Another Holiday with Meat Eaters :(

[Chris Tinney]

Every Holiday I sit at the table while a giant hunk of flesh is placed on the table.

I know if I say how I feel it will drive more people away from my message of loving animals and not eating them so I sit and I watch as people eat and I recieve compliments like, "you're the nicest vegan I know". I get peppered with questions that no one really wants the answer too so I'm short in my answers and simply say I have a brochure if they really want to know ("Why Vegan" from Veganoutreach.com). I feel good because every year someone comes to me and says, "I think I'm gonna try that". That makes me feel good.

What doesn't make me feel good is because I am more laid back people assume I'm ok with the jokes about meat. I'm not. I sit amazed as people that are overweight and unhealthy don't see the irony in telling me they don't think my diet is healthy. LOOK IN A FUCKING MIRROR PEOPLE!

We had ten dogs at our family xmas. almost all rescues. So I have to appreciate these people. But how can you rescue one animal and eat another?

I think if they walked in a room and saw the family dog being served for dinner they'd understand how I feel.

I dont have to live with an animal in order to love it enough to not kill it and eat it.

For that matter the homeless boy on the street doesnt have to me my biological son in order for me to love him and want to help.

Listen up all my Veg*n friends.
We're not the crazy ones.

They are.

What happens at your holidays?
How do you handle it?

[Shinobi Bombay]

Wo-deja vu

except I don't think I 'attacked' anyone. That's libel. But, I'll let it slide. Anybody who cares what my response was to this and to the blog which Chip is referring to can click on my picture.

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

No one libeled you in the legal sense, & no one said anything to you nearly as disgusting as your stereotypes of Muslims and your claims that Allah is "the devil," that Islam/Muslims are "demonic," and that the Koran is "Satanic pornography" (I must be reading the wrong parts...because even softcore like Lady Chatterly's Lover is more porn than the Koran. :-) ) Before I get around to addressing your Ahimsa blog in another post:

These excerpts I quoted from your blog demean ALL of Islam (not just those who behead people): Any Muslim could just as easily lump all Christians in with Crusaders or Inquisitioners or the KKK, and be just as bigoted...but I'm sure the majority of Muslims wouldn't say all Christians are "demonic," and I'm sure the majority of peaceful vegan Christians don't like when RADICAL-Muslims portray all Christians as "demonic". (do unto others as you'd want them do unto you. Didn't someone with the initials J.C. say that? ;-) If I said "Catholics are demonic, the Pope is the DEVIL" totally groundless insults, would Bill/Bramble like that? Well even WITHOUT anyone here saying that, they complained around pg 3 of this thread that they get flak outside of veghaven [perhaps not for groundless insults too, who knows...] so I already have some idea you guys wouldn't like what Bill's blog "does unto others". Many Xtians ARE good enough to "do unto others" though; I won't bash all Muslims nor all Catholics, only the radicals & bigots in each group.) Let me add that I try to give you credit where credit is due, Bill, whether it's your environmentalism or that you removed some of your more groundless insults...

...but then I see you groundlessly insult all Muslims by re-posting something that stereotypes them, and then uses that generalization to declare Islam "demonic" (hey you have a right to your opinions on Muslims, but then I have a right to my opinions on bigotry ;-) ) and violent... Sure, you're correct that there are many violent Muslims (there are also violent Christians...), but to make a blanket-statement about them all being "demonic" & insult their prophet is an unjustifiable attack. (not justified by reason or evidence) And yes, sure the Koran says lots of nasty things about Christians (just as the Bible says nasty things about Jews and Romans...), but many Muslims are contextualists* so they ignore those Xtian-hating segments of the Koran --just like you ignore certain distasteful parts of the Bible-- b/c those anti-Xtian parts of the Koran only applied to an ancient society*, right? ;-) And so the world goes.... It's a God eat God world... Well, except for the moderates who accept that others worship various versions of God(s) without being "demonic".) *Note: Many Muslims are contextualists even if the subject-matter IS applicable to the modern day (i.e. not just applicable to Mohammad's day). Same with Matt 6 (verse 5 onward) being applicable to the modern day, yet you said "contextualism" is a reason to ignore Matthew 6, and I say the next part only to show WHY I sometimes disagree with contextualism: We can see that those who pray where they can be "seen" still exist TODAY (Jesus condemned praying to be "seen" in Matthew 6:5 & the next few verses. In Silence Dogood No 9, Ben Franklin also covered this issue; these people also existed in Franklin's day.), and there are many more behaviors that Jesus condemned in Matt 6, but that are still done by many people today who profess to be following Christ's ways. e.g. Businessmen, politicians, and many others wanting to appear pious know that having a certain religion makes them more electable or gets them more business, etc, and they will pray as to be "seen"; this happened in Jesus' day and it happens today, so Jesus is teaching a valuable lesson applicable to today's context. I DO agree that contextualists shouldn't apply parts of the Bible to our society IF those parts truly don't apply to our society, but wherever a chapter like Matt 6 DOES apply to today's society, I think that shouldn't be ignored,

This Muslim issue is totally separate from your original [deleted] veghaven blog that attacked pro-choice-ahimsa people as "hypocrites"...but your Muslim-bashing is just part of a pattern of unjustified attacks on those who disagree with Catholic dogma. There's no rational basis for the way you've bashed Muslims pro-choicers. Bashing Muslims too, using equally-false stereotypes, is just par-for-the-course. By the way, I understand if you or your GF was drunk when you wrote your other groundless (off-topic or false) insults that you deleted, but... Do you write those Muslim-bashing myspace blogs when you're drunk? (or perhaps when you said "the point is mute” instead of moot, you were also drunk? We're all human, and make little grammar mistakes like moot vs mute... but bashing a whole religion usually isn't just a drunken mistake; it shows someone's true colors instead, IMHO (as most of what I post is MO, obviously).) Yes now I've said "bigoted" not just "attack"; those are my viewpoints, and you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to sue me for my [quite justifiable, given that I'm not misquoting your Muslim blog] opinions).

I'll address the flawed reasoning in your Ahimsa bloggings after this paragraph, but first let me make clear that I will keep defending Muslims and others instead of being silenced (especially when the bigoted attackers use the flawed logic of "False Analogy" which logicians have recognized as "sophistry" --i.e. deceitful debating tactics-- for oh...2600 years now). I think Bill and Bramble should have their free-speech rights, but everyone else and me have our free-speech rights too. Bill and Bramble were both fast to whine about their free-speech rights in various blogs, whilst deleting many rebuttals (denying others a voice). (Bill&Bramble deleted other "ignorant" people's responses whilst leaving up the oh-so-enlightened "truth" that Allah is "the devil"? LMFAO.) Perhaps only Catholics should be heard, because as Bill's blog about Muslims says, Catholics have the "truth"(tm). I guess Catholics, unlike Muslims, can prove all their dogma very scientifically to be "the truth(tm)"? (Most Christians I know --the kind of Christians I LIKE, as opposed to Christian-supremacists-- accept that 'faith' is different from 'truth' or 'knowledge'... or even different from what philosophers call 'JTB' (JTB is essentially rationality, Natural Science...as opposed to supernatural things, and logical-empiricism). Since neither of these religions can rationally prove [let alone they can't give absolute proof] all its dogma any better than the other religions of the world: When any Muslim or any Catholic claims only their religion has "the truth" and the other religion is wrong [or even "demonic"!] it's an unsubstantiated claim to supremacy over the other religions.)

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

Now I'll (finally) cover Bill's Ahimsa/pro-choice blog. :-) ...phew!

NOTE: I've edited the next post since you (Bill) edited your main blog entry to remove groundless insults etc. I'm glad you were sensible enough to so I'll "let it slide" (I'll remove my responses to the parts you deleted).

In his latest blog, Bill asked how anyone can follow ahimsa and be pro-choice (and not "hypocritical" as Bill said elsewhere on veghaven).:

The following wikipedia section Bill quoted already has a large part of the answer to Bill's question, but you (Bill) seem to have overlooked it:

"The extent to which the principle of non-violence can or should be applied to different life forms is controversial between various authorities, movements, and currents within the three religions [that follow ahimsa] and has been a matter of debate for thousands of years";
. . . So already, ahimsa doesn't need to put an absolute prohibition on killing, because if it did, the 3 ahimsa religions wouldn't have these disagreements. ;-) So, when is it acceptable, and how do some 'ahimsamites' apply the principle to abortions and justify that an abortion can cause the least "violence"?

Just as Bill said "an end to mercy for someone(s) in order that there be mercy for the rest," in ahimsa there's also a time to "end" non-harm/non-violence (as Wikipedia noted). <---I can apply that quote about "an end to mercy" to abortion (see next paragraph)...
...in the same way that many people will apply Ahimsa to abortion, e.g. as they do within this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=O_r0ZRzc4dgC&pg=PA89&lpg=P...

Now I'll be more specific about why, no matter where you fall in the abortion debate, you can't be 100% merciful or 100% non-violence in these next 2 examples...
1. If you're a legislator who believes in ahimsa (or mercy for that matter), when you legislate on the abortion debate, you can only choose between harming a sentient woman or a non-sentient embryo: either way you WILL do harm to one or the other. You either will give less mercy to the unborn when protecting the mother's interests, or will give less mercy to the mother when protecting the unborn's interests. Many find the least-harmful path (ahimsa) is to protect a sentient being over a non-sentient one, because the very definition of 'sentience' involves an ability to be harmed.
2. A pregnant woman can do harm to herself or to an unsentient embryo; many will again consider it "the greater harm" to harm a sentient being. And, for the woman to harm herself is still harm. (I'm only partially explaining this for the ahimsa people's sake, whilst also letting the above books.google.com weblink give one third-party explanation of how the pro-choice position in ahimsa is "lesser of 2 evils," since I don't personally believe in ahimsa but know many who do, and they range from pro-choice, pro-life, and inbetween. Ahimsa individuals disagree on which is "the lesser of two evils" in applying ahimsa principles...just like the ahismatic religions also disagree with each other, as wikipedia already noted above (better to be ahimsmatic than asthmatic ;-P ). Part of their disagreement is obviously because everyone works with a different set of knowledge from everyone else. Make it 2 sentient beings' interests that are at odds, and some would still choose the mother over the 3rd-trimester fetus; I personally wouldn't...unless the mother's life is at stake. I appreciate that you already agree with exceptions where abortion is ok, but just to make my position clear: I can't see the rationality of taking one sentient being's WHOLE LIFE in order to give another sentient being more CONVENIENCE for a few months (the last few months of pregnancy)...but I also can't justify denying a SENTIENT woman 9 months of her life by trumping that with the life of a NON-SENTIENT zygote/embryo; scientifically there's zero confirmed suffering that the embryo is conscious of. Of course no human's 'moral calculus' could replace a theoretical perfect God's, but until such an entity starts putting abortionists out of business & demonstrates his perfection, I have no realistic reason to think a God would be anti-abortion. Another reason I take a position in favor of late-term abortions if the mother's life is at stake is that the woman can suffer fear [mental pain] as she foresees her own death, but there's no proof the unborn [even a full-term fetus] can foresee that... and of course in cases where the unborn will die if the mother should die, it's a no-brainer: why sacrifice both their lives when you can sacrifice only one's?) Just as you noted there are times when mercy can't be applied to everyone, there are times when ahimsa can't be applied to everyone.

[Kellie]

"people who advocate abortion on demand will insist that the unborn isn't a baby, it doesn't feel pain or have sentience, and it has no rights."

The problem with this statement is the "broad brush" I have been talking about. I know lots and lots of people who advocate for pro-choice but at the same time, do not necessarily feel it is morally right in many circumstances. Yes, myself being one of those.

I do believe at life at conception, I believe that it is a life being taken, and I KNOW that shortly after conception and still within the first trimester the fetus has a beating heart and more.

At the same time, I do feel that the decision to abort MUST be left up to the individual and her care provider.

Regardless of where someone stands on this issue, I don't think it is accurate to say that one can't REALLY be vegan unless one believes in legislation that allows government to govern a woman's body and reproductive choices. What about birth control, while we're at it? The pill can prevent a fertilized egg from implantation.

So maybe to be a vegan you should not use birth control either.

In my opinion, that's simply outrageous.

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

Funny, I can see the following "striking similarity" between pro-lifers and the anti-vegan omnivores (and more similarities between you and them, but I'll give just one example):

"people who advocate abortion on demand will insist between the unborn isn't a baby, it doesn't feel pain or have sentience"

People who insist that embryos feel pain are denying the science that says pain is felt in the brain, that there is no synapsis until 16 weeks after conception (well after it's a fetus) and thus no way to feel the sensory experience we know as "pain," and even then neurochemicals which need to be released for normal people to "feel" the pain (and more) aren't given off until 19-24 weeks after conception. (and if you insist on calling embryos a "baby," you are denying...well, the dictionary :-) Embryos are approx 90% of all abortions, BTW.)

"people who demand to eat meat will insist that the animal is of a lower form"

There are hundreds of studies to prove vertebrates all feel pain, contrary to what many anti-vegans say. These anti-vegans are therefore people who deny scientific proof. (and as a secondary, minor issue: the ones who base rights on an animal's IQ instead of pain ignore the logic that Princeton U professor Peter Singer uses, to say that IQ isn't a relevant characteristic to use as a basis for an animal's rights --and even people's rights-- to our own bodies.)

Pro-lifers and anti-vegan omnivores both IGNORE SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Neuroscience is what I do...In case my paragraph talking about synapsis and neurochemicals didn't make it obvious to anyone who reads this. ;-) Bramble accused that those of us who aren't pro-life are the ones relying on "assumptions" (like anti-vegan omnivores do) about the unborn that are being killed. Yet Bramble has no professional experience or education to make these determinations on the "sentience" of "the creature that is being killed". My neuroscience experience tells me exactly which side (pro-life or pro-choice) is making "assumptions". Bramble relies on false "assumptions" about the embryos being killed, largely pseudo-science that's popular on propaganda websites. Good science is not based on "assumptions". (often formed out of religious bias... but I'll note that not all pro-choicers or pro-lifers have a bias, and not all Catholics nor all pro-choicers let biases form their decisions).

But Bramble exposed her bias for WHY she might misrepresent whether embryos are sentient: "inherent dignity because they give glory to God by their mere existence" has nothing to do with scientifically establishing sentience, but of course Bramble knows many veg'ns won't accept some a priori concept of "glory to God" and she therefore must use a (mis)understanding of 'sentience' to try swaying NON-Christians, using false facts as religious anti-abortion propagandists often mangle science in order to justify their religious beliefs. Good science doesn't start with a conclusion (Biblically-inspired or otherwise) then create evidence to support the conclusion; good science does the opposite.

Bramble's comments about 'sentience' disagree with the scientific consensus...people who've studied neurobiology their whole lives, and had their work peer-reviewed by OTHER ;-) people who've studied these issues their whole lives. I'm truly curious where you learned about fetal sentience from, Bramble? Sorry, but I'm a bit tired of "instant interwebz experts" like you who "play scientist for a day" and misinform people: It's not fair to the people you mislead.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"i am currently blogging a comparison of the defense of the omnivore diet with the defense of abortion in america."

And your point is moot because pro-lifers and pro-choicers BOTH share characteristics with the anti-vegans. It's silly to think that pro-choice AND pro-life alike won't have things in common with any other lifestyle choice (like omnivorism). Seriously, pick any two things, and I'll find some similarities between them. ;-) ...and that's why logicians from Aristotle onward have rejected your argument (BTW, Aristotle was very well respected by the Catholic Church, and he's the one who originally called the comparisons in your blog "fallacious" ;-), but I like his mentor, Plato, even better.) Your whole blog is what Aristotle called a "Guilt by Association" fallacy of logic: 'associate' pro-choicers (and ONLY pro-choicers, not pro-lifers) with someone they dislike, namely the anti-vegans...but ignore the fact (don't tell the whole truth...) that any two groups have similarities and can be "associated" (to the anti-vegans or to anyone else)...and that's why logicians have recognized your blog's style as "fallacious logic," aka deceptive debating tactics, oh, for only the last 2600 years). So I agree that the similarities exist, and in a superficial analysis, I would agree that some of your points show that pro-choicers are like those who argue against veganism; but the reason it's been called a "logical fallacy" for 2600 years is that when you think deeper about it, you're telling a half-truth.
I don't accuse you of PURPOSELY being deceptive, I'll just note that Catholicism gives you a bias as I noted above, just as you pointed out that pro-choicers can have a self-serving bias on the abortion issue.

[Shinobi Bombay]

In my humble opinion,as heretical as it sounds to Catholic ears,...Birth control is a fine alternative to abortion.I don't think that drugs should be used.Not even pennyroyal.As I'm pretty sure it screws with the woman's body.
Condoms are like guns.I'd rather have it and not need it,than need it and not have it.
But,given the variances of the human biophysiology in each individual, there is the possibility that one person may not be as dramatically effected as another.
I have to admit that you have given me pause to consider where the line is to be drawn.
At least you haven't run away like a certain sea pirate...

[Shinobi Bombay]

Holidays at my in-laws to be was actually very cool.They made stuff specially for my fiancee and I.They don't necessarily 'get it',but,they are cool with it.My sister calls herself a half-ass vegetarian,and my folks are also just as accepting.The only real problem I seem to run into is with people from my own faith(Catholic) who seem to forget that the Vegan lifestyle is condoned by thousands of Monks and Nuns and even the Fathers of the Church and many Saints. Very frustrating....

[Brittany Abstract]

Oh, this year was really bad for me. I confronted my dad because he always makes mean comments about my vegetarianism and the result was damn near apocalyptic. Seriously, it was not good. I even overheard them telling my grandmother that they think I'm mentally ill because I take offense to their mean spirited jokes. On top of that, we were in Kentucky for the holidays, where EVERYONE hunts and my sister gleefully pointed out every single dead, stuffed animal she saw in an attempt to get a rise out of me. They say that family is special because they accept you more than anyone else does, but no one makes me feel more angry and isolated than my family does.

I don't mind serious questions. It's the ignorant jokes and comments that I'm growing very weary of. This was kind of a personal story, I just wanted anyone else who's going through something similar to know that they're not alone.

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

"But how can you rescue one animal and eat another?"

"Custom will reconcile a people to any atrocity" ~George Bernard Shaw
. . . That's just how lots of people are, unfortunately, whether it comes to animal issues or otherwise.

"LOOK IN A FUCKING MIRROR PEOPLE!"

One part of the trouble is, some people think their body is healthy when it's not, others think their body isn't healthy when it is. In the 50's, many more people thought a darker tan, without limits, was healthier; less people today still believe that. (and sure, sunshine is good for vitamin D --esp for vegans-- but you can get vitamin D using D3 pills WITHOUT the skin cancer risks.) Plenty of people call vegans "too skinny" even when the vegan is within the ideal BMI and hip:waist ratio measures (I suspect each person does this for different reasons, e.g. cos obesity has become "the norm" so someone of healthy weight truly seems too skinny to them, or maybe some people are fully aware that putting-down skinny people makes them feel better about their own weight, or that it's "revenge" on me after some other skinny person who I don't even know told em that their fat is gross or whatever. I never say a stranger's weight is "gross" personally, just "unhealthy," cos I think "gross" is just being petty but "unhealthy" Is a bit more objective. And I say nothing about anyone's weight unless they ask or otherwise open the topic...and when my GF's ask, I'll offer an opinion only when they're not holding a kitchen knife. ;-) Also, the Old Wives Tales about veganism persist cos we have so little nutrition education in schools from REAL dietitians, hence the "where do you get your protein" etc).

I think if they walked in a room and saw the family dog being served for dinner they'd understand how I feel.

I think I'll try getting some worms and an aborted 3rd-trimester fetus from a med supply company, then for people who say "but eating meat is natural," I'll reply that the species 2nd-closest to us genetically is the common chimpanzee (many people forget the peaceful bonobo's are chimps and even closer to human genetics, and in forgetting this, they then try to argue "chimps are war-like, so we should be too, it's 'natural' "), and I'll say:

"The COMMON chimp is cannibalistic and no other hominids eat animals except insects... and thus mankind in his 'natural' state would follow a chimp's practices more closely....so, dinner is served. ;-)

Would you like a meal fitting for a bonobo (practically vegan but some insects), or a common chimp (vegan+a little cannibalism+insects)?"

Neil Gaiman: BABYCAKES. :-)

[Teddybelle]

I understand where you're coming from. In about a week from now, I'm going by chartered bus to a springtime sugar shack with a group of people to get out of the city, breathe some country air, go hiking and taste some real maple syrup.

I know there will be the strong scent of cooked pig flesh wafting in and around the dining complex, which I know will gross me out. I had to make a judgment call -- should I or should I not go?

Every time I go to dinner with a group of people, say, co-workers, I find something to order, yet it's not the greatest selection as I don't eat dairy. Of course a discussion comes up as to why I'm not ordering, and I say to myself, 'here we go again'.

To end the story, I called up the sugar shack. A woman answered, I asked her if she served anything that did not contain meat or dairy. The woman was clearly baffled, 'why are you coming then?' I responded, 'To be in the country and taste maple syrup, and be with my friends.' She thought about that and said they serve coffee and a muffins.

The irony of my story is that I live with a meat eater, socialize with meat eaters, yet for some reason the thought of going to the beautiful countryside (where animals live) by bus so that everyone can pig out on pig revolts me.

Jewel

[Karlyne Wang]

Hi~

I know how you feel. My entire family(save my Uncle and his girlfriend) are meat eaters and cannot see otherwise. Even recently, when my aunt was diagnosed with cancer and was encouraged by the doctor to eat more fruit and veg and less meat, we had relatives visiting her telling her to eat all sorts of things like bird's nest, chicken esscence(I'm Asian) and white meat!

And once, when I had just turned vegetarian and was having family dinner for the first time since, my elder brother asked me why I was turning vegetarian, to which I said 'it's like seeing dead carcasses on the table', he just scoffed at me and said 'well, at least you'll lose weight!' It was pretty horrific, but I think all these putting people down is a way of justifying their own meat eating, even if they do not know it.

I have learnt to not care about it anymore. I cannot change how other people view vegetarianism unless they want to change themselves.

My friends have recently decided to go to a Korean BBQ restaurant, and seeing as it's mostly meat on the menu, I decided not to go. I think not having to see my friends happily toss pieces of flesh on a hot metal plate is a lot more important to me than hanging out with them.. And mind you, i LOVE these people to bits.

[pradtf]

there is no reason to hang out with friends when they are being disagreeable.
you can always explain you prefer them when they don't have corpse breath.

in friendship,
prad