Letters to the Editor
-
Effete Food Nazis
Only in overstuffed Murka does the tender sensibilities of widdle wabbit wovers have any purchase at all. Do you think starving people give a flying vegan what kind of food they finally get to eat? Are they stewing over tofu vs. meat in Darfur? My grandfather had a saying: there's no one more materialistic than a starving man. Most of the world is not in the position to stroll around Whole Foods and having organic orgasms. Of course it matters what we eat, and it is troubling how gluttonous this country has become in many ways. But this dogmatic horseshit about juding people for judicious consumption of animals or animal products is the by-product of smug folk with way too much time on their hands. Get real, if you can find it from where you are. Jeez.
-
Awww, Cary
...I'm disappointed. Ya, LW's vegan friend is immature. Maybe their friendship won't withstand that level of criticism. Bigger fish to fry here.
I was so sure that you'd have a moment of empathy for animals; you're so good at such imaginative exercises I was positive you'd have a flash of what their lives might be like, how we eat the anguish and terror that's stamped into their cells.
Human vs. animal is a straw thing. The larger issue of our eating habits is compassion. Not only for animals but for our own flesh and for the survival of Gaia.
You yummed down on the lamb, I don't blame you. (It was my favorite meat.) One day, I recognized it was just a baby animal. Maybe I heard it bleat.
I am morally lazy; only 90% vegetarian. I'm preaching to myself here. But vegetarians hold the high ground, in my view, and I am grateful to those who are "loony" (impassioned) enough to move me in that direction.
-
moral convictions
Personally, I can't standard the moral certitude of both Vegans and fundamentalist Christians, and I certainly can't stand the preaching.
BUT, as a person that also holds strong moral convictions himself, I often wonder what's the point?
I think of the Nazi Holocaust and how many probably voiced their moral objections over the treatment of the Jews. Were the Nazi's just as annoyed by them? Did the friendly Germans just keep their mouths shut for the sake of friendship (which is what seems many are offering as the "polite" solution here - be a good friend, keep your beliefs to yourself!)
If a friend confides in you that she is cheating on her husband, do you lecture her? Do you tell the husband? What if you are "friends" with the husband as well.
Even "clear cut" moral decisions aren't so clear to others.
Think long enough about these things and you come to the realization that the world is shit, and is full of shitty people that do shitty things. Any discussions highlighting the same only serve to starve off the boredom that would otherwise cause us all to put bullets in our heads.
No wonder people to towards religion...
-
Vegan friend-give her a break
I do disagree with Cary's feeling that this friend is committing a form of character assasination. So maybe she is annoying. We all can be annoying in one way or another. A strong friendship is built upon so many other things. If a person is a good friend to me in other ways, I can deal with many things. It is a deeply complicated issue, a political and economic issue, our nations food source for goodness sake, and I believe that dear friends who have turned themselves off to the arguments for animal welfare certainly aren't immoral people. It's troubling for many to think about.
I would say that through years of personal experience, that I have received more rude and disparaging remarks at various meals from meat eating people, sometimes strangers, about my choice to follow a vegan diet, without any show on my part to discuss my beliefs. I think many meat eaters make jokes about their Big Mac and juicy steak lovin' ways to be in your face provocative, to show how little they believe they think of the issue. I think the bluster is a way to cover up some nagging feelings of discomfort they might have for being put in a position of having to line up their actions with some of their their stated moral beliefs -- such as "I like animals" or "being cruel to animals and causing them to suffer isn't right".
Here is some interesting reading from a conservative about the politics of the animal industry.
http://www.matthewscully.com/matthew.htm
As far as Cary's implication that you are not what you eat-- -ok- philosophically we are all going to return to dust and it won't matter when we are all gone and our planet desn't exist any more, but in the meantime I don't want to be reminded that an animal died after living a pretty short and horrid life in a factory farm when I have a meal. So I am a much happier person following a diet on vegetables, legumes, and grain. I don't like blood and meat and veins in my food.
I don't try to reform or proselytize, but if someone asks...
I don't call myself a "vegan"--I am a person who follows a vegan diet. It is so cool now to slam people who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet as being weak fools and nut jobs. I see it all the time and just ignore it.
-
No, not black and white
I agree with Cary. You shouldn't have to justify yourself if you don't want to. Someone who demands you justify yourself obviously has problems with your way of life and is probably looking for a fight-- nothing you say will convince them otherwise, and this goes for both sides of the issue. If agreeing to disagree isn't an option, perhaps ending the friendship is the only thing to do. If you can't walk away then at least be firm in your own beliefs-- educating oneself about these things can only result in good, and the means to better back up your decisions to others (if need be).
As for the inevitable discussion whic has arisen, well, I believe people need to stop and think more before pointing the moral finger at others.
Certainly we all need to ask ourselves where our food comes from before we blindly injest things. But likewise, do you know how much energy your computer uses up? How green are the materials in your house? Every single thing we do every day, just living-- has an environmental impact. You drive a car and it pollutes. The more you drive the more you support the petroleum industry, (where spills have claimed the lives of thousands of animals) even if you carpool, or take the bus, or ride the train or own a hybrid or whatever. By just living in a house, you've impacted animals. I could ride a bike and then demand my friends justify how they can own a car, but then my bike parts didn't appear from nothingness either. Unless you are a hermit and you do not impact the environment in any way whatsoever, one's moral indignation about one issue is another's way of life, or vice versa.
I contend the reality of the issue isn't black and white. Perhaps I sit on the fence too much, but I can see the benefits of both sides and compelling arguments for both ways of life. As humans we can take the information and make an informed decision on what we ingest. As humans we have choices.
But I do take issue with the 'it's unethical!' side of it. Ethics are a grey area and always will be. People can argue for and against anything and never reach agreement, including issues ranging from monogomy, circumcision, homosexuality, etc.
Educate yourself and do what YOU think is right; lie to everyone but don't lie to yourself.
And the whole 'animal companion' not 'pet' thing is silly. Everyone that has a cat should know that you're just it's 'servant' anyway.