Mark:
>First, when you quoted back my statement, "why should Hitler have given two
>hoots about the Jews?" and then said you would not comment on it, I hope
>others new to the discussion will go back and read the exchange in context.
> You made it appear like I was making an anti-Semitic comment, when I was
>actually responding rhetorically to your question of why should ETs give
>two hoots about us, and my meaning, of course, as is obvious from reading
>the whole statement, was that Hitler SHOULD have given two hoots about the
>Jews (by not killing them).  Did you do this intentionally?  I hope not.

Of course not.

>For the record (again), I am not saying meat eaters are less compassionate
>than plant eaters.  I am simply saying that killing animals for food
>"mercifully" is a contradiction in terms.  I can understand how some might
>view this as being critical of their diet or their overall compassion, but
>really I am just saying: face what you are doing without euphemisms and
>rationalizations designed to cover up your guilt feelings.  Maybe you will
>feel even more liberated and devour even more animals, or maybe you will
>decide that it doesn't feel right.  Either way, you are facing the
>unalloyed truth, and that can only be beneficial.

There is no unalloyed truth, but if that was all you were saying, then, as
I said, I would be singing with you, not against you.

>As far as your statement that I am being judgmental about non-vegans, I
>thank you for the constructive criticism.  I told my wife (a meat eater)
>about that comment, and she said she agreed with you  [Attacked from all
>sides, our hero fights on - ed.].  Perhaps I was too blunt in some of my
>comments and did not consider the feelings of former vegans who are now
>thought by their friends to be savages. (You know how it is with bluntness,
>Kirt)

Bluntness isn't the issue, Mark; the issue is being judgemental on account
of lunch. Though your wife is a meat-eater, there is probably much you can
learn from her--and much to lose if you alienate her further.

>But you had some dishonest criticisms, too.  I never said non-vegans were
>"mean," nor did I dismiss them as "killers" (I was referring to
>cannibalistic ETs trying to kill me) or "lacking in mercy for finding
>animal foods useful."  I do not believe these things.

Hmmm. It _would_ sound pretty silly to believe those things. But your whole
point was an analogy between humans killing animals for food and ET killing
humans for food. Here's your original analogy:

<<If extraterrestrials visited our planet
and began gathering up humans to kill and eat, they too might say they were
doing so with compassion and mercy, but it would be more to assuage their
own feelings of guilt than out of any true compassion for the humans.
Would the families of the people that were eaten feel gratitude that their
loved ones were killed with "mercy" and "compassion" because they weren't
tortured?  I'm afraid I wouldn't be so charitable.  If the ETs felt true
compassion for us, they wouldn't kill us.>>

Am I jumping to the conclusion that folks who "kill" for food are killers,
that folks without "mercy" and "compassion" are simply mean? Perhaps I am,
but renaming a lister's "compassion" as merely "non-sadistic" is quite a
leap as well. (FTR, cannibalistic ET's would eat each other, not us.)

>As a matter of fact,
>I'm not even a vegan myself, as I understand that term, because I still
>wear some animal products and once in a great while I eat some dairy and
>honey.

Ouch. I wish you well in finding a sustainable diet and wardrobe in the
future. ;)

Seriously, Mark, you probably don't deserve my "bluntness" in these last
posts if your main point is only that animal eaters should squarely face
the facts of lunch. I will only reiterate that it is largely because of
internalizing vegan rhetoric that anyone has trouble squarely facing a
lunch including animal foods. And the situation is worse with RAF because
of the "normality" of cooked animal foods in our culture. If you are so
concerned with the hypocrisy you perceive in non-vegans, you might "give
them permission" to eat lunch without defending themselves at all. That'd
be pretty tough wouldn't it? But I'll bet that's exactly what your wife
dreams of...and not because she is intellectually dishonest or lacking in
compassion, but because she is a biological omnivore who needs an "excuse"
_not_ to eat animal foods, not an excuse _to_ eat them.

Cheers,
Kirt