hitting, starving, drugging, dehydrating, chaining a dog/cat/horse to the ground in their own feces and urine or imprisoning them in a cage to small to turn around or stretch it would be considered cruelty and a punishable offense by law as well as being personally disgraceful under any morality (metanarrative)...then get them to follow that same path of reasoning and apply that same logic to each and every individual baby, adolescent and adult animal in a factory farm and pose the question...is that not the same animal cruelty you found so repugnant seconds ago? this is not an argument against omnivorism per se but it is effectively a codemnation of the industrialized animal cruelty. for the most part the average american is so lazy that this would end their animal consumption because they would be too lazy and it would be too expensive for them to buy free range, organic, drug-free, products. they will have to admit their own hypocrisy, amorality and cruel selfishness in order to say "...i'm still going to eat it..." and your response "i am not trying to tell you who/what is right/wrong to eat i am asking you not be a part of a system of brutality and torture that you agree is inhumane...". i find this argument effective as a way to undermine their argument that "...i can eat whatever i want..." because most are willing to admit that despite their speciesist feelings of superiority that rationalizes (in their minds) omnivorism they are opposed to animal cruelty.

[Zero]

i think when dealing with omnivores you have to leave the right/wrong aside concerning the killing of animals and focus on the treatment (humane/inhumane) up to the death.

I think this approach can be somewhat detrimental, the meat industry has been slowly adapting to this argument by creating welfare reform, pushing people towards so called "ethically raised" and "free range" meat and other animal products. There are so many exploitative foods wrapped up "cosy little phrases" that help omnivores feel better about eating them.

You should really be careful when using about your approach as you could be helping to create welfarist reform, which as we know, does nothing for the animals.

I know you have to start somewhere, but I just say be sure about the consequences of your statements. :)

[xjvoorheesx]

good stuff, zero...first and foremost is respect for all life...but when someone admittedly cares nothing about the life of an animal and views it as their right to kill and eat any of them they wish...then convincing them to "care" is next to impossible. i am all for idealism (i'm vegan straightedge, hahaha) i live as absolutely cruelty-free as possible in society but given the choice between animals living and dying in factory farms to eventually be inhumanely slaughtered vs animals living free range and drug free and organic and humanely killed i am going to opt for the latter. this argument isn't a blanket argument for herbivore vs omnivore but only for those people that will not accept that killing another being for sport, fashion or taste is inherently immoral, unjust and just plain wrong.

[songlife]

I have had a couple people who told me that they tried to be "vegetarian" or vegan but that something is physically different between us because for some reason their system, unlike mine, cannot sustain itself without meat and other non-human animal products.

Still, I would rather die than be responsible for the torture and deaths of 10000 other innocent sentient beings. I actually would choose death over becoming a non-vegan again. That might sound extreme to a lot of people but to me, choosing myself over 10000 innocent sentient beings is the extreme choice.

Hmmm... other than that, no I haven't heard one reason that comes close to "good".

I can't count the times I've heard "I need meat", normally said exasperatedly and with a grin, like they are a different species than I am and for some reason they need meat even though I'm quite alive without it.

Or, "it tastes so good". I say a "woosah" whenever I hear that one. I suppose if you have such a lack of ethical fiber that something tasting good (even when there is tons of other stuff that tastes good too) can be a good enough reason to torture and kill sentient beings, then for those humans, it would be a good reason.

Then I hear the "we are naturally omnivores for millions of years". This is true. However, it can be pointed out that we only ate meat when we needed to but our diet consisted mainly of plants, with the exception of northern folk where there were more animals and less plants. So when someone argues that it's natural, I say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYO4dfwhzvQ heehee, who cares! :lol:

[songlife]

Education?

It's possible that:
- there is no ultimate authority, and
- veganism is the natural choice of wise and compassionate people, and
- many people are not (yet) compassionate and wise but they have the capability to become so

*nods* yes, I wish we could figure out how to bring it about.

[Korn]

heehee, who cares!
Lots of people care, lots of people disagree that we are 'natural' omnivores, and even the guy in that video link is suggesting that we perform better on a diet without animal products... how is it that we perform better on a plant based diet if we are 'natural' omnivores unless nature is 'designed' to make us not perform less good than we can?


This is true.

The 'naturalness' om an omnivorous diet has been used as a main argument for eating animal products, and I don't see a reason to keep that myth alive - at least until someone can convince me that a me (animal + plants) diet is more natural than plant based diet.

The 'naturalness' of an omnivorous diet has been used as an argument for eating animal products, and I don't see a reason to keep that myth alive - at least until someone can convince me that a me (animal + plants) diet is more natural than plant based diet.


we only ate meat when we needed to But... for thousands of years, humans have been eating meat because they didn't have the level of knowledge and consciousness about food and nutrition we have to day.

Can a diet that makes us perform better (a herbivorous diet) be less 'natural' than a diet that makes us not perform so well (an omnivorous diet)? If not, why can we consider an omnivorous diet more natural than a herbivorous diet - and so on. Discussed in detail in other threads, I know - I just don't understand the argument behind the 'naturalness' of a diet consisting of animal products, or that such a diet should be more natural than a herbivorous diet. I truly don't understand it, and really want to.

Please take this as an encouragement to help me understand it - in another (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=491996&postcount=42) thread. ;)