Then honestly, you are in the minority, and it is you who is the finicky one.
I like meat as a part of meals most of the time. But I have also experienced wonderful, satisfying vegetarian meals.
And there’s no reason vegetarians can’t enjoy satisfying meat dishes, but we’re supposed to treat their dietary quirks as sacred obligations.
The difference is if I invite you for dinner, I would cook a meat dish. If I invite vegetarians for dinner I would cook a vegetarian dish. If I invited you and a vegetarian to dinner I would cook a meat dish and a vegetarian dish. You, on the other hand, would invite the vegetarians over and say “here’s the steak, eat up or go hungry.”
One of us knows what being a host is and one of us doesn’t.
I didn’t say I won’t do it, I said I don’t LIKE doing it. As a matter of fact I DO do it.
I don’t carrot all for puns – they drive me outta my gourd. But they just turnip all over the place anyway.
{grabs hat and coat, ducks, and hauls ass outta here}
And you didn’t cherry pick anything out of mine?
I disregarded the rest of your post as irrelevant. Personal anecdotes in support of rationalization are pretty much useless for looking at anything objectively. I said nothing about your personal eating habits. You’ve responded as if I was personally insulting you when my first post was not addressed to you in any way. If you hadn’t nitpicked my post and deliberately misconstrued what I’d written, I wouldn’t have had any reason to directly address you at all.
You don’t get to “debunk” someone’s ethics. The only possible reason you might have for doing so is if someone is trying to impose them on you. No one is, so you’re way out of line here.
How do you know that I don’t feel that I have some special relationship with God, or whatever my conception of God is, that makes me feel as I do about animals? You have no idea what my reasons are for not eating animals, and it could very well be related to my spiritual beliefs. Why is it only “acceptable” in your mind if those ethics are encoded in a religion but not acceptable if they are personal?
HOW DO YOU KNOW? You don’t. You think you can speak for what ethical vegetarians believe, even thought time and time again, it’s been shown to you that you are ignorant in these matters and are making a lot of assumptions about things you don’t know. Ethical vegetarians are not monolithic in their beliefs, so a blanket denial from you is impossible, because unless you’ve spoken to each and every one of us, you can’t know what our reasons are. Please stop telling me what I believe and why. I haven’t shared it with you, and it’s infuriating that you presume to tell me what it is anyway.
I’m not going to quit it, because it is valid. Who are you to tell me what my reasons are, and if they’re valid? What is your great personal investment in this? Do you not see how arrogant it is?
I’m supposed to quote the entire thing? I took out the part that was relevant.
Please tell that to Diogenes, will you?
Let’s go over this, shall we, since you’re totally misrepresenting what was said and alleging that I took it as some personal insult when I did not. No one deliberately misconstrued you, so sorry. I disagreed with you, and then you misinterpreted (deliberately or accidentally) what I said, and I corrected you.
Now, as for what you said I misconstrued, you said:
I responded:
This is not a misconstruction. You are saying that we are meant to be omnivores, quotes around the word notwithstanding, since you then go on to claim that vegetarian diets have no health benefits, a point that was rebutted by a doctor, no less. I disagreed with you, I didn’t misconstrue you.
Then you come back with this gem of misconstruction:
Well, that’s just not what I said, is it? I said there is no “meant” to do. We do what we want to do. What I personally do is apparently fine for my health, but by no means did I universalize that to say that whatever the collective “we” do is good for us.
Clear now?
I didn’t debunk someone’s “ethics.” I debunked the premise of a bad analogy. You didn’t know what you were talking about and I corrected you.
This is too inane a question to require an answer. You don’t think you have a covenant with God not to eat animals. This is a childish angle. Your kosher analogy didn’t work. Just accept it and move on. Don’t try to save it with ridiculous, non-existent hypotheticals.
Your ANALOGY was not valid. Keeping kosher is a religious practice, not an ethical one. Try something else.
I believe this is the identified contradiction: refusing to eat food that is offered makes one a dick, and yet you refuse to eat food that does not meet your particular requirements.
I believe that thread was about vetting entire menus with picky eaters, not just accomodating basic dietary preferences, so I don’t think it’s exactly the same, but I can see why it would look like a contradiction.
The same way you “debunked” the presence of protein and fat in grains?
Live on nothing but grain, and let me know how that works out for you.
Are you honestly trying to claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about WRT being kosher? Wow. No, you said you are debunking my claim that Jews are a good example of someone whose ethical standards apply only to them, therefore it IS possible to think something is wrong for you to do but not for others. You failed to debunk that.
It’s too inane to ask you how you acquired your awesome mind reading powers, which allow you to know what I really think or believe? No, sorry. I wish this was still in the Pit right about now so I could tell you what I think of your arrogance and condescension here. You don’t know WHAT I believe. I wouldn’t call it a covenant with God, because I don’t use the word God in my own lexicon, but I would call it a deeply held spiritual belief that’s as close to religion as I get. It’s not hypothetical at all, and you are way out of line to tell me it’s childish… unless you’d tell a Jew he was being childish for feeling that being kosher is a necessary part of his relationship to God. My beliefs are just as clear and strongly held as an observant Jew’s. You need to back way off with your snide dismissal of other people’s beliefs and ethics.
You are attempting to make a meaningless distinction between religious practice and ethics. Doing or not doing something because you think it will displease God, is a sin, or will alienate you from God or your community is an ethical practice. Why do you think it’s OK for Jews to make these ethical distinctions about diet but not people with a personal spiritual belief system?
And this is a real gem:
Yeah, that’s a great way to weasel out of admitting you were wrong about the protein content of grains. A person can easily get enough protein from vegetable sources. Nowhere was anyone proposing that a person would try to live on nothing but grain. Nice straw man, though.
You really won’t burst into flame if you just admit you were wrong, you know.
Based on this exchange, is there really any doubt about who is truly intolerant? The thread title has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.
Wow, you certainly get an A for weaseling.
Your assertion was NOT that “Grains alone do not contain enough protein and fats to sustain a human diet.” You assertion was NOT that “Humans can’t live on grain alone.” Even more important, no-one in this thread has ever asserted that humans can or should live on nothing but grain.
Your assertion, in case you forgot, WAS:
I’m just curious whether that statement indicates:
a) That you already knew that grain contained protein and fat, but decided to lie about it in order to bolster your increasingly ridiculous argument.
b) You didn’t know, suggesting that your incessant assertions regarding health and nutrition in this thread are based mainly on ignorance.
Either way, you come out looking like a bit of a chump.
About as well as living on nothing but meat. Oddly enough, I haven’t seen anyone here propose any such thing either way.
Insofar as Diogenes is representative of all non-vegetarians. As for the title, “Are” almost certainly should have been “Can Be.” But then, non-contentious thread titles rarely demand 8 pages of… this.
(I read this thing for 8 pages and had to say something)
Your post did not show knowledge.
Keeping kosher per se is not an ethical standard. It’s part of a covenant that only they are bound by. There is no comparison there to ethical vegetarianism which is based on a premise that eating animals per se is an unethical act.
You’re missing the point. This tangent has nothing at all to do with anyone needing to justify their dietary decisions, but with the inconsistency of claiming to think a per se act is unethical for some but not others. What’s childish is then trying to save the misplaced kosher analogy by pretending there might be some similar covenant between God and only vegetarians that I don’t know about. No there isn’t.
It’s not meaningless at all. Not all religious requirements have anything to do with ethics.
[quote]
Doing or not doing something because you think it will displease God, is a sin, or will alienate you from God or your community is an ethical practice
[/quote
Not really true, and you still don’t get that whatever ethical principle is involved with keeping kosher has nothing to do with the per se diet, but with keeping a promise. As an analogy, if I promise to buy my kids ice cream after their dentist appointment, and then don’t do it, the ethical breech is not in failing to buy the ice cream, but in breaking a promise. Vegetarians have no similar agreement which exludes omnivores. They think the per se act of killing and eating animals is unethical. That’s why keeping kosher is not a valid analogy.
The latter people don’t believe they have a special covenant with God that includes only them.
Please understand that I’m not saying it’s illogical to be an ethical vegetarianism, I’m saying it’s disingenuous to say you only think it’s unethical for YOU to eat factory farm beef, but fine for everyone else. If cruelty to animals is the issue, then the cruelty remains regardless.
There are tribal cultures who do live on nothing but meat.
Cite?
The Maasai, for one.
Arctic peoples have also traditionally survived on nothing but fish and meat. Not a lot of crops up there.