Martha:
>>>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.

Kirt:
>>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.

Martha:
>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.

Fair enough. I'm sorry I put words in your mouth. Sounds like a bad case of
force-feeding to me...;)

Kirt:
>>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 suppose the proper words would be parental compassion or mammalian
nurturing instinct or some such. Human males are probably much more
emotionally involved in nurturing their offspring than many other primates
and I consider my own nurturing tendencies as my own maternal instinct--but
I realize the terminology is rife for confusion.

The point is that generalizing such emotional tendancies beyond the bounds
of human offspring to include all living animals _may_ be unnatural
(whatever that might mean) and more importantly un-useful. Most
hunter/gathere cultures are decidedly _un_symathetic to animals, and one
supposes they would have a hard time understanding the compassion we often
(mis)place on neotonous _symbols_ like teddy bears and cartoon characters.
I am suggesting that we may be misplacing our own
maternal/paternal/mammalian tendencies to protect and nurture our young
when we generalize them to all animals, even to "cute" mammals.

And I still wonder: do you even consider that you may be offbase in
generalizing maternal compassion to a cow eaten as food? Is there even the
slightest chance, or is it a _given_ that we should properly include all
living animals as if they were our own offspring?

Kirt:
>>... 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.

Martha:
>This is well put.  You said 'my-reality', not 'reality'.  I'd like to think we
>could compare realities without hostilities and alienation.

I thought we were.

Kirt:
>>... 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

Martha:
>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.

Of course they do. Survival instinct is deeply ingrained in animals of
every variety. What can't be ignored is that many animals are designed to
eat other animals as a healthy part of their dietary intake. If this is
true for humans, then where does that leave your line of reasoning? Just
because a wild boar wants to live doesn't mean that it is going to. I, too,
want to live, but will eventually die. In the mean time I will maximize my
health and that of my offspring by including animal foods in my diet, just
as the wild boar does. To me there is a clear distinction between my
mammalian "nurturing" instincts and viewing animals as potential food. It
is the _leap_ from "I want to live; I want my loved ones to live; I want to
minimize our suffering and maximize our pleasure" to "so does every other
animal so I shouldn't eat them" that makes so little sense to me. And I
contend that this is no evidence of my lack of compassion...

Kirt:
>> 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

Martha:
>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.

I want much what Mark wants: for people to be upfront about what they are
saying and conscious of why they do what they do. If they could extend the
animal rights line of reasoning to its logical conclusion that I DO HAVE A
PROBLEM (and politely ;)) I would be very satisfied. What irks me is when
one argues the animal rights stuff right up to that point and then back
away and say one is not judging animal food eaters--when it is an obvious
conclusion of the rhetoric.

>>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.

And that seems to be pushing a button for you, no? It may be a worthy
hypothesis--yet one that is nearly impossible for many to consider as a
possibility.

>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?

I think the phrase 'hostile vegan zealots' _is_ very qualified. I am still
baffled that there has been so little outcry from the 'non-hostile vegan
moderates' against the more hostile folks. That you and Mark can obviously
have a civil discourse with such a 'hostile omnivorous zealot' such as
myself is somewhat comforting ;) But where is the "fruitarians against NFL
bigotry" lobby? Or the "vegans against NFL bigotry" lobby? It is too easy
to postulate that their silence is a kind of tacit support at best and
vicarious joy at worst.

Martha, you are not at all a 'hostile vegan zealot' in my book, and your
anger at all this is surprising to me. Where is your anger at 'hostile
vegan zealots'?

>>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.

This is what separates you from the 'hostile vegan zealots'! But you still
hold vegan ethics near to your heart, no? Why? What is the point, the pay
off, the purpose, of vegan ethics then? I don't get it. If you face the
facts (as you apparently do) why hold out for the romance of the vegan
ideal (as an ideal mind you--I realize you are more pragmatic)? I am not
being in the least prickly in asking that question--I just don't understand
what you are holding on to.

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

>I don't know what this sentence means.

It means that killing for lunch is not murder, not a measure of compassion
or lack of.

>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

You take my words as a personal afront and (perhaps) needlessly identify
yourself as attacked as a 'hostile vegan zealot'.

>>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.

The structure of the animal rights arguments are similar whether I am being
browbeated by NFL or having a tidy discourse with you or Mark. My point is
that there seems to me an underlying theme of "people who don't eat animals
are better/nicer/more compassionate than people who don't" in the whole
idea of veganism. If not, what would be the point of it? And that
underlying theme is worth questioning.

I might say in reverse that you may be looking for attack where it doesn't
exist. ;)

>>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).

Yeah. ;)

>>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*.

This is what I don't get. Why?

>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.

But if there were some 'hostile religious zealots' spouting off in the name
of your parents' religion would you feel inclined to say, "Now, wait a
minute..."?

>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?

Sure. Tom does it all the time, and you do as well.

>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?

I wonder the same. The paragraph above is perfectly written IMO. Perhaps
the thoughtful ones might show some public dissatisfaction with the party
platform folks--and not only with us rude RAFfers ;)

>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...   ;-)

Why wouldn't I believe that? You're an awaking vegan and I'm an awakening
instincto--and as time goes on we both are less and less vegan and
instincto respectively. ;)

FWIW, you can be judgemental with me and you don't have to do anything
about it. We're just having a complex conversation on issues dear to our
hearts--that's how humans do this stuff ;)

>So my theory is (and BTW, theorizing is an aberration of nature too,
>n'est-ce pas?)

Not for animals with a 3-5 lb brain in a 120-200lb body it isn't. ;)
Whether the theorizing is useful of not is the point--at least it is one of
my points ;)

>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?

Naw. I have great compassion and consider it in total consonance with my
biological self-actualization. Compassion isn't lunch, sayeth I...

>Have a nice weekend - see you Monday,

Well, it's Tuesday and a couple weeks later, but I was dancing all the
while. ;) Hope you were too!

Cheers,
Kirt