- (Peter said:
>Martha, it is good to have you back.
Thank you. To be honest, I don't know what to make of this. You say
it's good to have me back, but later in the post you reply with what
appears to be outrage at my analogy among other things. I feel as if you
are extending one hand for a handshake while drawing back the other to
form a fist. My poor insignificant brain is very confused.
If it had been only a vocal few, I might have agreed but unfortunately
we are talking about the majority of the vegan posters on this list.
"Posters" being the key word here. My guess is that the more
"peaceful," "kind" vegans and other vegetarians joining the list
soon back off when they see how much of the discussion centers around
meat, and how okay it is to use language like:
most vegans stick their head in the sand when it comes to taking a
serious look at questions like this...
instead of taking people on. For example, what happend to Kate (was that
the name?), who recently introduced herself as a vegan for moral reasons?
I was interested to see how her involvement on the list would develop, but
we have seen no more from her. Personally, I don"t mind "some
vegans" or even "many vegans" but "most vegans" is when I start
to get tweaked. This is not meant as an attack, Peter, I"m just trying
to explain where I"m coming from.
>It hurts and angers me that whenever they are defended rarely is any
>recognition expressed for the principles I have been trying to uphold for
> the list or for the difficulty involved in taking on such a task,
>I"m sorry to have caused some of this hurt and anger, but I must say
>that you really hurt and angered me too (since we have decided to publicly
air our emotions :-( ).
>...and instead this image is created of the vegans on the list as poor,
>innocently persecuted lambs while I am cast in the role as the bad big
>brother moderator wolf...
The simple truth is that I see you as too intolerant of human failings.
On this you and I may unfortunately always disagree. However, I don"t
think you"re a big bad wolf, if that"s any comfort. :-)
>...who tolerates no contradiction and whose only motive is full control
>of the list
OK, I exaggerated because I was pissed off. :-( It only happened
because I had asked to be let out of the discussion, but you kept coming
back at me.
>...like was I trying to run some kind of communist dictatorship.
Maybe more like an intellectual aristrocracy?
>...along with the fact that I have been vegan/ veggie for most of
>my life & probably always will be at heart.
This is probably why it hurts that you so vocally try to distance
yourself.
>All this occurred too many times - sometimes off the list as well - and
>when you of all people, Martha, made a turn down that road, I threw in
>the towel. However, looking back I regret you had to bear the brunt of
>my frustration.
I"m not sure what you mean, me of all people. Surely I never hid that
I"m a vegan sympathizer?
>...not getting a hell of lot of credit for it or my efforts to keep the
>standards of the list from deteriorating.
On the contrary, it seems you have a steady stream of people telling you
what a wonderful job you"re doing.
>I felt you were trying to gloss over the whole issue negating all the
>vegan insult, deceit & hypocrisy I saw going on
On this I will no longer argue. I am obviously not as skilled as you at
recognizing deceit and hypocrasy, and I bow to your greater perception.
>...I can see how the lines can get blurred and be misunderstood,
Yes, I often have a hard time distinguishing between Peter the powerful
moderator and Peter the private citizen, so I"m never sure if your anger
towards me is a threat or not.
> and I apologize for any discomfort I might have caused you. With the
>clarity of 20/20 hindsight, if I were to do it over today, I would have
>expressed myself with a little more tact.
Thank you, and I apologize for the childish way I lashed back. I had
tried so hard up to that last post to keep my comments from getting
personal.
>I prefer to be criticized in public and have things out in the open...
Not me. Public criticism makes me feel humiliated and demoralized. And
then, if nobody comes to my defense, I feel like the whole group dislikes
me as much as the critic. But as you see I have bent to your wishes here,
and only hope I won"t regret it.
>>If I may come back under these considerations I would love to do so.
>OK, but only if you promise to behave and give a public apology for
>your deviant, vegan sympathies. ;-)
I only wish I believed you were 100% kidding. However, I note the smiley
and will assume a friendly spirit.
> I can only regret that I did not make my decision to start moderating
>lighter a little earlier....
I look forward with optimism to the new moderator-lite :-)
>Of course. What I meant to say was that if somebody is already
>mentally imbalanced, nutritional deficiencies are bound to aggravate that
>condition.
Thanx for the clarification.
>If I understand you correctly you are asking if un-washed dulse is as
>nutritious as Celtic salt. My guess is yes, but I do not really know.
Actually, I was asking if the taste of Celtic salt is as briny as
un-washed dulse, because if it is, it would be a waste of my money to buy
some.
>Comparing eating meat - not the cruelty with which many animals are
>raised - to beating a defenseless baby is plain outrageous to me. This
>kind of righteous shaming and laying on guilt I consider a form of
>verbal violence & personal bashing that has no place in a respectful
>dialogue among equals.
Yes, I would agree if this were an attack as opposed to a hypothetical
ethical question. Luckily Tom seems to have taken it in the spirit
intended.
>Unless of course it is made clear that this is how they personally have
>come to *feel* and/or is not the way it necessarily *is*,
I guess I thought this went without saying. There is no *is* as far as I
can tell, it"s all about how one sees things.
Martha:
>> Bob Avery & Ric Lambert were defending NFL*s right to have their own
>>abrasive style.
Peter:
>It was not defending NFL as such that got them into trouble as behavior
>- not opinions - is what is moderated on this list.
From where I sat it seemed like this was the beginning of the end for
them. They were marked for deletion, so to speak.
>It was their consistent pattern of evasiveness and lack of willingness to
>back up the often most basic of their statements/opinions and to avoid
>answering specific questions on certain core issues of which NFL &
>veganism certainly were the most common that were the reasons for
> them getting as much heat as they did.
Again, I defer to your better judgment on this.
>Bob"s style of refusing to back up or retract his often outrageous
>statements - like his infamous advise to a pregnant woman on the list to
>go on a long water fast as a remedy for her morning sickness - is an
>example of this,
I thought this was Doug Schwartz? Maybe Bob did also, I don"t remember.
Anyway, I sort of enjoyed the outrageous statements made by various
former members. They sort of added richness, showed a wide swath of human
thought. Surely Susie is an adult woman who can think and make decisions
for herself? (BTW, is Susie still on the list? She must be about ready
to have her baby if she hasn"t already.) Anyway, please consider my
status as neo-cortically-challenged and be gentle when/if responding to
this opinion ;-)
>Why you would want to defend Bob Avery & Ric Lambart who with
>their slick and slippery styles forever sidestepped the issues shying
>accountability like a cat water I do not understand.
Once more, I will defer to your greater ability to spot these things.
What"s a cat water?
>NFL I had more regard for in this respect as they were were more likely
>to call a spade a spade.
Or a retard a retard. The "cooked retard" comment was quite a coup
for you, eh? ;-)
>I see the colonel as an uncensored version of Bob A. Ric L. & Rene B.
I am glad you said "I see" here instead of "it is so." And what
*I* see is that while you have grouped these three together, they are
three unique individuals who have shortcomings, yes, but are not evil
monsters.
Martha:
>> If the early hostility of the vegans had been handled in this way
>>(with silence), it probably never would have escalated as it did.
Peter:
>Silence? I moderated on Kirt several times in defense of NFL and
>recently Denis Peyrat was as close to being suspended as anybody
>could get.
OK, I concede. I thought I saw some more cases in the archives over the
last couple months, but my memory is fading, and I"m not sufficiently
motivated go back looking for them. In fact, I don"t want to argue with
you any more at all, Peter. I"d like to move past this whole thing, but
we seem to get into this thing where we both want the last word and this
could go on forever (good thing we"re not married, eh?). If I don"t
reply to your next reply, will you accuse me of evasion?
Speaking of Denis, where has he gone? He is one who also seemed very
human to me and I miss his presence.
>I sincerely doubt it is a coincidence or a flaw in your character that
>you have not turned vegan. :-)
I wish I could agree. Granted that, largely due to the influence of this
list, I no longer feel strongly pulled in that direction. But as for
times past, I do think it is a flaw in my character that I never pulled if
off before.
Martha:
>> for many vegans this would be a valid analogy.
Peter:
>I am sure every theory seems valid to its supporters. The question is
>how far can they defend & justify their theories before they have gone
>too far? If the existance of such limits is not recognized - I doubt that
>NFL feel that the colonel went too far with his recent post - then
>what we have is a philosophy that justifies its means by its own ends
>only.
I"m trying to understand the last sentence but am unable to. Could you
rephrase?
>So the question is if NFL-type vegans have not gone too far who
>has? Only people openly loony like the colonel? Because most vegans
>stick their head in the sand when it comes to taking a serious look at
>questions like this, it does not make them magically go away or make
>them less relevant. On the contrary when ignored they take on a life
>of their own,
I"m still lost. :-(
>Regarding those who compare eating meat to beating a baby, I do not
>see how can they compare the senseless and brutal act of inflicting a
>defenseless infant being physical harm and emotional trauma that could
>cause it a life time of pain & suffering with eating foods most peoples
>throughout the planet since the dawn of mankind have cherished highly
>and that in the opinion of most scholars through the millions of years
>of evolutionary adaptation of our ancestors have become essential for
>the fullfillment of our nutritional needs that deeply imprinted into our
>genetic make-up as biological instincts do not change because some
>people in seeking for an identity in their life or out of concern for
>the future of the planet find vegan ideas attractive and decide or feel
>that killing animals for food is nutritionally unnecessary and/or just
>plain cruel and a waste of resources.
Whew Periods are for wimps, right? :-)
But anyway, OK, now I see what"s wrong with my analogy. I had softened
it by saying beating when I really meant killing, which changed the
scenario. Plus, the use of "baby" is too emotionally charged.
Let"s forget the analogy, and I"ll explain with a simple syllogism why
I"m not offended by vegan hostility.
Lets say that:
a) Killing humans is morally wrong except in self- or other-defense,
and
b) Human life is not more "sacred" than animal life.
Now, you may disagree with a and/or b, and then fine. But IF you accept a
and b then you also have to accept:
c) Killing animals is morally wrong except for self- or other-defense.
?N"est-ce pas?
If my logic is flawed, I"m open to hearing why.
So, I"m not offended if they think I"m doing wrong, because I can
understand where they"re coming from. Now, my own tendency toward
vegetarian living has more to do with that fact that I FEEL SORRY FOR the
animals, not some abstract idea of morality. I also feel that veganism
can never really be "complete," because of the dependence on agriculture.
This not only deprives wild animals of their habitat, causing death,
but one way or another insects and other crop-destroyers must be eliminated
Even if you do it naturally by bringing in predators, you are still
causing the death of these animals. Neverthess, I do admire those who
strive to keep the killing to a minimum.
> Is an owl cruel for catching and eating a mouse?
It would be absurd for me to comment on the cruelty of another species.
What do I know of the cruelty of owls? They have their own karma to live.
>Were the American Indians cruel for killing & eating the buffalo or the
>Eskimos for catching & eating fish? I think not.
OK, you think not and that"s fine. "Cruel" is a relative term and
cruelty (IMHO) is very much in the eyes of the beholder.
>Besides this line of argumentation is not very constructive as it puts
>the meat-eater on the defensive from the get-go.
I agree, and I would never say anything of the kind to a meat-eater. What
good would it do? I know very well that vegans are not the only ones who
can become hostile if their values are challenged.
>If going vegan is supposed to make one a more compassonate &
>peaceful human being bringing up metaphors of babies being beating is
>sure an odd way of showing it.
I don"t think I ever said going vegan makes one more compassionate or
peaceful, though I have heard this theory. I"d say if anything it"s
the other way around.
Why is posing a hypothetical ethical question a sign of non-compassion or
non-peacefulness?
Peace and compassion to all, :-)
Martha
|
