For the longest time I believed I wasn't going to reply to this.  But since I
find myself actually losing sleep over it, I guess I will reply if only out of
self-preservation ;-).  I'll respond to a few points and then go into a
monologue of my own.

Kirt:
> We sure have different perspectives, eh?

Yup.

>>back to the time-honored tradition of psychoanalyzing
>>compassion-types.  It seems to me they are not assuaging but rather
>>trying to live by their feelings.

>And everyone else isn't I suppose? Perhaps the time-honored tradition
>is of psychoanalyzing non-vegans (I can hardly say
>non-compassion-types, can I?).  Mark says that Ellie's concept of
>compassion is really a rationalization. I ask, in so many words, if the
>vegans might be rationalizing themselves. Martha says, no, they are the
>people who are true to their feelings.

You have put the wrong words into my mouth.  I was countering your
suggestion about vegans, not saying that non-vegans *don't* live by their
feelings.  My guess would be that some omnis do live by their feelings,
which are different from vegan feelings, and that some omnis simply turn
a blind eye to the whole subject, and that most of the omnis on this list
are in the former camp.  But again, I'm only guessing.

>Fine, but I wonder: do you even consider that you may be offbase in
>generalizing maternal compassion to a cow eaten as food?

When did this get to be about maternal compassion?  Is Mark a mother?

>... I feel sorry for the cow too--but that's the way it goes, that's the
>"naked facts" (to use one of Mark's phrases) of being an omnivore. But
>such a feeling is nothing like the pain I'd feel if Melisa was killed and
>eaten by a tiger. There is a huge huge difference.  Trying to make them
>the same is false-to-my-reality.
This is well put.  You said 'my-reality', not 'reality'.  I'd like to think we
could compare realities without hostilities and alienation.

>I read somewhere that in ancient India the cow was revered as an
>excellent source of nutriment (milk, meat, organs, etc.) and of useful
>raw material (bone, skin, intestines, etc); that like the buffalo for the
>Plains Indians, the cow was a staple animal for the ancient Indian
>Indians. The reverence eventually bordered on sacredness and
>someone finally started to wonder, "hey, what are we doing killing a
>sacred animal?" and eventually there were cows getting the right of
>way in the streets and a lacto-vegetarian culture arose.

Interesting story.  The way I heard it from a Hindu lady I once knew, was
that people got so much from the cow (milk, dung, labor), that to kill her
for food was seen as the ultimate ingratitude.  And so she was deemed
one of the seven(?) mothers.  Pretty much the same story.

>... the modern version seems to be: 1] living is great 2] all life is great 3]
>all life should be revered 4] all life is sacred
Just for the record, I don't think life is sacred.  Next-to-nothing is sacred
to me.  But I *like* to be alive, and suppose other critters do too.

> I am still waiting for a single vegan to admit that non-vegans aren't as
>good as vegans are (as opposed to assuming it) in public and in
>non-vegan company. I admitted that I HAVE NO PROBLEM killing for food
>or eating food that has been killed. Wouldn't it be fair for a vegan to
>admit that they think I DO HAVE A PROBLEM outloud and above

I don't get you, Kirt.  First you say you don't want to be judged, now this.
It sounds like you're trying to pick a fight.

>The ET analogy is dripping with judgement. So is your crack that
> "Compassion is an unpopular stance..."

Apparently that crack pushed your button, but you're reading more into it
than what was meant.  I've seen it (compassion) recently equated with
neurosis as a result of having been abused as a child.  I've also seen
terms like 'hostile vegan zealots' so often I want to scream (I think that
labels like this should always be qualified, esp. since new people are
joining these lists all the time and don't know that the writer is referring to
maybe a handful of individuals).  I've also seen it termed irrational,
off-base, etc.  Maybe you can think of a better word than unpopular?

>Face it:
>1] Nearly all foods consumed by animals were once living, or
>2] All animals kill for food (assuming plants can be killed, but even so,
>insects and microbes are consumed by herbivores), and
>3] Humans have killed (and scavanged) their food since before they
>were human
>4] Every known human culture which has ever existed consumes
>animal foods which were, of course, once alive

I *do* face this stuff!

>Is it not at least _possible_ that vegan idealism is an abberation of
>nature and not some next step in evolution?
More than possible, I think it's almost _certainly_ an aberration of nature
(as is any brand of idealism {or any -ism for that matter}).  Next step in
evolution?  I'd like that but I doubt it.  It appeals to too few.

>...That compassion has little to do with lunch or with a once-living
> lunch?

I don't know what this sentence means.  BTW & FWIW, I don't know why
suddenly the word 'lunch' is so in vogue, but somehow it seem to
trivialize the points you're making.  If I didn't know you so well I'd just think
you had jumped on a slogan and just ignore you.  Then again, maybe
you'd like that!  :-D

>English has no verb for "killing for lunch" so, at worst, I am equated with
>a murderer (which I have been called outright and repeatedly by
>vegans), and at best, a merciless killer who is in some sort of
>trace--because I eat plants and animals as I was born to. If you can't
>see how tiresome that can get, then you might be letting compassion
>displace empathy.

Believe it or not, I *do* empathize with people such as yourself who've
been attacked by [some] vegans.  But I think that now you're sort of
'once-bitten-twice-shy,' looking for and seeing attack where it doesn't
exist.  Now, when you string excerpts from Mark's posts together I can
see how you logically conclude judgment, but not attack.  And remember
that you elicited most of this stuff by continued prodding.  I don't see why
you bothered, if the subject is as tiresome as you say.

(me:)
>>Sigh....
>Yeah, sigh...

Well, there, we agree on something!   :-)

> But, Martha, for you to say, "HE NEVER ASKED YOU TO!" is surprising
>in this context.

Sorry about the shouting, hope I didn't hurt your ears.  I would have
preferred to italicize or underline but have found these don't interpret
well across the various readers.  I meant to stress, not shout, that I saw
him stating his position, not asking for an explanation.
And Mark, sorry to keep talking about you as if you weren't here....

>>Do you feel better now?
>Do I feel better now? About what? I never had any problem with killing
>my lunch in the first place. I'm where I started: without mercy. ;)

What I meant was, did you feel better after unloading your anger (mental
detox).

>Martha, you are probably gonna be sad everytime you turn around
>since you'll always be confronted with evidence that vegan ideas are
>only that, not some higher ground.

Kirt, please remember when you write to me that you aren't writing to a
vegan.  In fact, and you had no way of knowing this, you aren't even
really writing to a vegetarian anymore, since I have been eating some
fish occasionally.  I still tend to admire vegans *in*general*.  It's kinda the
same as I feel about my parents.  I admire them because they really let
their (religious) beliefs influence the way they live (lived, in my dad's
case) their lives, not just paying lip-service and going to church on
Sunday.  They took unpopular stands and paid the consequences.  My
admiration for them hasn't changed even though I am not a follower of
their religion.
I have 'seen the light,' as you might say.  I no longer believe the vegan
thoughts (though I still often feel the feelings).  But I still respect them for
*trying* to be true to theirs.  Can't I be pro-vegan without being anti-Kirt?
Sometimes, I am tempted to think that you and I don't really disagree, but
that we are talking about two different groups of people.  You are talking
about the ones who have bought a party platform and who furthermore
think there's something wrong with the world outside veganism.  I am
talking about the thoughtful ones who have weighed the factors and
prefer the non-violence of veganism (the ones *I* have met).  So, why do
we argue?
You won't believe this, but I feel I owe you (and others) a debt of
gratitude, because through our discussions (of what, about a year ago?)
I've been able to resolve some troubling judgments I used to have.  That
you insist I'm still being judgmental with my foregoing points, I don't know
what I can do about it.  I'll try to go on...   ;-)
So my theory is (and BTW, theorizing is an aberration of nature too,
n'est-ce pas?):
We have these opposing  feelings
A) compassion which, perhaps uniquely, humans are capable of having
in great quantity, &
B) a desire to actualize ourselves as biological humans, and/or to be at
one with the human family.
Those who feel A more strongly than B will tend to be the vegetarians.
Those who feel B more strongly than A will tend to be the omnis.
Is one 'better' than the other?  I don't see why it has to be.  Can we just
accept that there are two different drummers, and we are all dancing to
the one whose music we like best?

Have a nice weekend - see you Monday,
Martha