SmashingIdols

Droolian and SmashingIdols - Let's pick this up here, and deal with one question at a time.

Should we introduce ourselves first, and state our positions?

SmashingIdols

Okay, I will lead off...

I am some anonymous internet user who believes that while shifting to a diet relying moreso on grains/vegetables/legumes is a great idea, the complete elimination of animal products from the diet is a bad idea.

In a nutshell, I believe that eating the occasional animal protien is natural, nutrionally sound, environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, and mentally healthful.

Conversely, I believe that the elimination of animal product consumption on the entire planet would be unnatural, nutrionally unsound, environmentally unsustainable, socially repressive, and mentally ill.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

The AntiChris

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Chris

SmashingIdols

Which part?

The AntiChris

The part quoted - mentally ill.

Chris

SmashingIdols

I would rather go through my points one at a time.

However, if you would like to do the list in reverse, fine. I was hoping droolian would do this one on one - he seemed to be able to raise some coherent arguments and responses.

Mentally ill:

Holding a dietary guideline which in effect carves you out from the soceital norm, implying some superior or more enlightened morality, putting you at odds with what is accepted behavior, and ultimately implying judgement of societal standards as inferior to one's own, despite the scientific evidence and history of man's diet, despite the impossibility of making all homo-sapiens comply with your diet - and desiring to make those changes nonetheless, is mentally unhealthfull behavior.

Smacks of cultism.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

The AntiChris

SmashingIdols

You mean people like environmentalists, pacifists......atheists?


Would that be the scientific evidence linking meat-eating to to heart disease?

I take it you see no point whatsoever in anyone ever taking a purely personal ethical stand?

You seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you on this issue must be insane. Isn't that called an ad hominem?

Chris

droolian

Why start another thread?

SmashingIdols: Mentally ill: Holding a dietary guideline which in effect carves you out from the soceital norm, implying some superior or more enlightened morality, putting you at odds with what is accepted behavior, and ultimately implying judgement of societal standards as inferior to one's own, despite the scientific evidence and history of man's diet, despite the impossibility of making all homo-sapiens comply with your diet - and desiring to make those changes nonetheless, is mentally unhealthfull behavior.

I have caught far more ostracism for being an atheist than I ever could for being a vegetarian. I haven’t lost or alienated anyone dear to me for being either though. I can politely refuse certain items at a diner table, and I can tactfully refuse to go to church. Do you suggest that I sometimes go to worship service to “fit in” and not bother with things like personal beliefs or integrity?

SmashingIdols: Smacks of cultism.

But going along with any group or societal norm isn’t cultist behavior. You must realize vegetarians come from all walks of life, and many live in areas with no fellow vegetarians and do fine socially. Again, you must preach to the converted a great deal.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]</p>

SmashingIdols

Hardly ever. And preaching is something I detest. Something vegetarians do a lot of. I just jump in head first with the other point of view when I see it being done. Like when people try to make a claim that homo-sapiens is not omnivorous. Why on earth would they present such patently false information to begin with?

Like I said before eat what you want, just don't try to claim scientific evidence for THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS FROM HUMAN DIET. That's all.

There is no doubt that greatly reducing their consumption, especially in ubranized countries, is good for everybody involved.

Reduction I agree with.

Elimination I disagree with.

Why do vegetarians take such great offense to the concept of reduction, and push for total elimination? Something that is not possible for all human-beings on the earth, and therefore a situational moral construct.

Furthermore, most of the problems we face as a species are directly tied to increasing populations.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

SmashingIdols

As I said above, I would have rather dealt with the mental health issue last.

If everything else I attested to was true, wouldn't it give credence to the final argument - that despite the truth, pushing to change the societal norm to something not even remotely possible would be mentally unhealthful?

Just FYI - I consider belief in God to be a form of mental illness as well, for exactly the same reason - belief and adherance to a system of belief which claims a special position (like being saved, or going to heaven versus going to hell etc) based on some pretty shoddy evidence that is basically at odds with all scientific observation.

Why not go after my points one at a time?