Vegan forum posting

Here is a post I just made on the vegan forums:

[QUOTE=Stuart;661837]it is precisely this type of linguistic pedantary I am making an appeal to (yes! it is a linguistic concern!) Words have meanings do they not? And this term is servicable only for the purpose of grouping. [/QUOTE]

I completely agree that we need linguistic clarity on this.  Semantics are important.  Especially here.

While I hear what other people are saying about vegan being difficult (understanding the mindset), I completely disagree, and I don't think that we should ever portray it as such.  Aside from a little bit of self-pity over not being able to eat at quite so many restaurants, being vegan is not difficult at all.  Vegetarianism is not a logical stepping stone into veganism, and philosophically they are VERY different. Veganism is a logical stepping stone into veganism. :P If anything we should have a word for cutting out eggs and dairy FIRST!  Vegetarianism focuses on phenomena, rather than noumena.  I know that may sound zealous, but it is simply semantic accuracy and logical coherence.

It is also relevant to consider that vegetarianism is not logically consistent.  It doesn't make any coherent sense when you break it down.  Also, I don't tend to find vegetarians all that receptive to veganism myself (and yes that is anecdotal).  Regardless of how I bring it up, I am usually faced with a resistance (for my being strange and for my addressing an issue that creates cognitive dissonance) as if they are already doing enough.  Please keep in mind that this is anecdotal, so it is not meant to apply to all and every, but only my experience.  Hey, I think that any of us would feel more comfortable around vegetarians than omnis (all else being equal), but that's hardly the point.  What do the animals gain from this ambiguity?  That comfort seems more a sign of this ambiguity than a real similarity in philosophy. 

At the end of the day we all have much more in common than we do in difference: from our DNA to the way we react to love, but that can never bridge the gap between vegan and vegetarian.  Vegan has never been just about diet; simply put it is about treating nonhuman animals as if they matter at all, as if they have any interests that could trump the most trivial of ours.  Vegetarianism can't make a coherent claim in approaching animals in general.  It merely provides the illusion that it does.

I love omnivores and vegetarians alike, but I don't see any benefit to calling a boulder a stepping stone (when no one can see around the other side of it).  Veganism is only hard when you are raised to believe it is, and you buy into the lie - I acknowledge that there are circumstances where veganism is not so possible, whether that be for a man in northern Nunavut to a family eating 'bush meat' in Tanzania to an adolescent girl in Saudi Arabia.

Calling vegetarianism a stepping stone may create some bridges, but it also seems to concretize the cognitive dissonance created by this label (of "vegan").  Cognitive dissonance is our nemesis in helping these exquisite creatures.  We can all speculate about how many vegetarians will become vegan and how many omnis would become vegetarian vs. vegan; however, one thing that does not require anecdotal speculation is the fact that veganism makes more sense than vegetarianism.  Why would we ever want to dilute that?  At the end of the day veganism needs to be more normal than vegetarianism.  I don't know if that is possible, but it is necessary.
***note on my blog.  I am tired ... I can't sleep, but I do not doubt that I will agree with what I wrote when I am fully in control of my capacities.

Cognitive Dissonance and Veganism

This is a tricky bugger for us.  Cognitive dissonance occurs when our brains have conflicting ideas, which usually causes us to construct bull shit backdoor escape to avoid the conflict of ideas present in our minds.  Alright, sometimes this escape is logical, or at least seems so; the point is that we are completely invested in finding some coherence in our currently held beliefs, rather than trying to find the better ones. 

Simply put, cognitive dissonance (fueled by desire and tradition) is the greatest obstacle to human beings, in a general sense, treating other animals as if their lives and interests are worth anything at all.  That may seem harsh, but it is a simple fact that an omnivorous human will trade the most trivial interests of their own for some any, including the most integral, interests of other animals.  There are a few exceptions to that, but they grow less and less every day.  Anyone who can read this and type a response can become vegan, which just means to give a shit at all.

Work and philosophy

I have not been on here a lot lately, i.e. in the last 2 weeks.  I have been working my butt off with my new business.  The fact of the matter is that spending doing philosophy is a leisure activity.  It IS the MOST integral leisure activity for the well being of our existence; however, it is still leisure, a luxury.  The ancient Greeks birthed philosophy out of slavery of course.  The first philosophers were rich men who could afford to not work in the fields while their slaves did all the work.  Not all of them I suppose, although I must admit I do not know a great deal about the life of Heraclitus, Pythagorus, or Anaximander.  Does anyone though?

Anyway, the point is that there is somewhat of a dichotomy between work (and ultimately pursuit of survival) and philosophy.  If one is busy in the fields all day (lol I know no one really does that these days ...) then he or she has little time and likely energy to contemplate the deep questions of life.  Yes that is a generalization, and philosophy does not even have question in a prescribed way.  Philosophy is the love/pursuit/friendship of wisdom afterall. 

Anyway, I plan to post here with somewhat more diligence over the next few weeks (at least)!  LOL.

We'll see how it goes.

Veganism is more important than discussing what is natural

Here is another vegan video that I have checked out.  Take a look for yourself.  This guy is arguing in support of humans as vegans (it appears).  In all honesty I think that the evolutionary argument goes towards humans being ominvores. This guy even says that "typically" and "generally" carnivores are like this ...  Then he goes on to explain something that is typical of carnivores.  It could start to head towards being convinced if he were talking about omnivores, and if he could say that ALL carnivores are a certain way.  His whole proposed discourse is somewhat of an ignoratio illenchi.  He is focusing on the wrong issue.

Anyway, the whole topic of what humans naturally are, evolutionarily speaking, is irrelevant in telling us what we ought to do.  That is unless vegan diet has tremendously adverse effects on human health, when done on properly.  I have never seen evidence that this is necessarily the case.  That does not mean that it does not exist, but the people I have read (or listened to) that try to shoot down veganism are definitely barking up the wrong tree. 

We carry the gift and the burden of being moral beings.  That is something exclusive to humans as far as we know, at least to the extent that some of us can reason to morality. 

I don't see why vegans keep engaging in this discussion.  It is irrelevant for our cause, except in trying to meet in an antiquated arena for discourse.  Two of the best words in the vegan vocabulary are: "naturalistic fallacy".

Check this out for a laugh

Here is an omnivore trying to debunk vegan logic by using at least 3 different fallacies in abundance.


Those fallacies are hasty generalizations, ad hominem, and the good ol' naturalistic fallacy.  I would spend some time rebutting the arguments more systematically; however, it is just so obviously not worth anyone's time.

I earnestly wish there were more omnivores out there who could propose good arguments for their side.  It really would make the whole discussion more interesting.

Who does not eat animals because of intelligence?

I think that the truth is that no one does.  People eat certain animals out of custom.  Intelligence really seems to play no factor in the actual logic of the ethics that these people claim to be supporting. 

Anyway, I added an interesting new argument to the common arguments section.  I get a bit saucy, but it really is a dumb argument.  Anyway, go have a look and see what you think.  This particular argument is on eating or not eating certain animals based on intelligence as a meaningful criterion for making that decision.

Have a great day.

Vegan Food

Soon I will be adding a new page on vegan cooking and vegan food for beginners.  This page will provide plant based alternatives to some of the core components of a vegetarian diet, making it easier for vegetarians to become vegan.

I hope to share some of the health benefits of a diet that does not consist of animal products.  I cannot promise that I will cover everything from pumkin pie to peanut butter to sandwich cookies, but I will add some of the basic and most fundamental types of vegan food. 

The bottom line is that eating is important to all of us, and delicious food can serve as a bridge to those who understand the logic and understand the ethics, but are still unwilling to change.  Anyway, I just wanted to get word out that I will be talking about vegan cooking to help out the newbies in a matter of days.

Keep your eyes peeled for some basic recipes, like egg replacers and ways to replace dairy products with homemade milks.  I look forward to sharing.