bugmenot’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Posting from Iceland...

  I'm a journalist from Iceland who attended the conference in Reykjavík (I can attest to the general antipathy that was directed towards hydrogen at the conference but can't tell if this writer was there as well) I just wrote an article about the nation's first hydrogen station and the stalled progress the country is having with the fuel as energy... check it out here: http://www.grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/The-Ghost-Hydrog ...On Electric vehicles crowd out hydrogen brethren at sustainable driving conference posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  tritesprite...

  "Please keep in mind that the veg/not veg debate only happens because we are HUGELY prosperous. Most people on this planet don't have the luxury to be picky (not to mention dogmatic) about what they eat."

  That's false. Hindu sects that practice vegetarianism do so for ethical reasons, and they've done so for thousands of years, rich and poor. The availability of ethical food there is a result of structuring the society to facilitate ethics, not some modern privileged personal choice. If an ethic is important to people, they make it happen.

  Poor people far from India very rarely get the opportunity to eat meat. So while the question of "luxury" factors in there, it does so in precisely the opposite manner that you imply.

  Even if none of this were true, and your wild assertions were accurate, what difference would it make? The fact is that you live in a society where it is logistically feasible to be vegan, so you can't use "lack of opportunity" to excuse yourself from making the ethical choice.

  
  
  Your use of the term "dogma" is telling. Though some people like to use it as a slander, as you've done, it ain't necessarily so. A "dogma" is a tenet that is held to be true without requiring other support: an axiom. It is not my dogma that humans should not eat animals.

  I have a different axiom: "a morally-aware being (like a human) is ethically bound to minimize suffering." Actually, I derive this statement from something else (more complex than I feel like explaining here), so it isn't technically an axiom, but it's near enough that we can treat it as one for the moment.

  If you do not agree with the statement that "a morally-aware being (like a human) is ethically bound to minimize suffering," then I would not want to be alone with you, and there's no point in carrying on a conversation with a psychopath anyway.

  But it's probably safe to assume that you're a decent person and you agree with the statement. Then, logically, certain things follow:

  Eliminating animal products from one's diet would reduce suffering.
  It is possible today for you to eliminate animal products from your diet.
  Therefor, you are ethically bound (to reduce suffering) by eliminating animal products from your diet.

  The only thing there that can theoretically be called a dogma is the notion that we ought to minimize suffering. I doubt you disagree with that "dogma." But, hypocrisy is the way of things. We're all guilty of it and I'm not saying you're a bad person for being a hypocrite. I'm a hypocrite too sometimes. That's one common way that humans deal with contradictions between our desires.

  You want to excuse yourself from the logical consequences of your own belief (that we should minimize suffering), so you use choice words to slander people who don't excuse themselves. That way you can feel righteous, because you're better than them. Comparing them to religious fundamentalists looks like a profitable endeavor. Let's try that:

  
  
  "This is a highly personal decision and an important one. Dietary religious fundamentalism on either side isn't helpful. ... And ignore the pious much in the way you ignore Jerry Falwell."

  Is this an apt comparison? Can this metaphor hold (the enormous) weight (of Jerry Falwell)?

  To decide, let's remind ourselves what's wrong with religious fundamentalism. I think Sam Harris says it quite succinctly: "Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people often devote immense energy to so-called 'moral' questions--such as gay marriage--where no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious beliefs."

  Well then, there you go. Veganism and religious fundamentalism are as different as night and day. Vegans are concerned only with actually existing suffering, not with phantoms, nor with moralizing about irrelevancies that do not cause harm to living, feeling creatures.

  Picking one's nose is a personal choice. Consensual sex involves two persons' personal choices. Eating another animal is by definition not a personal choice, because the animal's own will is necessarily involved and the animal has not consented. I don't concern myself with other peoples' personal choices. But when there are animals who are being murdered, I do have a duty to speak up.

  If you think it's wrong to be concerned with minimizing suffering, then let's hear it, but otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

  Again, everyone's a hypocrite. I'm not going to burn you at the stake for it. But it may hurt your self-respect, and the cognitive dissonance you experience is definitely going to damage your life in noticeable ways.

  For instance, it's already bothering you so much that you're lashing out with extremely insulting false analogies (Falwell) and loaded, deliberately slanderous equivocations (fundamentalism) to demonize people who represent your own self-doubt and dissonance. This need you have, to lash out as you've done, cannot be indicative of a healthy outlook.

  Something is wrong, and you're upset enough that you need a scapegoat or enemy, and you've found it in vegans. Maybe it's not your cognitive dissonance that's upsetting you; maybe there's something else more troublesome in your life. I can't know. But I do know that a satisfied person doesn't demonize others like you've done.

  
  
  You say you think there was something lacking in your diet that fish provides. That's possible. Could be omega-3,6,9 fatty acids. Could be something else. I would suggest that you wait some weeks until you get a strong craving, then go see a licensed medical nutritionist. They can do a blood test to determine what you're missing. Then you can find a way to supplement that with a vegan diet, and be healthy while bringing yourself back to your own moral axioms. If it turns out your blood test is fine, then you just like the taste of fish, and you're prioritizing your aesthetic preferences over other creatures' lives. That is exactly analogous to the "Simon the Sadist" thought experiment; I suggest you google it and then contemplate your self-respect again.On Umbra on vegetarian remorse posted 2 years, 1 month ago 38 Responses