Opinions on the topic of Vegetarianism - Part 6

A continuation of the topic. See part one for an introduction.

Note: From this point on, all the parts in italics indicate me (Ideoform) quoting part of a previous posting by someone else.

Ideoform Msg. 630

"- that you don't care if these people actually support the particular cause you are fighting for, so long as you can hang on the coat-tails of their respect to push an agenda- you want to take the respect of people like Mohammed, Voltaire, and Dr. Sagan, and use it for your own agenda, of which these people may or may not share the beliefs as you are interpreting them."

I can research each person's vegetarian status, but I thought you would want to do that, since you were the one to bring up that point. Then you can claim the credit and gleefully call them out as hypocrites.

If I only quote vegetarians, then I myself would not be in this list, since as I have already said before, I eat meat.

So are you saying that the content of the quotes don't matter if they are the opinions of someone who isn't a vegetarian?

"- you don't care what Voltaire believes- "

Actually, I've read Voltaire's books. I don't agree with his philosophy entirely. But he makes some very good points that aren't relevant to this topic. He was a good philosopher. I've also read many of the other's writings, except for the Catholic ones. (I have read parts of Vatican II, though.)

"The context of the quote doesn't matter?"

The context matters. That's why I said what I said about the quotes being pulled out of their original context. However, I really feel that from the content of the quotes, that they stand on their own because they are very strong opinions on the subject. It's hard to imagine any of these quotes being considered ambiguous.

"I'm saying you're warping Voltaires beliefs to suit your needs."

How is my quoting Voltaire here warping his beliefs? If you were to read more Voltaire, you might not have said that.

"You ...wanted to use the person's image-"Status Counts"- but now that it seems this character has a greater motivation, connections to the worlds largest Vegan Association- suddenly Status doesn't count for squat."

Status does count for squat, in that the Newkirk quote is from someone who works for the world's largest animal rights organization. That is a status. She's just not dead yet like most of the others. But time will remedy that.

I said that status counts with people. I used the quotes of various famous people for that reason. I consider a quote from a Peta member also to be a status quote.

But I also think that quotes have value apart from who said them, in that they might be articulate, and well-said. I said both of those things. Not one over the other. Both. You can have two values for the same thing.

I consider the quotes by themselves with no author mentioned to have value. I also consider who said them to have value in that many, many people look to others to help them make value judgements in their lives------including Ms. Newkirk.

"Jiperly quoting Ideoform: If you want to imagine conspiracies and hidden agendas and lots of intrigue, go ahead..."

Jiperly-----"Awesome, cause thats what I'm, like, doing. I think you honestly and legitmately decided to exclude Ingrid Newkirk's profession from the list as a means for misinformation."

Quoting someone is not misinformation.

Nor is it a conspiracy. I have no hidden agenda because my agenda has already been stated many pages ago, in various forms. Your agenda isn't hidden, either.

I could have included quotes by other vegans here and that wouldn't be misinforming people, either.

"Jiperly quoting Ideoform: It takes no true courage to defend the powerful."

"Jiperly---Then doesn't it stand to reason that its cowardly to support the police, and brave to defend murders and rapists? Why aren't you following your ideals to their obvious conclusion?"

It isn't cowardly to support police. Policemen are generally not considered the powerful in this country. They are working men and women who happen to defend others already. It isn't cowardly to defend them. It isn't brave to defend them. They can defend themselves, as well as others.

I think murderers and rapists are not weak people requiring bravery to defend. However, the lawyers that defend them might disagree.

It takes courage to defend anything from attack. But it takes less courage to defend the status quo, the already powerful, the majority, the ones who have no need for other's to defend them from anything except a change in their status.
==========================================

Ideoform Msg. 631

There is a lot of advertising promoting eating meat.

There used to be, in particular, lots of advertising that featured the animal themselves promoting the meat product made from it.

There were pigs, chickens, ducks, cows, and others who were given caricatures and jingles. They all acted very excited to be chosen for promotion, even to singing and dancing.

In this way, they had the best status of all--they represented themselves.

Cartoon animals promoting themselves for consumption aren't done as much anymore, perhaps because more people are pointing out the same thing you are doing with quotes.

Animals have no voice of their own except for their behavior and sounds that they make. To assume that given a voice which had words, they would not object to being confined, killed and eaten, is quite easy when it's pretty certain you can't ever actually ask them for a true, honest quote on their own behalf.

(I would think, that given the circumstances, even if you did have a way of getting a verbal quote from a food animal somehow, that it is doubtful they would give an honest answer unless you could for certain provide protection for them afterward.)
===================================
Msg. 632

H2O: "^^If you translate for us, perhaps I might reconsider.
Do you speak pig ?"

=========================================

Ideoform Msg. 633

Pig:

Oink.

Translation:

Oink.

People's general opinion about what this actually means:

Eat me.

(OK, don't get all weird on me.)

P.S. You started it......


=================================

Ideoform Msg. 638

Warning:
The following is a quote. Quotes have been known to be used out of context for the quoter's purposes, stated or hidden. Please note any discrepencies and report them. Please consider carefully who is being quoted before deciding on the meaning of the quote.

Read at your own discretion.

***Those of you who are wary of quotes, please look away.***

I love this quote. I posted this quote, relating it to disability, on my blog a while back, but I think it also applies to those existences who have no human status.

“Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life,
few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive
or even to hope,
by a limit imposed from without,
but falsely identified as lying within.”

~Stephen Jay Gould

End of Quote.
Those who are quote-averse may now resume reading the rest of the thread.
=================================

Ideoform Msg. 639

"As you said, its takes less bravery to support the status quo- again, if we take that standard of judgement and apply it to society, clearly it means you'd like to see more murderers, more rape, and frankly more anarchy all around, since the status quo is less murder, rape, and anarchy."

"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it,
nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it."

--- Maimonides

And yes, this is another quote.
===================================

Part of Msg. 640

"...I would just like to point out, that whilst these quotes are intresting and some of them are very moving, they remain useless to this discusion. These quotes do not provide any evidence or arguments for thier positions. As they are, they remain meaningless.............
For example:


“If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it.”
Albert Einstein

“If we're not supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?”
Tom Snyder...

“Better a mouse in the pot than no meat at all.” --Romanian

(---Many other quotes of this type omitted here.----)

...Now tell, me, other than being pretty words, what use were these quotes?"
==============================
Ideoform Msg. 641

Hmmmm, pretty quotes.....

Well, what good is arguing?

Nobody has changed their position from the one they began with.

New posters come here to present their opinion. They might read a lot here and take some of it into consideration. That might be good for them to have more to think about.

I presented my opinion, my agenda, if you will, way back at the beginning. I feel that sometimes the arguments go in circles. Each side presents "evidence." But in the end, what to eat or not eat and why is a very personal decision, beyond eating what is available simply for survival.

Whenever "evidence" or "proof" is presented, it becomes target practice.

Whenever a person's opinion is presented, its validity is questioned, the person's character is analyzed; are they Christian? Are they Agnostic? Are they fanatical? Are they "wimpy" bleeding hearts? If I push them hard do they just give in to any opinion that is presented forcefully? Can they spell? Do they belong to a group of some kind? What does that all mean?

"If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."

~Malcolm X

"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against."

~Malcolm X

Now Malcom X said a lot of things I don't agree with, like:

"Nonviolence is fine as long as it works."

~Malcolm X

But you can appreciate the thoughts themselves without lumping me into the category with Malcolm X as a black revolutionary because I quoted him.
For instance, I don't automatically assume that you follow this practice because you quoted it:

“Better a mouse in the pot than no meat at all.” --Romanian

I liked this quote a lot:

“An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons - marriage, or meat, or beer, or cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.”
--C.S. Lewis

And this quote:

“If we're not supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?”--Tom Snyder

...is just funny. Whoever doesn't have a sense of humor is too invested in the outcome of his arguments to really see either side clearly at all.

=============================================
Ideoform Msg. 642

What's left is inspiration.

What is wrong with doing/believing what inspires us? With becoming enchanted with an idea or concept or ideal because it is beautiful, elegant, articulate or compelling?

Arguments only convince others if they have some force of consequence. Is there a consequence to eating or not eating meat? These arguments can be picked apart endlessly. There is proof on both sides.

Some types of reasons are better for some people than others.

For instance, I switched to eating fish and eggs and small amounts of chicken and lamb when I began a very strict diet for Celiac disease. Yet, I am proud that I lived for 17 years without eating these things because I think it made a difference in the world. Being a vegetarian didn't cause my disease, but ironically, the year I spent on a macrobiotic diet after my daughter died of cancer probably accelerated the disease.

I am dating a vegetarian right now. I had no idea he was a vegetarian until after we met and had spoken about other interests for a while. It was not a requirement for me...but I am comfortable with it. His health improved dramatically years ago when he gave up eating red meat. These are real consequences. His diet is essential to his health. He's probably the healthiest person in my age group that I know right now.

And for other people, one of the reasons for eating meat is that they live in a farming community, and are helping the local economy to eat what is produced there. If they were to become vegetarian, they might be misunderstood as "not being supportive" of their community--a rebel.

Ironically, the last book I bought, to help my own health and my son's, was called "Gluten-Free 101." The author, who is very allergic to wheat (but not a Celiac) was raised on a wheat farm. Her entire extended family is involved in some kind of wheat production. Imagine the explaining that had to go on when she had to confront her family with her allergy results...

I can't eat anything with gluten or casein in it. Neither can my son. We aren't boycotting these certain proteins. Its not a rebellion. If I give up lamb and chicken, though, to eat the way my boyfriend eats, (which I have done) it is to support his decision because he has done it for spiritual reasons, even though his health improved so much it extended his life by decades, according to him.

I am then doing something I did for ethical reasons in the past,
now, for the same reason other people on farms eat meat--to support the local economy. I am supporting a person I care about.

He was raised on a pig farm. He says it was atrocious how the pigs were treated in the area he grew up in, he says they were cruel to them, but he ate meat during his entire childhood. The pigs fed his family--literally, and also through the income they provided from their sale. So I owe this man's existence in part to those pigs.

Life is not ever very simple, cut and dried. Life will surprise you every time with unexpected twists and turns and relationships between things.

But that doesn't mean we can abdicate all responsibility for thought, and reasoning, compassion and ethics. On the contrary, what we think, dream and conceptualize is the formation of the very future we are heading toward. The future we are becoming is the one we are formualting right here with our thoughts, intentions, desires, choices and actions.

========================================