Guest guest Posted February 28, 2001 Report Share Posted February 28, 2001 Hello everybody, I consider you to be lucky for in Portugal people don't even know what veganism is. After I've explain the concept people usually ask: what about the poor plants? I just don't take it seriously anymore. I've read all your opinions on the radical/violence subject and I fully agree when you emphasize the non violent philosophy that is behind veganism, but do you consider direct action ( to free animals from labs or farms without hurting or damaging anyone or anything) to be too radical or violent? Law doesn't normally offer animal rights activists the swift and reasonable response they demand, sometimes it can have very negative effects on your belief for it drains you so much. Often the only choice animal rights activists are faced with is to break the law or watch the misery go on. It's a difficult decision and I don't blame those that take a step ahead and actually do something for those lives whose suffering is inimaginable. But bear in mind that I'm not refering to random acts of violence or stupid actions like blowing up Mc Donald trucks or setting bombs somewhere. I'm talking of the real meaning of the direct action concept: to interfere in a given situation to save, not to kill or hurt. I have to say I really like this group My best regards Joana Fisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2001 Report Share Posted February 28, 2001 all the animal rights people i know are vegan - Thomas and Joana Fisher vegan-network Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:34 PM still the radical/violence issue Hello everybody, I consider you to be lucky for in Portugal people don't even know what veganism is. After I've explain the concept people usually ask: what about the poor plants? I just don't take it seriously anymore. I've read all your opinions on the radical/violence subject and I fully agree when you emphasize the non violent philosophy that is behind veganism, but do you consider direct action ( to free animals from labs or farms without hurting or damaging anyone or anything) to be too radical or violent? Law doesn't normally offer animal rights activists the swift and reasonable response they demand, sometimes it can have very negative effects on your belief for it drains you so much. Often the only choice animal rights activists are faced with is to break the law or watch the misery go on. It's a difficult decision and I don't blame those that take a step ahead and actually do something for those lives whose suffering is inimaginable. But bear in mind that I'm not refering to random acts of violence or stupid actions like blowing up Mc Donald trucks or setting bombs somewhere. I'm talking of the real meaning of the direct action concept: to interfere in a given situation to save, not to kill or hurt. I have to say I really like this group My best regards Joana Fisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 Hello Thomas, Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 9:34:12 PM, you wrote: By the way, what is the right answer to this: TaJF> After I've explain the concept people usually ask: what about the poor plants? -- Best regards, Sergio vegan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 TaJF> After I've explain the concept people usually ask: what about the poor plants? Eating the biologically alive plants is the same as eat the biologically alive meat. Except for the rather large fact no sentience was lost to get the food. Plus plant food tastes better once one stops contaminating ones pallet with dead things. Try being sarcastic too if they're not serious (that's likely in this case). Like " no actually, I like to poke the plant with a sharp knife before I eat it to hear it squeal " . The danger of getting into an argument about this one is you'll get into an argument about can plants feel pain (LOL! Even though they have no C.Nervouse system!) and what is pain and can animals feel pain like we do etc. Some meaties will argue anything, so long as they don't have to change their view. > Regards, > > Rowan McCartney > ETC Student Engineer > Visteon ETS > Room GB-28/851 > Visteon Technical Centre > Laindon, Basildon, Essex > SS15 6EE, England. > > * +44-(0)1268-40-6212 > FordNet : 738-6212 > * Rmccar14 Sergio Baca [vegan] 01 March 2001 17:10 Thomas and Joana Fisher Re: still the radical/violence issue Hello Thomas, Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 9:34:12 PM, you wrote: By the way, what is the right answer to this: -- Best regards, Sergio vegan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 > Eating the biologically alive plants is the same as eat the > biologically alive meat. my apologies to those of a sensitive nature, and Bob, but i usually just say to someone who asks why vegan: for assholes, " i dont eat anything that once had an asshole " . you can go on even further to tell them that meat is just half way between grass and sh*t, asking " which one do you tink it is the closest too? " comes in handy if you know what percentage of meat is actually urea. i think for steak it is about 17% but check. so your steak is basically sitting there is a plate of blood and piss. that's nice. for sweeties you can substitutue " face " for asshole and it will have a similar effect. " i dont eat anything that once had an face " if i am bored even shocking them, and this oftens works better, i say to them: " well, you know all the arguments. which do you think are the best ones? " deep psychology went into that one. it is all self defence to play around with it. but i rarely get involved now. they know, there is little point is talking about it. when they are ready and learn how to ask properly they will get answers. many just want to wind you up so dont give them the satisfaction or bolster their ego. so making it a little unobtainable is another tactic. > Yeah..this is another claissic (plants have feelings) altough > according to the teachings of Lord Krishna, killing plants is > an act of violence ... but the idea of conciousness (or awareness) > being something unique to the animal kingdom is a very arogant > philosophical statement. putting aside that there was no " Lord Krishna " and that he was just a literary construct vitalised by fundimental revisionist Vashnavite sanyasis in the middle ages, the principles you talk about arguably go back to a time before " Hinduism " [ how ever one can define that ] to Jainism. to slap an accusation of " arrogant " over someone's face is as kind of immature as calling one's parent " fascists " because they wont lend you their car. easy on boy. one is right or wrong or yet to be proven all of those *theoretical* philosophers were wrestled over the concept of what is a/the/soul. i go along with the thought that humans and animals have souls [ rooted in their middle of their heads ] that re-incarnate and plants dont. this adds to my argument for being vegan. if you are refering to the " Hare Krishna " bods; i think they are nuts - arrogantly if you wish. for a bunch of cross-dressers who waffle on about holy cows all day, they use a tonne of dairy products straight from the milk marketing board. h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-s. years of vegans coming up to them and their restaurants have made no one iota of a difference. they stink of dairy. actually, i often tell people i am a vegan for aesthetic reasons. [ that usually throws them because they all come armed with " plants have feeling too arguments " ]. meat products stink, so does dairy and the whole thing is so gross and ugly. they find that hard to argue about. john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 jOHN jOHN jOHN, for someone telling me to go easy on it, you`re a bit of a pissing mouthful yourself... Firstly the " Lord Krishna " reference was not a critique or confirmation of who or what Lord Krishna is or was. It was purely a reference to the point of view of another of our diverse planets dogmatic regimes. I dont want to get anyones hairs up, but the following analogy... >to slap an accusation of " arrogant " over someone's face is as kind of >immature as calling one's parent " fascists " because they wont lend you >their car. easy on boy. one is right or wrong or yet to be proven what are you on?...do you think when you type? or is your main concern the wonders of rythmical prose? I suggest you seriously consider your comment...it is (to put it politely) absolute nonsense...and I say that fully aware of my own arrogance. And for my next intellectual custard pie assault.. >i go along with the thought that humans and animals have souls [ rooted >in their middle of their heads ] that re-incarnate and plants dont. this >adds to my argument for being vegan. Good Luck to you on that one...the soul is in the middle of the head....now that is deep!!! How long has your ego spent THINKING about that one?? Am I really annoying you yet???? AND FINALLY.. Yeah, go ahead and slag off the krishnas, they are easy targets...call the meat eaters assholes too!!.... in fact why dont you just slag off anyone who fails through circumstance to be elevated to your " RIGHT " point of view. But don`t EVER call anyone arrogant!!! MrBiG p.s. your right! xoxoxoxo _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 i am going to answer MrBiG but off list as this is too close to an attack and i really want to keep flame wars off this list. however, if anyone wants to see what i am saying i do not mind sharing it if he doesn't. if you re-read the mail, i did not call anyone arrogant, BiG boy did. and i did not like it. nor did i call all meat eaters. some definitely are. some are real sweethearts. different tactics for different kinds. that was what we were discussing. i dont know if spirituality is " on topic " or not. probably not where it does not relate to diet or animal rights. for the record i was once quite close to the hare krishnas he writes about and could have signed up. they are probably better company that your average beer, big mac and cigarettes joe. but the spiritual master i would have signed up with ended up having his head cut off my a follower who thought he was the anti-christ or something and they have been hit fairly heavy by child abuse claims in the courts in the states. violence rather than sex, i think. knowing them from the inside out, i was say that they are pretty nuts and could go further to justify that. just like vegans and meat eaters, some were assholes and some were sweethearts. we ought to come to some agreement over what degree of profanity is allowable on the list. i would not direct it as someone persnally not find it acceptable bu i appreciate that my own language is colorfully descriptive. one for the list moms to decide on. hayley, are you there? john > Yeah, go ahead and slag off the krishnas, they are easy targets... > call the meat eaters assholes too!!.... in fact why dont you just > slag off anyone who fails through circumstance to be elevated to your > " RIGHT " point of view. > > But don`t EVER call anyone arrogant!!! > >MrBiG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 Why cant we call someone arrogant ?Its an o.k. word and suits some people I find the words Big boy more of a problem!!!! - " demo " <jallan <vegan-network > Sunday, March 04, 2001 5:19 AM re: still the radical/violence issue > i am going to answer MrBiG but off list as this is too close to an attack > and i really want to keep flame wars off this list. > > however, if anyone wants to see what i am saying i do not mind sharing it > if he doesn't. > > if you re-read the mail, i did not call anyone arrogant, BiG boy did. and > i did not like it. > > nor did i call all meat eaters. some definitely are. some are real > sweethearts. > > different tactics for different kinds. > > that was what we were discussing. > > i dont know if spirituality is " on topic " or not. probably not where it > does not relate to diet or animal rights. for the record i was once quite > close to the hare krishnas he writes about and could have signed up. they > are probably better company that your average beer, big mac and > cigarettes joe. > > but the spiritual master i would have signed up with ended up having his > head cut off my a follower who thought he was the anti-christ or > something and they have been hit fairly heavy by child abuse claims in > the courts in the states. violence rather than sex, i think. > > knowing them from the inside out, i was say that they are pretty nuts and > could go further to justify that. just like vegans and meat eaters, some > were assholes and some were sweethearts. > > we ought to come to some agreement over what degree of profanity is > allowable on the list. i would not direct it as someone persnally not > find it acceptable bu i appreciate that my own language is colorfully > descriptive. > > one for the list moms to decide on. hayley, are you there? > > john > > > > Yeah, go ahead and slag off the krishnas, they are easy targets... > > call the meat eaters assholes too!!.... in fact why dont you just > > slag off anyone who fails through circumstance to be elevated to your > > " RIGHT " point of view. > > > > But don`t EVER call anyone arrogant!!! > > > >MrBiG > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.