On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Ravi writes:
>
>>> - Political: "Eating meat is wrong"
>>
>> Wrong for what reason?
>
> Morally, ethically, ...
Hence my point (i.e., most -- okay that's arguable, so say "many" -- vegetarians are so for the moral/ethical reason of reducing the suffering of animals).
>> most vegetarians, I believe, live in India and a good number
>> of them (the majority?) are so because they were born vegetarian.
>
> ... and that's not technically 'political' ...? You were 'born'
> vegetarian (I think you mean 'raised' here :-): why?
>
;-) You missed my earlier post where I explained a bit why I say "born". Rehash: it seems to me that the culture into which I am born is as much a part (or at least a significant part) of what I am born as, as the number of toes or the biological proclivity to eat this or that thing.
> Anyway, I think you can agree that "vegetarian" as applied in the
> circles most LBOsters run in is not this kind of vegetarian. In
> fact, I wonder if the folks in India would identify "as
> vegetarian" ...? "Most" dim sum eaters are, I would imagine,
> somewhere in China, but when we talk about the good examples here on
> LBO-Talk, we're going to be pretty much sticking to the context of
> New York and San Francisco :)
Yes, but not all Indians are vegetarian, and so, in fact, in many parts of India (I dare not speak for all parts!), there is indeed an identification as being not just a "vegetarian" but complementarily also a "non-vegetarian". In certain contexts, it is true, one is the default state, but those contexts are fluid.
Yes, I agree that LBOsters interaction with vegetarians is limited to the NY/SF/etc varieties, but I am not sure how they can then limit the conclusions they draw about vegetarianism as a whole.
>
>> By general argument, I meant the argument outside this specific
>> thread here on LBO.
>
> Well go have your strawman there then and not here ;)
>
Hey, I was talking to Chris, not you!
>> For my type of vegetarians, then, meat that is produced using
>> non-industrial methods is definitely a great advance of our cause.
>
> You mean "your type" as in "born in India as a vegetarian" ...?
>
No I mean the type that thinks that veganism (or perhaps "fruitarianism" if that's the right word!) is one extreme of the positions one can take from the ethical considerations I employ and argue for, but as a practical matter (and that is my chief concern) any movement along that line in that direction is progress. However, that said, I am open also to the argument (if offered in some coherent manner) that the line turns regressive or unqualified at some point. In reality, keeping in mind Chris' apt dismissal of radical scepticism, I believe most people think the same way.
> [ ... ]
>
>> we are discussing not eating meat as a means to reduce animal
>> suffering.
>
> So is that the only thing holding you back? Because there's plenty
> of "reduced suffering" meat out there; are you eating any of it? If
> not, why not?
>
I am not interested in it. If and when you meet me, you will realise I am not a person much into eating ;-).
On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> At 09:07 PM 4/15/2009, ravi wrote:
>
>> As the smiley indicates, it's a dig, a tease.
>
>
> Well, sometimes smileys can be too clever by half. I think Dwayne
> called you and Chris on such like a little while back. :-)
>
Well, you are going to have to make that call Dennis, on whether I am trying to be clever with you, or teasing you in a friendly manner, much as I have to make the call about Doug's responses (not to pick on Doug!). As I mentioned in response to Dwayne, I try (have tried) to differentiate/indicate the intention of my one-liners precisely by using a smiley, as I would a grin if we were face to face, but I understand if you are not buying it.
>> Do you really think that
>> I believe some living thing (X) is better than some other living
>> thing
>> (Y)? And if I did, that saying so would actually help my cause?
>
> But it could be construed that you're saying it by not saying it, so
> even with a smiley face I'm not sure you're helping your cause.
>
True. It's a risk I have to consider.
--ravi
-- Support something better than dead animals ;-) PeTA => http://peta.org/ Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/