Michelle on Josie's Progress

[August]

Your choice. Debate requires longevity. Also nobody has to be right.

Id go to bed much earlier if I could embrace that.

[August]

If you truly believe this (and I honestly am astounded that anyone would argue that other animals do not have the ability to feel), then nothing I say will ever get through to you.

And with that, I bow out of this "debate." If anyone has any interest in any of the links I posted earlier, feel free to PM me.

Really? If your aim is to get your ideas out there and convince others then you'd better get used to it. Our ability to see into the experiences of animals is limited, but it's pretty much the majority view that only a few animals besides humans have any self-awareness.

But I agree, you're never going to get through to anyone by being so black and white. I would put money on me doing more to reduce animal suffering than you do.

[Miggy]

Here's what I've never understood about vegans (I say this not to snark, but because I'm genuinely curious), if everyone stopped eating meat and using animal products, what do they think is going to happen to all those animals? Where are they going to live? What are they going to eat? Would they have a problem with people using animal manure for gardening? Because the research I've done had led me to believe there is no sustainable gardening possible without the use of animal manure, at the very least.

I will answer for one specific case : the animals wouldn't exist. I grew up on a nut farm (haha, yes, I've heard all the jokes already). My parents raised beef cattle as well, grazing them underneath established trees and in the spare paddocks. Their manure added fertiliser to the trees and their grazing removed grass from under them. The cows were bred each year and raised their calves. Some heifers were kept as replacement and everything else was sold off at two years of age for meat. If everyone in the world became vegan / vegetarian my parents just wouldn't bother with that side of the business. They would add more trees to the property and use commercial fertilisers.

Just a small point but it's been annoying me : most of us are omnivores, not carnivores. Humans who are carnivores usually have massive digestive issues + constipation and often become obese. (See Henry Tudor.) I love meat but it's not all I eat and most people I know are the same therefore, we are omnivores. Sorry to be pedantic. It's a school teacher thing.

[graefin]

No. Blogs are just people who agree with you. The issue is that I love and live with all types of people who can debate it better than that. You have not even adrdessed half the issues brought up in some other comments.

Yes. Blogs contain posts that already address many of the (tired) issues people raise over and over again. Why should I retype or rephrase something that already exists? I don't know about you, but on the forums I hang out on, people who are genuinely interested in debating an issue will actually take the time to read references that other people post.

But besides that, what would be the point of debating with someone who maintains that other animals are not sentient? Sentience just means possessing awareness, capable of feeling. That anyone (besides Amy Duggar, who is obviously a dimwit) would believe that other animals besides ourselves are not sentient truly boggles my mind.

Whilst I respect your choice. I do not respect your ability to see that others may not agree with you but are willing to respect your choice whilst you are not theirs.

Ah, but that's my point. Your "choice" ends where another being's rights begin. To me, your statement is akin to saying, "I respect your choice not to be racist, but I do not respect your ability to see that others may not agree with you but are willing to respect your choice while you are not theirs [to be racist]." I've stated this time and time again, but it's clear some people are having a hard time understanding this. Here's another resource (that you'll probably refuse to read) that addresses some common questions. See Question 18 in particular: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UdfbiaPdl6Y

The fact we are having this discussion at all is a first world type of issue. Food ..pun intended. Is food for thought. I am very glad we can. It shows how far humanity has come in many ways.

Morality is a first-world issue? Again, as I said in my very first post, veganism isn't just about food. It would be nice if people actually read the content of what I've already said before rebuking me for not engaging in debate.

[graefin]

Really? If your aim is to get your ideas out there and convince others then you'd better get used to it. Our ability to see into the experiences of animals is limited, but it's pretty much the majority view that only a few animals besides humans have any self-awareness.

Actually, my goal is to spend my time (a limited resource) wisely. There are many people out there who care about animals and are open to discussion about what our moral obligations are to them. But there are also a great many people who don't and aren't. If you are one of the very few who sincerely believes that other animals are *not* sentient, then 1) I'd suggest you look up the definition of sentience (I think you've confused it to mean possessing human-like cognition), and 2) my time is going to be wasted on you. (BTW, I just stumbled across this recent talk that addresses specifically animal self-awareness and sentience and animal welfare/rights. It's a longer talk, but I think you'd find at least the first 30 minutes or so relevant: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/med ... 9.2013.mp3.)

But I agree, you're never going to get through to anyone by being so black and white. I would put money on me doing more to reduce animal suffering than you do.

Well, I'm a moral realist, not a moral relativist. I believe unnecessarily harming other beings is wrong, just like I believe racism is wrong, just like I believe sexism is wrong, just like I believe homophobia is wrong. And, as I said before, in this context, it is not just about "reducing animal suffering"--it's a matter of fundamental justice. (Another essay that addresses this very topic can be found here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/veg ... dffcaPdl6Y.)

[FreeJosie]

No. They have the right to offer whatever meal they feel like. Besides, it's one meal out of millions that they will consume throughout their lifetimes. If they don't like it, they can stop off for fast food on the way home. Plus, as a carnivore myself, I've had some damn delicious vegan meals!

I agree with this, and I'm actually going to encounter the reverse situation at a family wedding next month. I'm a vegetarian, and the couple is offering three meat options for dinner. No biggie - my husband can eat my chicken, and I'll eat the sides/soup/salad/desserts. It's their wedding, and I would never make a fuss about one meal. :D

[OkToBeTakei]

Yes. Blogs contain posts that already address many of the (tired) issues people raise over and over again. Why should I retype or rephrase something that already exists? I don't know about you, but on the forums I hang out on, people who are genuinely interested in debating an issue will actually take the time to read references that other people post.

But besides that, what would be the point of debating with someone who maintains that other animals are not sentient? Sentience just means possessing awareness, capable of feeling. That anyone (besides Amy Duggar, who is obviously a dimwit) would believe that other animals besides ourselves are not sentient truly boggles my mind.

Ah, but that's my point. Your "choice" ends where another being's rights begin. To me, your statement is akin to saying, "I respect your choice not to be racist, but I do not respect your ability to see that others may not agree with you but are willing to respect your choice while you are not theirs [to be racist]." I've stated this time and time again, but it's clear some people are having a hard time understanding this. Here's another resource (that you'll probably refuse to read) that addresses some common questions. See Question 18 in particular: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UdfbiaPdl6Y

1.If I was interested in others views then I would indeed visit all blogs on all issues where somebody has an interesting view to share. But actually I was interested in your view not links of those with whom you agree. I do not think I am unique in looking for fact based or educationally based resources. I tend to find posters who post links to blogs rather than more nuanced less partisan articles somewhat less open to reasonable questioning of their beliefs. It can be seen on many threads here on many issues. Lucky you with the whole other forum thing. Here most tend to question even further, rather than accept a list of links. At least maybe post some quotes. That can entice and put across a small part of your view I find. But that may just be me. Also by saying that the issues are 'tired' tends to lead to the belief that tired may actually equal frequent and not welcome in my experience. Also back at you. If I allegedly cannot be bothered to read posted links you equally have not answered comments here. Etiquette tis a funny t'internet thing.

2. Where exactly did *I* say animals were not sentient?

3. Despite racism being alive and kicking in this world unfortunately, I think that awareness and public disapproval dictates that this is seen as unacceptable. Now I know you feel exactly the same about animals but the hard fact is that the majority of the human race does not think like you and will see your comparison as so many apples and oranges. No I do not have difficulty understanding your view at all. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that by expressing it in the way you do from the perspective of somebody without your conviction, it is not persuasive. I have never found the way to change any ingrained belief I believe to be wrong by saying 'YOU ARE WRONG.' Full stop. To be successful. I find trying to find a common ground and understanding a good first step. Which is why I said you are unwilling to respect others choices. How can you expect to change them when you show such disdain?

Morality is a first-world issue? Again, as I said in my very first post, veganism isn't just about food. It would be nice if people actually read the content of what I've already said before rebuking me for not engaging in debate.

No it is a way of life and a deep moral belief. I can read. But I am also pretty sure that the mother of a starving child in Ethiopia may not quite agree if all she has to keep her child alive is some dead animal flesh or her interest in this debate we are having. Yes. I know a simplistic 'tired' view. Caught between my child's survival and my morals dependent on the situation? I'm a Mother. Tough one.

Just as much as you appear to believe I am not interested in your view or links. I would suggest you have zero interest in anything other than that. Just like any extreme I find it off-putting. Not Veganism. Just your particular evangelism.

A few weeks ago on this board I met my first virtual fundie atheist, that too was a fascinating discussion (I do apologise to those who get fed up with the derails I do just get carried away with this type of debate:() I think you may be my first Vegan fundie. Thankfully in that case as in this I am glad my introduction to these beliefs were not in fact my fist gig. I'm old ya know :)

ETA I edited this post and I now cannot fix it because I am thick. I hope it makes sense. I basically just quoted everything and then repeated some other shit twice. Sorry. 14 hour work day BE GONE! I think my words are pretty separate to the Op's, so not difficult to work out :lol: I start with No1. :P

[OkToBeTakei]

I agree with this, and I'm actually going to encounter the reverse situation at a family wedding next month. I'm a vegetarian, and the couple is offering three meat options for dinner. No biggie - my husband can eat my chicken, and I'll eat the sides/soup/salad/desserts. It's their wedding, and I would never make a fuss about one meal. :D

So strange. I know it would be difficult to cater for all food issues at a wedding as evidenced by the diversity of issues people can have. But have to say I have never attended a traditional sit down meal wedding that did not have at least a vegetarian option. Always a saviour for me as smoked salmon is always a fave starter and really does not agree with me :(

After this thread I have decided if I ever get married (after my 18 year engagement) I think I'll have a purely alcohol wedding, no food and the teetotallers can just feck off :lol:

[gustava]

Not sure I did the quotes correctly. What's a virtual fundie athest?

[noni alabaster]

Jeez, could we end this seemingly endless argument? It is reminding me of my first, quite earnest, year in college. Take it to Chatter, please. Yes, I don't have a lot of posts, and, yes, FJ is all about thread derails, but, Christ on a Cracker! Some of us are here to snark on Michelle, and we came to this thread to do just that.

Don't make me go back to my Franzia-swilling ham cats tonight!

ETA too many hyphens

[OkToBeTakei]

Jeez, could we end this seemingly endless argument? It is reminding me of my first, quite earnest, year in college. Take it to Chatter, please. Yes, I don't have a lot of posts, and, yes, FJ is all about thread derails, but, Christ on a Cracker! Some of us are here to snark on Michelle, and we came to this thread to do just that.

Don't make me go back to my Franzia-swilling ham cats tonight!

ETA too many hyphens

No offence. (about to be offensive :lol: ) Feck off. Nobody is forcing you to read it. If you wish to continue to snark on Michelle feel free. If you want an underailed thread I believe you are looking for a Forum with a moderator called Howard. Nothing to do with post count.

[OkToBeTakei]

Not sure I did the quotes correctly. What's a virtual fundie athest?

:lol: It was a similar discussion on a different thread that reminds me of the OP. Like graefin the poster was very passionate but very one dimensional, in my opinion. noni-alabaster would have seriously hated that thread. It stayed on topic for about three posts :P Hopefully I can find it and post the link before edit time. But the title more than likely had nothing to do with the end discussion.

ETA. Yes nothing to do with the title at all.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17751&p=565538#p565538

Only 17 pages if you can be bothered.

[noni alabaster]

Well. Goodness Gracious. What a snotty-fit you had, OK. You and your black-and-white. You do not decide this board's culture. The members decide the culture of the board. Unless I misread the rules.

[noni alabaster]

And, what was wrong with my suggestion about taking the meat/vegan argument to Chatter? Shit, OK, sometimes you seem OK, but this "black and white" stuff you harp on concerns me. Especially given some of your earliest posts. I am not being a dick, but I can tell you, I've been there.

[noni alabaster]

No offence. (about to be offensive :lol: ) Feck off. Nobody is forcing you to read it. If you wish to continue to snark on Michelle feel free. If you want an underailed thread I believe you are looking for a Forum with a moderator called Howard. Nothing to do with post count.

I appreciate the bait. Wasn't tasty enough. Good try, though.

[tankgirl]

Just saw this.... On vacation with my DH! Anyway, without being overly technical, she often plops during what should be controlled descents, props herself in prolonged static positions, uncoordinated limbs during running patterns, over reliance on speedy movements (an overcompensation for a lack of controlled mobility)- these are signs that would suggest what was once called dyspraxia, but is now also labeled developmental coordination disorder. This often presents with multiple sensory concerns (the taste and food tolerance issues, for example); a full evaluation would be needed though!

Are these things that she can grow out of? Or do they tend to cause further issues in her future?

I find Josies progess interesting in a weird way having a friend with a child born almost the same day as Josie, but they were a 29 weeks. They have been getting the child help, and so far they are doing well. Josie, who knows :(

[tankgirl]

Sorry missed the later part of all this, on my crappy e-reader and thought lilblazer had an interesting post.

[OkToBeTakei]

And, what was wrong with my suggestion about taking the meat/vegan argument to Chatter? Shit, OK, sometimes you seem OK, but this "black and white" stuff you harp on concerns me. Especially given some of your earliest posts. I am not being a dick, but I can tell you, I've been there.

Where is that raised eyebrow smilie when you need it. Do you see a difference in my earlier posts to what I post now? Because certainly I hope I have learned. Aww I feel special.

There is nothing wrong with your suggestion, except if you can show me a topic that has remained on topic on FJ I will be surprised/amazed/worried. So it is more a norm rather than me trying to dictate how err board culture works. I sense you obviously either just plain do not like me or have taken the time to read some (I sure the fuck hope not all) of my posts. But hey. That is ok. Happens all the time :D Or maybe you have been here before? :P

SHIT ANOTHER DERAIL :P

[Mama Mia]

Well. Goodness Gracious. What a snotty-fit you had, OK. You and your black-and-white. You do not decide this board's culture. The members decide the culture of the board. Unless I misread the rules.

But nobody is making you read this thread, and nothing is preventing you from either posting about Michelle here or on another thread. Many people find the various tangents that bring up debate interesting.

[noni alabaster]

OK, all Scots are right!

Carry on!

[SpeakNow]

Yes. Blogs contain posts that already address many of the (tired) issues people raise over and over again. Why should I retype or rephrase something that already exists? I don't know about you, but on the forums I hang out on, people who are genuinely interested in debating an issue will actually take the time to read references that other people post.

But besides that, what would be the point of debating with someone who maintains that other animals are not sentient? Sentience just means possessing awareness, capable of feeling. That anyone (besides Amy Duggar, who is obviously a dimwit) would believe that other animals besides ourselves are not sentient truly boggles my mind.

Ah, but that's my point. Your "choice" ends where another being's rights begin. To me, your statement is akin to saying, "I respect your choice not to be racist, but I do not respect your ability to see that others may not agree with you but are willing to respect your choice while you are not theirs [to be racist]." I've stated this time and time again, but it's clear some people are having a hard time understanding this. Here's another resource (that you'll probably refuse to read) that addresses some common questions. See Question 18 in particular: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UdfbiaPdl6Y

Morality is a first-world issue? Again, as I said in my very first post, veganism isn't just about food. It would be nice if people actually read the content of what I've already said before rebuking me for not engaging in debate.

I read through your entire FAQ and found that I agreed with the many of the statements but not the conclusion that we should all be vegans.

"Finally, some argue that since nonhuman animals eat other nonhumans in the wild, our use of animals is natural. There are four responses to this position. First, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are vegetarians."

Great...many animals are vegetarians, but many are not. That argument is less than compelling. Animals are not vegetarian for moral reasons. The are vegetarians because they evolved to need certain types of food to survive.

"Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than our imagined “cruelty of nature†would have us believe."

Again, not compelling. Chimps have been found using spears to repeatedly stab bush babies. Sure there is cooperation, but when it comes down to it carnivores are going to hunt-need to hunt- to survive, and they're not going to go out of their way to be humane about it. I think humans ought to be humane about it, but that is not germane to this point.

"Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animals products."

Except, not all humans can get along fine without eating meat. OkTBT have the example of a starving mother needing to feed her children. I have friends who have 6 children. Last year, both parents lost their jobs. They relied heavily on hunting, fishing, and gardening to feed their family while they looked for jobs. Some people need to eat meat to survive. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing not to eat meat.

Another example, I have a student with autism. All she will eat are hotdogs, chicken nuggets, and ice cream sandwiches. She has gone on weeklong hunger strikes when not presented with her desired foods. She is in feeding therapy, but it is a long process.

Finally, you agreed that cats are carnivores and that, as such, I should feed my cats meat. If we are to take your "no animal products ever" logic to its conclusion, we can assume that we should convert out pets to veganism so as not to participate in exploitation. Yet, you yourself have admitted that some animals are carnivores an need to eat meat. Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to buy animal products for your carnivorous pets? Wouldn't that violate your moral code.

"Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For example, dogs copulate and defecate in the street. Does that mean that we should follow their example?"

Again, the difference is survival. This example is a straw man. People used to dump waste out of chamber pots and into streets. The reason we don't do that anymore is sanitation, not morals.

You brought up the fact that animals rape in the wild. The difference between raping and eating meat is that eating is necessary for survival. Rape is not. If you have the luxury of being able to chose not to eat meat you are lucky. Not everyone has that choice. That's also not a choice everyone should have to make.

"Fourth, it is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.†And when our supposed “superiority†gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens."

I don't believe humans are somehow superior. This argument holds no water for me.

As for question 18, I don't see animals as property. My cats are my pets, I don't own then. I don't own the animals I eat when they are living. I don't see the wildebeest that a lion eats as the lions property. I don't see the animal's sole purpose as my dinner. I see its purpose as living a good life and reproducing to keep the species going.

"Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance."

Again, we do not need slavery to survive. We need food to survive. Some of us (humans and other creatures) don't need meat to survive, and some do. It is not feasible to make every creature a vegan. At what point do you draw the line? Is it unacceptable for monkeys to spear bush babies?

Like I said, different people have different views about how to improve animal rights. I don't see eating meat and purchasing meat for my carnivorous felines to be morally reprehensible so long as I do my best to ensure that the meat I purchase was able to live a good quality of life.

[OkToBeTakei]

OK, all Scots are right!

Carry on!

:shock: NO!

We are Wankers.

G1tJJO_pVvQ

[Cheetah]

I definitely wouldn't have an issue with my kid growing up and choosing to eat meat. I just wish I could start them off in life by teaching them what I believe about the topic and making it clear that I think it's an ethical issue. Just like I will be teaching them my views on religion and politics even though I will accept them if they become religious and conservative. My issue is that there is no way to do that without either my partner agreeing to eat vegetarian, which he won't, nor would I try to convert him, OR having to treat his meat eating as akin to cigarette smoking ("This is just Daddy's bad habit") which I would also never do. Being able to share traditional German food with his kids is important to him, and I don't want to begrudge him that. So...the most I can do is ask that he buys local small farm meat and maybe just not have it quite as often.

.

This made me think of a friend of mine.. now divorced but for completely unrelated reasons... anyway, her ex is strongly vegetarian. They made a deal that their home is a vegetarian home, but my friend is allowed to eat whatever she wants when they are out at a restaurant. Kids I think were allowed to order meat as well but until recently (they're teens) stuck to pretty much vegetarian when out as well. Anyway... whenever we had a girls' night out or a lunch out, we have to go to a steak or burger place so she can get her meat fix :-).

[noni alabaster]

Where is that raised eyebrow smilie when you need it. Do you see a difference in my earlier posts to what I post now? Because certainly I hope I have learned. Aww I feel special.

There is nothing wrong with your suggestion, except if you can show me a topic that has remained on topic on FJ I will be surprised/amazed/worried. So it is more a norm rather than me trying to dictate how err board culture works. I sense you obviously either just plain do not like me or have taken the time to read some (I sure the fuck hope not all) of my posts. But hey. That is ok. Happens all the time :D Or maybe you have been here before? :P

SHIT ANOTHER DERAIL :P

OK, I have taken the time to read your posts. I was lurking when you joined FreeJinger, And I will not link to those posts. I like you just fine. This forum is an outlet for me, as it is to many free-thinking people in the U.S. I again, apologize if I Ioffended you. We were trying to express ourselves.

[OkToBeTakei]

OK, I have taken the time to read your posts. I was lurking when you joined FreeJinger, And I will not link to those posts. I like you just fine. This forum is an outlet for me, as it is to many free-thinking people in the U.S. I again, apologize if I Ioffended you. We were trying to express ourselves.

I think the hardest thing for me to understand is the being offended thing. I am so rarely offended by most things online. I really do have that thing going on where I believe that the internet 'brave' thing goes on. I honestly do not wish ever to revisit my past posts for many reasons. One being that I thought it was perfectly fine to post shite when maybe gin rather than reason was SUCH a clever thing. NOBODY wants reminded of those moments :lol: The culture was very different when I started posting. Sink or swim. Sometimes I think I posted things out of frustration and ignorance. A kneejerk reaction to being disagreed with? Who really likes that?

I do try now to pick my battles per se. I do also admit that a lot of my opinions and innate prejudice has been changed just by being here. I think I'm still an arse at times. Human nature. Like you, this forum is a great place to possibly have those conversations that really in our busy everyday lives. We just. Don't.

You can link to whatever you like. I will cringe though. But I have big pants.

I totally thought you were shitting me and were some lurker reformed witsec. I could totally tell you my trigger offend things. But you know, not gonna :lol:

Please just enjoy yourself. I do :)