Kirt:
>> 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

Mark:
>Judging by some of your past posts, I'm not so sure you believe this.
>You have not been shy about telling raw vegans that they were headed for
>trouble.

And you will have noticed that I speak up in response to certain raw vegans
telling others that eating RAF is "wrong", that there is "scientific" and
"anthropologial" and "primtalogical" proof that supports such a view, that
it is the best way to eat for humans. Yeah, eat what you want, but
spreading misinformation is another thing altogether, no? If one chooses to
be a vegan, doing so on "spiritual" grounds is not really debateable (at
least I wouldn't debate it). Unfortunately, vegan arguments usually include
an unhealthy dose of garbled "science" and nutritional falsehoods, not to
mention the idea that the other guy is bad if s/he eats animal foods. I
would think the pre-eminant vegan thread would be how to overcome the
nutritional shortcomings of a vegan diet without compromising its
"spiritual basis". Yet one rarely hears much about that--but instead
endless confrontation about morality and animal rights pratter. I consider
"spirituality" to be a private matter, where "vegan morality" (though
clearly a personal matter) is used to browbeat the "opposition".

I can vaguely understand how you (or any vegan) would have a hard time
accepting that I don't care what you eat, that the distinction I make is
when you tell others that they are bad/immoral/etc for lunch, that eating
animals is bad nutrition, and so on. It appears that many vegans are unable
or unwilling to decouple those premises (ie. I am free to eat my lunch "vs"
everyone else is free to eat theirs), to understand that they are separate
principles . In other words, the vegan might be wondering, "How could Kirt
not care what I eat when he is so prolific in his 'promotion' of RAF?" To
me, there is no contradiction there. But to a vegan who considers lunch to
be the same as morality, how can they not disapprove of what the other
fellow eats.

I'll repeat my original question to you: Why must the other fellow defend
his/her lunch to you?

>I think this would be a more boring list if we decided to only
>exchange information and recipes and not challenge each others' sacred cows
>from time to time.  I know it is touchy when we get into areas like the
>morality of killing animals, but given the fact that this list is populated
>by meat eaters and non-meat eaters, I think those kinds of confrontations
>are inevitable.  Besides, by challenging someone's beliefs, we both learn
>something.  Maybe the other guy will even convert us to his point of view.

I have no desire to convert anyone to any point of view. I find (aspiring
and actual) vegans to have a corner on "touchiness" when their beliefs are
challanged. Not you especially, but you nevertheless continue to start with
the a priori that killing animals is amoral and show no consideration that
such a premise may not be useful, and further presuppose that others should
share that morality--or at very least admit to their immorality. Under such
conditions I suppose confrontation is inevitable. On the other hand, if
vegans would quit trying to convert others to their philosophy and/or
denigrating people for eating animals, I wonder where the confrontation
would come from. There would be nothing left to "battle" about. For
instance, Tom Billings eats in a way (nearly vegan) that he finds works for
him, whereas I eat in a way that I find works for me--very different diets
indeed. But do Tom and I debate the topic of veganism? Do we try to get
people to eat what we eat? No. The vast bulk of our postings on the topic
is simply a counter to what we percieve as mis-information, which is
certainly not limited to vegans. Ineterestingly, both Tom and I are
"targets" of what have been labeled "vegan zealots" though Tom is nearly
vegan himself!!! And never mind that Tom is much more careful about being
polite than I am, where as I stoop to their level regularly on another
list. (And never mind that instincto "purists" have little use for me ;))

As simply as I can state it: Eat what you want, but quit telling others
what is moral and immoral, and quit falsifying reality to justify a
false-to-facts proposition (that a raw vegan diet is best suited to
humankind).

>It is important, though, to keep the discussion friendly and not resort to
>sarcasm and personal attacks, which which will immediately shift us from
>the learning mode to the defend and attack mode.

Where is my sarcasm or personal attack in the foregoing? It may be that
vegans who are  sure of the nutritional or moral superiority of veganism
will always be in defend and attack mode since veganism is not
nutritionally or morally superior. Vegans who have other reasons for their
lunch choices (like, for instance, Tom Billings) have no need to defend (or
attack) since they are not trying to get the other fellow to change their
lunch (at most), or looking down on them for it (at least).

What is it exactly that you hope to learn from this exchange anyway? How a
non-vegan thinks? How we rationalize our immorality? How about this: I
wasn't born a vegan and neither were you. If you choose veganism for
whatever reason, fine, but don't expect me to defend my birthright. And how
about a simple apology for implying that non-vegans are less moral than
vegans? Or would that defeat the purpose of the whole exchange? ;)

Cheers,
Kirt