to convert or not to convert?

[Guest guest]

> Indeed. Free will, eh? Well, my stance is that the very reason why I'm vegan

in the first place

is to ponder whether or not animals should have their free will. Though many

may certainly

disagree, my answer is yes, animals should have THEIR free choice.

 

i agree with you, it's one of the reasons i too turned vegan.

 

 

> The very reason that animals still meet their untimely death and endure

torture before their

execution is simply because they have not been granted rights. The fact that

they do not have

rights now does not mean that they should not have rights

 

and again i agree. more legislation needs to be in place to ensure such things

do not happen

 

 

> it simply means humans haven't yet been able to see past their own hypocrisy.

 

not sure if i'd call it hypocrisy, but fair enough

 

 

 

> No, it's not a part of being an adult of accepting reality just because it

just 'is.'

 

again i agree. everyone should do all we can to challenge what is accepted by

society, but you

missed my point. i wasn't saying we should accept reality but accept other

peoples' choices and

respect their decisions. how would you like it if someone constantly was

pressuring you to eat meat?

it wouldn't be fun for you, would it? you would tell the person you had made a

choice and they

should accept that. why should it be different for meat eaters?

 

 

> What IS a part of being an adult, if you'd like to define the roles that

pertain to adulthood, is

to attempt to change the reality that should not have been.

 

well here comes the debatable term. what should not have been. what one person

says should happen is

different to another. a compromise needs to be reached between all parties. when

you go round

speaking in definates, in shoulds and shouldn'ts, that's when you start gaining

enemies.

 

 

> what I think is at hand - veganism - is not a matter of personal taste. It's

a legal issue that

has not been properly addressed.

 

so if i interpret you correctly, in your world everyone would have to be vegan

with no alternatives?

it sounds very narrow minded to me. as a side issue, i would rather say people

would be free to eat

meat and dairy as long as they did not rely on other people to get the products

for them, but kept

and milked and slaughtered the animals themselves.

 

 

> Yes, I am aware that animal law is not as firmly in place as I make it sound,

but it should be,

and that is why I'm vegan.

 

actually i don't think whether or not you personally drink milk or eat eggs will

make the slightest

bit of difference to whether or not your government decides to outlaw such

things.

 

my friend has this to say:

if people want to believe that animals are capable of rational thought and are

self-aware, then yes,

they're perfectly entitled to say all of that. and other people also perfectly

entitled to ridicule

them for those beliefs.

 

 

 

> animal rights issues should be categorized under the legal section instead of

individual beliefs

such as religion.

 

i think that laws should be introduced to ensure animals have better quality of

life etc, but

whether or not they are eaten *is* a personal choice.

 

 

> A religion is an individual path, it is different in that it can be practiced

without directly

infringing the rights of others.

 

not always. i point out the obvious here - jehovah's witnesses who preach to non

converts; sikhism

which states that when a male reaches a certain age (18? 21? i'm not sure) he

must go out and kill

another person to prove he is a " man " ; judaism which multilates genitalia of

babies, and so on.

 

 

> People going childfree is an individual decision that is no one else's

business.

 

tell that to all the parents who throw their arms in the air when someone says

they dont want

kids...

 

 

> But eating animals - we know damn well that, yes, animals ARE involved in the

most conceivably

direct way - the animals are slaughtered. It's not being pigheaded and

self-centered - it's called

common sense.

 

first off, common sense is not as it sounds, and is societal creation. what

might seem common sense

in one country is alien to someone from another.

 

and i wasn't using the terms pigheaded and self-centred in relation to meat

eating, but in relation

to trying to change peoples' habits. vegetarians have a terrible reputation for

trying to convert

people and this stereotype must be challenged. we must accept people as who they

are, and only air

our views when they are asked for, providing of course that others do the same.

to constantly preach

is a terrible infringement of rights.

 

and seeing as you're very concerned with the fact that the animals rights are

violated, why make the

situation worse and violate the rights of yet another creature?

 

 

> Don't take it to the average standard of common sense though, because at that

level, it is not

logic but the true essence of pigheadedness and self-centeredness.

 

i don't quite follow here. could you explain further please?

 

 

> I have to act as if it were in order to avoid non-vegans 'confirming' that

vegans are radical and

that vegans are elitists.

 

personally i see nothing wrong with radicalism, but how is veganism elitist?

other than some rather

strange people refuse to talk to people who's beliefs dont coincide with their

own, which to me is

appalling behaviour

 

 

> If being an elitist makes one sane, then sure, go ahead and call me one.

 

so it is irrational to eat meat? i can think of a few rational arguements for

it. they don't hold

sway with me, but they do with the majority of the population

 

 

> Any non-vegan who challenges the 'why's' of veganism will get an extensive and

rational list of

reasons from me without mercy.

 

which i applaud. this is what i am advocating. we explain our position, but only

*when asked*.

 

 

> Non-vegans should be the ones to defend their positions, not us.

 

why should anyone have to defend themselves? defending must have an reason,

which is attacking. no

one has the right to attack someone else's beliefs. question, yes, but not

attack

 

 

> I show them no mercy because they themselves have shown none to the animals

whose meat sit on

their plates every meal.

 

they could say the same to you, that they should show you no mercy because you

actively seek to

subvert societal values and convert people to your cause.

 

what it comes down to is that we must accept other people for what they have

chosen to be, do, say

etc. unconditional love.

 

sarah