Mark:
>I don't mean to judge you or others who eat flesh as less
>compassionate, though I admit to having those feelings at times.  Maybe
>that can be a discussion for another day.

I've already had that discussion a few times (in the archives), so I'll
take your intention not to judge me on good faith and let it be... ;)

>> Or put another way: why should ETs give two hoots about our notions of
>> compassion and mercy, much less desire our gratitude!? I find no examples
>> of these things in nature regarding lunch.

>Well, why should Hitler have given two hoots about the Jews?

See? I am not going to say anything about this sort of argument.
Nope, not me. ;)

>And if they argue that they are merciful and kind and compassionate because
>they are not torturing us, I would argue that a more appropriate word would
>be "non-sadistic."

You'd be dead, not arguing. And they could care less about your verbiage. ;)

>I would rather die suddenly
>than in agony. And like you, I would fight back. But let's not give my
>killers the honor of using words like "kind, merciful and compassionate" in
>describing their actions.  How about "hungry"?

And that would make you simply "lunch", not the victim of unkindness, no?
Ooops! Dang, I keep getting suckered in ;) But then again, what can you
expect from a fellow like me, who is not only hungry, but a _killer_ to
boot.

Sorry, Mark, but you judge at every turn. If your point was limited to a
recoil at the hypocrisy you see in a rawist justifying eating animal foods
because some hypothetical hunter said sort sort of new age prayer, we'd be
singing the same tune in interesting harmony. But every sentence you write
seems to go beyond such to the sentiment that non-vegans are simply _mean_.
Did you ever consider that aspired-vegan rawists who turn to RAF, and feel
the need to justify it, may feel so because they came up through the ranks
of vegan ideation? That they know that many folks who they once considered
friends will now spurn them because of "lunch"? That they don't want to see
themselves as they have been taught to see themselves: as incompassionate
brutes who are doomed to some lessor spiritual ghetto? I don't know. Never
having been immersed in vegan ideation, I can only guess. But by any
definition of compassion, I consider it useful to consider what the other
fellow might be going through, not to dismiss them as "killers" and
admonish them as lacking in mercy for finding animal foods useful.

I know nothing about spirituality (and suspect that's about as much as the
Pope, and all the wannabes, know ;)) but I know prejudice when I hear it:
admit it, you think that non-vegans are simply not as good as vegans.
Instead of skin color or religion or sex or age or occupation or whatever,
you judge someone according to their _lunch_. (!)

And before you ask: yeah, I'm _tempted_ to dismiss all vegans as impolite
cultists, but so far I am unable to do so, thanks to Tom Billings (and a
few others like him) who make no bones about their vegan yearnings, but
show no hostility to RAFfers or, indeed, SADders. And FWIW, if I ever do
sink into dismissing vegans it will have nothing to do with their lunch,
but everything to do with their tacit "superiority" they excude and the
relentless anger they direct toward the "bad guys" who eat the "wrong
stuff".

(non-sadistic) Cheers,
Kirt