Kevin's Watch

if it's acceptable for meat-eaters to have a certain moral cut-off point, (which most do, for example, most would not accept cannibalism), then what difference does it make that vegetarians have a different one?

Avatar, the difference is that the cut-off point for vegetarians is contradictory to their main principle (i.e. that lower lifeforms deserve our respect and sympathy), while there is no contradiction in the cut-off point of meat-eaters. For vegetarians to say that lower lifeforms deserve our respect and sympathy, then limit this to only a few, and BASE that limit on the fact that everything below the cut-off point is too lowly/primitive/unaware/unmoving/etc. to make the cut . . . this is inherently contradictory to their stated moral principle.

On the other hand, the cut-off point for meat-eaters doesn't contradict their stated belief that A) animals and plants do not have the same rights as humans, and B) humans have equal rights to life. This cut-off point is precisely in line with both A and B; in fact, it is simply a restatement of those beliefs.

dont prejudge me please. my choosing not to eat meat in no way implies that i think myself to hold the moral high ground.

Tazz, I wasn't prejudging you. I was arguing against the moral componant of vegetarianism. If this analysis made you defensive, then perhaps it is because you adhere to the moral component despite your protests?

just admit that you like the taste of meat and you dont have the discipline or the inclination to give it up even if a non-meat/dairy diet is healthier. (how can that be logical btw?)

It is not a matter of discipline. Inclination, yes. And after researching this issue, I do not believe that the vegetarian lifestyle is inherently healthier. It boils down to personal choice, moderation, and variety. There are pros and cons to any type of food (many popular plants have natural toxins, for instance). No extreme is healthy. [Side note: the only case of food poisoning I've ever had was from a salad.]

fad! 2000 years seems a rather long fad if you ask me.

I call vegetarianism a fad because many people choose it for social reasons--based on the people they hang out with. This is an observation based on personal experience. Let me give you an example: back in college, I went to a chinese restaurant with two friends. One of them, a declared vegetarian, accidentally ordered something with meat in it. Once he was made aware of it, he didn't want to waste his money by throwing it away, or expose his ignorance by asking for a replacement. So he went ahead and ate it, with the provision that we didn't tell anyone.

My impressions of vegetarians are based on experiences like this. People want to fit in with certain groups, so they adopt their dress, speech, music, and eating habits to fit in. When you change your behavior to assimilate into a group, I call this a fad--a temporary behavior pattern for the purpose of group approval.

If that doesn't describe you, then take pride in your moral high ground, rather than denying it. Or--and this is just conjecture, not accusation--perhaps there are people in your own life whom you'd feel ashamed to see you eating meat?

Malik,

i see your point. any vegetarian that holds their beliefs on the premise that all life is equal is making arbitrary exclusions. its an interseting argument and not one i'd considered to be honest. how many vegetarians fall into this moral catagory? i dont know. i would suggest that you dont either.

Tazz, I wasn't prejudging you. I was arguing against the moral componant of vegetarianism. If this analysis made you defensive, then perhaps it is because you adhere to the moral component despite your protests?

if you persist in questioning my stated reasons i see no point in continueing this debate. you may have percieved my comments to be defensive. i saw a thread with you as the chief denigrator of vegetarianism and that you had made generalistaions. i may have mis-read them, i dont see it as a big deal.

where i can, without spiralling into absurdity, i choose to live my life without the need for others to suffer. its a rather simple logic.

I do not believe that the vegetarian lifestyle is inherently healthier.

your correct ofcourse. i take my fitness and health extremely seriously and as a result also did a lot of research before i became a vegan. i, possibly, approached the issue from the opposite side 'could i become a vegan without it impacting on my training'. my conclusion was that any diet consisting of meat, if consumed in considerable moderation is perfectly adequate but requires that you not eat a lot of meats and that you cook those meats that you can in a way(and lets be honest) that takes all the taste away.

and as a footnote, i would argue that dairy, from a health point of view is far worse than any meat. cows milk is simply bad for you. cheese isn't much better.

but cheese is tasty.

try being a veg in beef loving Texas btw.

and oddly enough, most don't question my decision. i thought my friends and family would find it odd. they just accepted it and helped where they could. many friends have made meat free alternatives for me. our police Christmas was one occassion.

I have a picture in my head of one of the bloodguard wacking a cow to feed the lords....LOL
Meat just dont taste the same after such a visual....

Syl wrote:Perhaps there's room for animal lore... you know, a few deep, unintelligible words sung to a cow and it gives you a tenderloin or something then walks away.

Clearly SRD missed the boat on the sung meat. Imagine Baradakas trying the test of truth on Covenant with a sausage.

Nah, I think if he thought about it, he would've gone about it like Jews do with kosher meat and all, but probably with even more gravitas (and really, who's to say they didn't?). I don't really see them being vegans. It's not like they didn't use wood and stone. They just did so respectfully, keeping things in balance.

Glad to see this thread still plugging along, though. I didn't really expect anyone to take it seriously.

And Tazz, even though I really like meat, I respect your choice. Not in the sense that I tolerate it, either. Like these guys.

Jainism teaches that every single living thing is an individual and eternal soul, called jīva, which is responsible for its own actions. Jains see this faith as teaching the individual to live, think and act in ways that respect and honor the spiritual nature of every living being to the best of one's human abilities. Jains view God as the unchanging traits of the pure soul of each living being, chief among them being Infinite Knowledge, Perception, Consciousness, and Happiness (Ananta Jnän, Ananta Darshan, Ananta Chäritra, and Ananta Sukh). Jainism does not include a belief in an omnipotent supreme being or creator, but rather in a universe regarded as eternal and governed by natural laws based on the interplay of the attributes (gunas) of the substances (dravyas) that make up the cosmos.

...

Compassion to all fellow living beings (along with humans) is central to Jain belief. Jainism is the only religion wherein all followers, both monks and practicing lay persons of all sects and traditions, are required to be vegetarian...

As part of its stance on nonviolence, Jainism goes even beyond vegetarianism, in that the Jain diet also excludes most root vegetables, as Jains believe such vegetables have an infinite number of individual souls, invisible to the naked eye. Jains also do not eat certain other foods believed to be unnecessarily injurious. Many Jains are also vegan, due to the cruelty and violence inherent in modern dairy farms.

<<edit>>Danlo, I think we already talked about this or if not, you probably already know, but...

The ethical code of Jainism is taken very seriously. Summarized in the Five Vows, they are followed by both lay people and monastics. These are:

1. Nonviolence (ahinsa, or ahimsa)
2. Truth (satya)
3. Non-stealing (asteya)
4. Chastity (brahma-charya)
5. Non-possession or Non-possessiveness