[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by Syhto

wtf????????????????????????

ok now you're just being ridiculous. im going to respectfully request that no one responds to reuben tate again. he might end up replying, and no one wants that


correct me if I'm wrong but I think we've come to the conclusion that:
-all people have a responsibility to keep themselves healthy
-the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle requires some extra consideration to achieve a comfortable level of health
-all people are susceptible to malnutrition, not just vegetarians & vegans
-stereotypes are often not an accurate depiction of reality, it isn't practical to judge all members of any specified group based on limited experience

SO I think that just leaves the moral side of it which is debatable but ultimately will always be inconclusive. I think the main thing to keep in mind when judging the morality of others, is to have understanding. Many people just love animals and don't wish to cause any harm to them. Because a person cannot change the actions of all others, and only the actions of themselves, does it not make sense to act according to your beliefs? It sets an example, but ultimately, it comes down to emotional welfare.

Many people are wracked with heavy guilt, for the actions of human beings. Many people can't stand the thought of other beings suffering. Human, or animal, we are all beings on the planet earth! The conclusion that some come to when they feel this way, is to not eat meat, and limit the impact however they can. Is that really wrong?

Arguing on the basis that 1) everything dies, 2) you can't keep all animals from suffering, 3) it's a hopeless cause; really has nothing to do with the moral understanding of an individual, and can really be MORE detrimental to emotional well-being. (personally I'm convinced these are just justifications) Eating meat is undeniably deeply rooted in biology and evolution. That goes for cultural evolution as well. But, that doesn't mean it's a requirement. Because humans have a greater capacity to communicate and understand the world around them, I personally believe that makes us all the more responsible for the well being of the planet.

For an animal, instinct is the guiding factor for behavior. Survival is the goal. For the human, environment, culture, morals. What is our goal? Personally, I think it should be to improve life. Become less barbaric, more humane, use resources effectively, look after the earth and all of the creatures inhabiting it, these are abilities we do have. That doesn't mean we have to all stop eating meat. It means we have to be smart, and not be fools. Unlike animals, if we have a will for it, we can choose to go against nature. (i.e. haphazardly alter and destroy) I don't think that is wise. But that is the path we are on.

We can improve the process. But before that happens, people will have to get off of their high horses so to speak. We're all in this together. Sustainability and environmental impact should be an important factor in considering the way we live. Otherwise, we're wasting potential, and we're really destroying our home.

MY 2 CENTS

There's good and bad. Is it bad to care? lol. Is it bad to cause suffering? IDK. Do you like suffering? Probs not. Do unto others doesn't have to apply to just people. Is it good to live at peace with yourself? I think so. Is it good to live at peace with the planet? Why not????

Excuse me? Like everyone else here, I have to ability to hold an intelligent and coherent discussion with everyone else over here. Plus, other than tgb and "rate the above person's avatar", you have probably only seen like <10 of my posts. By reading this single post, you are concluding that all of my posts are exactly like that, in terms of length, intelligence, humor, etc. This is a classic example of hasty generalization, a common logical fallacy. Refer to the CT stickies for more info on that. You might say, "Well, I always see your ****ty posts in tgb!" Well, my tgb posts do not equal my non-tgb posts.

And referring to the post I made eariler. I don't see what is ridiculous about it. I was stating the fact that with any issue, not just this one, the solution is found not by taking extremes, but by finding a solution somewhere in the middle. Then we end up fighting about "where in the middle?" Hence, we raise the question "Where [in the middle] do we draw the line?" In many issues this line is easy to find if the issue being discussed is quantitative. For example, I want to buy a house for $100,000 but you want to sell it for $200,000. We can easily agree on $150,000. However, on other issues, we can't put numerical values on any of the parameters. This is what creates controversy. I know this all seems obvious, so if it was the fact that I posted something obvious that you found ridiculous, I deeply apologize.

As for the 2nd part of my other post, I have to admit, it does sound ridiculous. But I just said that as an example that there exists extremes on any issues. In this case "apes being able to vote if they know sign language" is one of those extremes in the case of animal-rights. I try to make my posts as non-prejudice as possible, but I realized that my previous post could have offended anyone who really loves apes or studies them for a living. I apologize if you (and anyone else reading this) is one of those people; I didn't mean to offend anyone.

tl;dr:
-I have the ability to post effectively in these forums like anyone else.
-Issues usually have grey areas that we have trouble finding.
-"Apes being able to vote" was my example of extremes in an issue.