Very, very cool and I don't typically like tattoos. One thing, "you can't really love nature and not be vegan in this society"-- I have a lot of problems with that statement. That really depends on your belief system and definition of nature. I think it's very ignorant to so generally state that to love nature you have to be a vegan. I also think it's ignorant to say that you love nature if you aren't a vegan, but that's only because of my personal definitions of "nature" (which, what does it mean, anyway?) and I realize that I am being perhaps unjustly critical based on my own perceptions of what is right. It's like saying "let's face it, you can't really love nature and drive/ride in a car in this society", or if perhaps I were a Christian, to say that you can't really love the world if you don't love God. That's only true according to a very specific world-view that is not commonly shared.
I'm being really anal about wording, I know, but I generally see a problem with vegans being too self-righteous and indignant, which leads to ignorance and inflated ego. I posit veganism as a "humanitarian" (I can't think of a word that would include plant/animal life with this concept) effort that seeks to correct an injustice in the world that is partly in place due to ignorance and indignation and under-informed world-views (animals as a commodity). The more open vegans are and the more humble and less self-righteous, the more accessible veganism becomes as a lifestyle choice. Try to break down the 'vegans are crazy environmental assholes' stereotype.
(I'm definitely rambling to procrastinate on writing a paper right now, sorry.)
Okay I stated that poorly. I just think being so matter-of-fact about veganism being mandatory for environmentalism is hypocritical based on what veganism is supposedly against (the matter-of-fact eating meat is just a part of life, it's the food-chain, etc. kind of viewpoint). People love nature and the world and act as environmentalists in their own ways based on what they see as the most prevalent problems. The meat industry is a big one, but what of oil, or global capitalism? The vast vast majority of vegans are dependent on oil and big business/capitalism that contributes to a degraded environment. It's a lot easier to not eat meat than to avoid participating in an economic system that includes big bad MNCs, or to avoid being at all reliant on oil, but you've got to pick your battles. Some people might not pick veganism, just as some vegans drive cars.
yes. the argument that non-vegans automatically = non-nature is absurd. there are omni indigenous people, for example, who could easily be deemed more "natural" than most vegan urbanites.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. That is like a million kinds of untrue. What about rural loggers and miners, who know that their lifestyles are detrimental to the places that they grew up and love, but whose livelihood in those regions are completely dependent on their jobs as loggers and miners, since that is the only industry? Or farmers, who care about their environments and the species that occupy their bioregion, but who make their livelihood farming on land that environmentalists seek to protect? Those farmers have a deeper connection to the land than the environmentalists could from their cushy, ideological position. Environmentalists care about the world, but their entire lives don't directly depend (in the vast majority of cases) on the land or the species that they seek to protect. To simplify veganism into an environmental absolute is a complete fallacy, especially considering an ideal agrarian society depends on animal husbandry. Nothing you say is going to convince me that driving (or even walking) to the store to buy a plastic container full of Earth Balance that was processed with multiple ingredients coming from all parts and shipped from its manufacturing plant is a more sustainable alternative to milking your own cow and churning your own butter. That is just not true. Veganism is an effective way to show respect for the environment, but there are way better ways to do it, as well. Being so cut and dry about what "loving nature" means is disrespectful and ignorant of the myriad of issues that affect even our notion of what nature is, and what it means to love and respect it.
If you use electricity (and you have access to computer, so I know you do), you are degrading the environment. Other aspect of your lifestyle (unless you live in the woods with no electricity and gather all of your own food and never buy anything and never go anywhere except on foot and make all of your own possessions) far outweigh what you are doing for nature in terms of your veganism.
I don't even know how you can say this. It's ridiculous. Unless you were joking, but lj vegans typically have no sense of humor about these things.
Did you even read my comment? This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, and it is completely unfounded in anything other than ignorance. I don't know how what I said in my last comment could be contested with this degree of blatant disregard for reality or opposing opinion (when you yourself have no justification for your arguments).
And here I thought the omnis were the ones who weren't thinking.
You are a miner. Mining is the only industry in your region. You love your region, and for financial and attachment and social and whatever regions, cannot feasibly move. Why would you want to? You love it. You also have a family to feed. Do you a) starve or b) sacrifice and work in a mine because you have no other options.
"Love" has almost nothing to do with it. Neither does veganism, at this point. I used this example to illustrate that the ideas can be transcended into less drastic situations, and to contest an absurd assumption. But you're even arguing this. It doesn't make any sense.
If your goal was to provoke a reaction by emulating stupidity, bravo. Very convincing.
Okay. Let's go over this again. Actually read it this time.
I am a farmer. I love the land. Globalization and external pressures make sustainable farming uneconomic, and I am poor. I therefore cannot use crop rotation and therefore I degrade the soil.
Maybe that's too challenging for you to comprehend.
I am a farmer. I love the land. Vegans want me to give back the land to wildlife. I agree that wildlife is good, but not starving and dying is more important to me, so I continue to farm.
You are ultimately saying that it better to die than to eat meat or to degrade the environment in ANY WAY. The arguments I am positing now are flawed in their over-simplification, but I'm trying to reduce the issues to WORDS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.
nm I guess this is hopeless. Also, destruction of and love for a thing are NOT AT ALL opposites. Love and hate are opposites. Destruction of and restoration (or creation) of are opposites. DO YOU KNOW WHAT OPPOSITE MEANS?
lol me caring too much about this. But I refuse to believe somebody with enough thought and social concern to choose veganism would be so thick as to not understand that sometimes people have to make SACRIFICES IN THEIR BELIEFS in order to SURVIVE. There are a myriad of other issues here, but I'll spare you.
"Nothing you say is going to convince me that driving (or even walking) to the store to buy a plastic container full of Earth Balance that was processed with multiple ingredients coming from all parts and shipped from its manufacturing plant is a more sustainable alternative to milking your own cow and churning your own butter. That is just not true."
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Cows, as all ruminant animals, are intrinsically destructive to the environment. Because of the methane that is produced by cows (and pastured cows are worse in this respect than grain fed), Earth Balance likey does have a smaller ecological footprint.
It is actually better to eat imported vegan food than it is to eat local, organic omni, though, obviously, local organic vegan is best.
I'm being really anal about wording, I know, but I generally see a problem with vegans being too self-righteous and indignant, which leads to ignorance and inflated ego. I posit veganism as a "humanitarian" (I can't think of a word that would include plant/animal life with this concept) effort that seeks to correct an injustice in the world that is partly in place due to ignorance and indignation and under-informed world-views (animals as a commodity). The more open vegans are and the more humble and less self-righteous, the more accessible veganism becomes as a lifestyle choice. Try to break down the 'vegans are crazy environmental assholes' stereotype.
(I'm definitely rambling to procrastinate on writing a paper right now, sorry.)
Reply
Reply
the argument that non-vegans automatically = non-nature is absurd. there are omni indigenous people, for example, who could easily be deemed more "natural" than most vegan urbanites.
Reply
you cannot love or appreciate something if you consistently partake of its destruction, especially unnecessarily
Reply
If you use electricity (and you have access to computer, so I know you do), you are degrading the environment. Other aspect of your lifestyle (unless you live in the woods with no electricity and gather all of your own food and never buy anything and never go anywhere except on foot and make all of your own possessions) far outweigh what you are doing for nature in terms of your veganism.
I don't even know how you can say this. It's ridiculous. Unless you were joking, but lj vegans typically have no sense of humor about these things.
Reply
one of those doesn't belong
Reply
And here I thought the omnis were the ones who weren't thinking.
Reply
Reply
"Love" has almost nothing to do with it. Neither does veganism, at this point. I used this example to illustrate that the ideas can be transcended into less drastic situations, and to contest an absurd assumption. But you're even arguing this. It doesn't make any sense.
If your goal was to provoke a reaction by emulating stupidity, bravo. Very convincing.
Reply
destruction of and love for a thing are opposites. you contradict yourself by using irreconcilable concepts.
can't you see that you are your own greatest counter-argument?
respect for nature means taking care of it.
Reply
Okay. Let's go over this again. Actually read it this time.
I am a farmer. I love the land. Globalization and external pressures make sustainable farming uneconomic, and I am poor. I therefore cannot use crop rotation and therefore I degrade the soil.
Maybe that's too challenging for you to comprehend.
I am a farmer. I love the land. Vegans want me to give back the land to wildlife. I agree that wildlife is good, but not starving and dying is more important to me, so I continue to farm.
You are ultimately saying that it better to die than to eat meat or to degrade the environment in ANY WAY. The arguments I am positing now are flawed in their over-simplification, but I'm trying to reduce the issues to WORDS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.
nm I guess this is hopeless. Also, destruction of and love for a thing are NOT AT ALL opposites. Love and hate are opposites. Destruction of and restoration (or creation) of are opposites. DO YOU KNOW WHAT OPPOSITE MEANS?
lol me caring too much about this. But I refuse to believe somebody with enough thought and social concern to choose veganism would be so thick as to not understand that sometimes people have to make SACRIFICES IN THEIR BELIEFS in order to SURVIVE. There are a myriad of other issues here, but I'll spare you.
Reply
Reply
Please keep the personal attacks off of VP. Just because Ryan does not agree with your point of view does not make him "dense."
Reply
i rule is why i have awesome tattoos. and because i understand continuity, i'm neither dense nor wrong on this topic
Reply
"Bombing for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity"
I actually was having this very same argument with a coworker claiming he could Love animals and still eat them.
Reply
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Cows, as all ruminant animals, are intrinsically destructive to the environment. Because of the methane that is produced by cows (and pastured cows are worse in this respect than grain fed), Earth Balance likey does have a smaller ecological footprint.
It is actually better to eat imported vegan food than it is to eat local, organic omni, though, obviously, local organic vegan is best.
Reply
Leave a comment