The Vegans

Aongus Von Bismarck

I spent a month travelling around Southern India and Sri Lanka a number of years back. Ate loads of vegan food. Good spicing makes everything taste lovely.
I'd rather not have a vegan or vegetarian round at one of our dinner parties though. Always find it tiresome having to rustle up something specially for them.

Tar.Aldarion

wretcheddomain wrote: »

No, it's not the name of a new family television series...

The thing with many vegans is how they immediately jump to the moral high ground, claiming that we omnivores are somehow morally inferior to their enlightened wisdom.

Thus, the claim to be vegan is simultaneously the insult that all of us are somehow less morally in-tune than they are.

Of course, I'm open to changing my mind, but I've not yet come across a persuasive argument as to why we should consider them our moral superiors.

I would argue that animal suffering is worsened by veganism. If you assume, for the sake of argument, that everyone were to morph into a vegan overnight, we would surely have to let the animals go - as otherwise it would be animal slavery, right? So, watch as nature rips the animal's body apart limb from limb - send the footage to the nearest vegan and see how impressed they are now that everyone adheres to their line of thinking.

Nature is much more savage than any well-intentioned farm.

What's AH's view on the moral claim of vegans - do you believe they have the moral edge they claim to possess?

You hit the nail on the head with why many people get defensive around vegans, they think they are judging them. However they are not. That is a you thing. You find the stance to be something that inherently makes you wrong, which makes you feel defensive, that is not the vegans fault. Is somebody living in a third world country helping out those in need concerned what some lad thinks or concerned with the welfare of people?

We don't go around concerned with moral superiority, the very point of veganism is the opposite, compassion and equality. You can't have that for animals and not for people, you must approach things with compassion. We are more likely to think we are not doing enough than to think anything badly of others, and would rather aspire to be a better person. We don't do it to feel better, we do it to make others feel better.

This guy has a great AMA on reddit, he is a holocaust survivor, was in concentration camps and now at 80+ years old still campaigns for both humans and other animals.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2h8df0/i_am_an_80yearold_holocaust_survivor_who/

wretcheddomain

I think many people are missing the point and are, instead, attacking a litany of straw men.

I'm not claiming that all vegans claim the moral high ground, but a sizeable amount do - and quite proudly. What's more is that my original point stressed the intrinsic nature of veganism, that is to say, a decision premised on ethical grounds. By extension, this must infer that those of us who merrily consume meat are somehow less ethical than vegans. That's the claim I begun by challenging.

Quite a few of you wonder why I'd start a thread about other people's lifestyles. After all, it's their choice, right?

• Some vegans impose this choice on their children.
• Some vegans impose this choice on obligate carnivores (some pets).

I think given the seriousness of these issues, it's worth discussing not only for non-vegans, but also for vegans who are repulsed by the arguments that extend to children and obligate carnivores.

Moreover, there is irony - a great way to finish a post. Many of you are complaining about why I'd start a thread complaining about something so banal - such as other people's diets. Well, I'm sure many of you understand the irony lurking therein.

kylith

Lau2976 wrote: »

Most vegans don't give two s**** what people eat. Yeah it would be great if everyone didn't eat rotting animal flesh! Is t going to happen in this lifetime? No, probably not.

If you're eating rotting flesh then you've gone wrong somewhere. A new fridge may be in order.

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think many people are missing the point and are, instead, attacking a litany of straw men.

I'm not claiming that all vegans claim the moral high ground, but a sizeable amount do - and quite proudly. What's more is that my original point stressed the intrinsic nature of veganism, that is to say, a decision premised on ethical grounds. By extension, this must infer that those of us who merrily consume meat are somehow less ethical than vegans. That's the claim I begun by challenging.

Quite a few of you wonder why I'd start a thread about other people's lifestyles. After all, it's their choice, right?

• Some vegans impose this choice on their children.
• Some vegans impose this choice on obligate carnivores (some pets).

I think given the seriousness of these issues, it's worth discussing not only for non-vegans, but also for vegans who are repulsed by the arguments that extend to children and obligate carnivores.

Moreover, there is irony - a great way to finish a post. Many of you are complaining about why I'd start a thread complaining about something so banal - such as other people's diets. Well, I'm sure many of you understand the irony lurking therein.

Rubbish. I'm a non smoker, non drinker. I don't look down on those who do or consider myself better. I'm mostly vegan, I still eat eggs, and I'm the only person I know who doesn't eat meat or dairy. I don't look down on my family or my friends. I don't force my children to have a non meat diet. Live and let live is my motto. I couldn't care less what people eat. I think this is all in your head.

Shenshen

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think many people are missing the point and are, instead, attacking a litany of straw men.

I'm not claiming that all vegans claim the moral high ground, but a sizeable amount do - and quite proudly. What's more is that my original point stressed the intrinsic nature of veganism, that is to say, a decision premised on ethical grounds. By extension, this must infer that those of us who merrily consume meat are somehow less ethical than vegans. That's the claim I begun by challenging.

Quite a few of you wonder why I'd start a thread about other people's lifestyles. After all, it's their choice, right?

• Some vegans impose this choice on their children.
• Some vegans impose this choice on obligate carnivores (some pets).

I think given the seriousness of these issues, it's worth discussing not only for non-vegans, but also for vegans who are repulsed by the arguments that extend to children and obligate carnivores.

Moreover, there is irony - a great way to finish a post. Many of you are complaining about why I'd start a thread complaining about something so banal - such as other people's diets. Well, I'm sure many of you understand the irony lurking therein.

Do you assume that everyone who makes an ethical choice about something in life will look down on those who choose differently?

If you give money to charity, do you look down on people who don't?
If you decided to walk rather than use the car, do you look down on people who don't?
If you buy organic fruit and veg and buy your meat at your local butchers, do you look down on people going for the less expensive option?

I would say this post does say a lot about yourself, and very little about vegans.

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

Rubbish. I'm a non smoker, non drinker. I don't look down on those who do or consider myself better. I'm mostly vegan, I still eat eggs, and I'm the only person I know who doesn't eat meat or dairy. I don't look down on my family or my friends. I don't force my children to have a non meat diet. Live and let live is my motto. I couldn't care less what people eat. I think this is all in your head.

For those who are slower on the uptake, I'll try again.

Implicit in the claim of veganism is the idea that animal suffering should be curbed (yes, there may be a ridiculously small % of vegans who are that way purely because they dislike the taste of meat, but leaving those aside). This is the same as saying that they have an ethical edge over those who eat meat.

Am I suggesting that all vegans care about meat eaters? No. Am I suggesting that all vegans think they're morally superior? No. They don't even need to think about this point for it to be true. It's an entirely independent argument irrespective of how many vegans think about it. Have I got it through to you yet?

The same is true of religion. Implicit in religion is the idea that morals derive from a supernatural authority. No religious person even needs to think or utter this for this assumption to be validly taken - it is simply implicit in the definition. As a result, I will develop counter-arguments to show why this implicit idea is, in fact, a false one. This really isn't that difficult to grasp.

Moreover, I note you conveniently dismiss my points on children and obligate carnivores, as evidently you realise this is an actual reality.

lolo62

I have no problem with vegans in general in fact I admire their commitment.
I don't admire anal people though and have found a lot of vegans are...
For example I once had a Hare Krishna ask me if I had ever thought about what meat smells like as it's moving through my system. I simply replied..eh, no.
Not sure if he was vegan or just vegetarian but it's an example of the mentality I'm talking about.
Sounded to me like someone who thinks his **** don't stink!

fizzypish

I don't think the Vegans are taking a moral high ground. If they are its a moral Island, out in the moral pacific in an area I've no interest in invading. Besides, when the Apocalypse comes we can eat them. They won't have that nasty taste that most meat eating creatures have. Its a bit like veal ... or so I'm told.....

jimgoose

wretcheddomain wrote: »

...Implicit in the claim of veganism is the idea that animal suffering should be curbed...

The best way to eliminate animal suffering is with a .308 Winchester, or else round all of them up into something like a giant donkey sanctuary covering a third of the planet. :pac:

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

For those who are slower on the uptake, I'll try again.

Implicit in the claim of veganism is the idea that animal suffering should be curbed (yes, there may be a ridiculously small % of vegans who are that way purely because they dislike the taste of meat, but leaving those aside). This is the same as saying that they have an ethical edge over those who eat meat.

Am I suggesting that all vegans care about meat eaters? No. Am I suggesting that all vegans think they're morally superior? No. They don't even need to think about this point for it to be true. It's an entirely independent argument irrespective of how many vegans think about it. Have I got it through to you yet?

The same is true of religion. Implicit in religion is the idea that morals derive from a supernatural authority. No religious person even needs to think or utter this for it to be true - it simply is implicit in the definition. As a result, I will develop counter-arguments to show why this implicit idea is, in fact, a false one. This really isn't that difficult to grasp.

Moreover, I note you conveniently dismiss my points on children and obligate carnivores, as evidently you realise this is an actual reality.

Why so defensive about it? If you're going to post that vegans are x, y and z then be prepared for people to argue that. I don't see myself as better than anyone. I don't eat meat because I don't like it not out of some animal rights motivation. Your points on kids? I'm only speaking for myself here but my kid eats meat. Honestly can't see why it bothers you so much what other people eat.

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

Why so defensive about it? If you're going to post that vegans are x, y and z then be prepared for people to argue that. I don't see myself as better than anyone. I don't eat meat because I don't like it not out of some animal rights motivation. Your points on kids? I'm only speaking for myself here but my kid eats meat. Honestly can't see why it bothers you so much what other people eat.

• Rhetorical spin...
  
• Straw men...
  
• Ad hominem...
  
• Irony...

...rinse and repeat.

blatantrereg

I'm vegetarian and mix a quarter pound of mince into my dog's already-meat-containing kibble every day because she's too fussy to eat it otherwise. So I definitely don't qualify as a vegan. But if I did I'd probably just say the same thing as I do now when it came up, which is "I don't eat meat."

Basically people seem less compelled to get into boring conversations with you about it if you say that than if you say you're vegetarian etc. Some examples of such boring conversations are: Challenging you in some way; pretending they would be vegetarian but...; Cross examining you to search for some sort of superior attitude or inconsistency.

wretcheddomain

blatantrereg wrote: »

I'm vegetarian and mix a quarter pound of mince into my dog's already-meat-containing kibble every day because she's too fussy to eat it otherwise. So I definitely don't qualify as a vegan. But if I did I'd probably just say the same thing as I do now when it came up, which is "I don't eat meat."

Basically people seem less compelled to get into boring conversations with you about it if you say that than if you say you're vegetarian etc. Some examples of such boring conversations are: Challenging you in some way; pretending they would be vegetarian but...; Cross examining you to search for some sort of superior attitude or inconsistency.

A vegetarian is a three-quarter vegan.

Many religious people don't talk about morals deriving from a supernatural authority, but that doesn't mean the claim about morals should not be challenged.

Similarly, no vegan need discuss the implicit moral assumption of their perspective for it not to be challenged by an omnivore who finds such an assumption to be objectionable.

No anecdotal evidence can marshal itself into an argument against my initial post. True - many vegans do discuss this moral edge, but even leaving those aside, my point still stands.

Shenshen

wretcheddomain wrote: »

A vegetarian is a three-quarter vegan.

Many religious people don't talk about morals deriving from a supernatural authority, but that doesn't mean the claim about morals should not be challenged.

Similarly, no vegan need discuss the implicit moral assumption of their perspective for it not to be challenged by an omnivore who finds such an assumption to be objectionable.

No anecdotal evidence can marshal itself into an argument against my initial post. True - many vegans do discuss this moral edge, but even leaving those aside, my point still stands.

What exactly is your point?

That some vegans have made a decision based on their individual morals and ethics, and you therefore feel like they're judging you for having made a different decision?

Egginacup

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think many people are missing the point and are, instead, attacking a litany of straw men.

I'm not claiming that all vegans claim the moral high ground, but a sizeable amount do - and quite proudly. What's more is that my original point stressed the intrinsic nature of veganism, that is to say, a decision premised on ethical grounds. By extension, this must infer that those of us who merrily consume meat are somehow less ethical than vegans. That's the claim I begun by challenging.

Quite a few of you wonder why I'd start a thread about other people's lifestyles. After all, it's their choice, right?

• Some vegans impose this choice on their children.
• Some vegans impose this choice on obligate carnivores (some pets).

I think given the seriousness of these issues, it's worth discussing not only for non-vegans, but also for vegans who are repulsed by the arguments that extend to children and obligate carnivores.

Moreover, there is irony - a great way to finish a post. Many of you are complaining about why I'd start a thread complaining about something so banal - such as other people's diets. Well, I'm sure many of you understand the irony lurking therein.

Well at least the vegans are consistent in their beliefs. And that's what is at the core of veganism...a set of beliefs that they back up with practice. Christians on the other hand also hold a set of beliefs and precious fucking few of them practise what they preach.
By the same token they'll be just as quick if not moreso to claim the moral high ground over others who don't subscribe to their creed.

wretcheddomain

Shenshen wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

That some vegans have made a decision based on their individual morals and ethics, and you therefore feel like they're judging you for having made a different decision?

I have, I believe, explained four times at this stage.

I think you should just read my prior post as it's nothing to do with:

• Vegans judging others
• Vegans thinking about meat eaters
• Vegans believing they're great

...it's about the ethical claim of veganism which, by extension, means we are ethically less in-tune than they are. As before, they don't even need to think that for the implicit claim to be true. The same is true, as I have argued, with religious people who don't need to think/talk about their ethical perspective for it not to be part of their original claim in religion.

One eyed Jack

wretcheddomain wrote: »

A vegetarian is a three-quarter vegan.

Many religious people don't talk about morals deriving from a supernatural authority, but that doesn't mean the claim about morals should not be challenged.

Similarly, no vegan need discuss the implicit moral assumption of their perspective for it not to be challenged by an omnivore who finds such an assumption to be objectionable.

No anecdotal evidence can marshal itself into an argument against my initial post. True - many vegans do discuss this moral edge, but even leaving those aside, my point still stands.

Ehh?

Your initial post is anecdotal evidence itself!

Your point doesn't stand at all, it doesn't even exist, because it's based on nothing more than your judgement of other people who you feel judge other people!


It's a circular logic fallacy.

Shenshen

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I have, I believe, explained four times at this stage.

I think you should just read my prior post as it's nothing to do with:

• Vegans judging others
• Vegans thinking about meat eaters
• Vegans believing they're great

...it's about the ethical claim of veganism which, by extension, means we are ethically less in-tune than they are. As before, they don't even need to think that for the implicit claim to be true. The same is true, as I have argued, with religious people who don't need to think/talk about their ethical perspective for it not to be part of their original claim in religion.

Believe me, I've read your posts with great interest - and they're still not making much sense.

So you're saying your issue is not with the ethical choice of vegans, but with the fact that there exists a set of values somewhere out there, espoused by some people, that you interpret as implying that you would be a less moral person by not adhering to it?

You feel offended by the very existence of the notion that maybe it's not a bad thing to care about animal welfare?

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I have, I believe, explained four times at this stage.

I think you should just read my prior post as it's nothing to do with:

• Vegans judging others
• Vegans thinking about meat eaters
• Vegans believing they're great

...it's about the ethical claim of veganism which, by extension, means we are ethically less in-tune than they are. As before, they don't even need to think that for the implicit claim to be true. The same is true, as I have argued, with religious people who don't need to think/talk about their ethical perspective for it not to be part of their original claim in religion.

So simply by being vegan you're making a statement that you think you're superior to others?

kylith

Shenshen wrote: »

Believe me, I've read your posts with great interest - and they're still not making much sense.

So you're saying your issue is not with the ethical choice of vegans, but with the fact that there exists a set of values somewhere out there, espoused by some people, that you interpret as implying that you would be a less moral person by not adhering to it?

I find myself wondering if OP ties himself into knots about the fact that religious people and volunteers of all kinds espouse a set of values that could be interpreted as implying he's less moral, or if it's only people with different diets to him set him off.

OldNotWIse

Were you dumped by a vegan, OP?

Finton90

I couldn't agree more op.

you might enjoy this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63NNuG-6-hQ

Lau2976

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Quite a few of you wonder why I'd start a thread about other people's lifestyles. After all, it's their choice, right?

• Some vegans impose this choice on their children.
• Some vegans impose this choice on obligate carnivores (some pets).

You act like it's some kind of abuse to not eat animal products :rolleyes: I was brought up not eating meat and was vegan for many years, I'm 24 and not dead or sick because I didn't eat meat or animal products.

Children are brought up to like the food we train them to like. a child who doesn't eat meat won't miss it. i see no issue giving pets and children a vegan diet if there are healthy alternatives to meat, which there is for animals and children.

osarusan

Looks like another thread where the OP is trying to 'refine' the thread into something more sensible and pretending it was always about that, hoping we'll forget the content of the first post.

wretcheddomain

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ehh?

Your initial post is anecdotal evidence itself!

Your point doesn't stand at all, it doesn't even exist, because it's based on nothing more than your judgement of other people who you feel judge other people!

It's a circular logic fallacy.

It's not - as I'm not using that evidence as the basis of my argument. This is logic 101.

Nice try though, I can see you've managed to fool a few people.

And if you read my previous posts, you would not have erected such a straw man right there.

Again - people are not actually engaging with the posts. What we have are soundbites, rhetorical spin, cheap jokes and anecdotal waffle.

I probably should have thought better to start a thread in a dungeon of ignorance and thank-whoring.

Duggy747

Lau2976 wrote: »

i see no issue giving pets and children a vegan diet if there are healthy alternatives to meat, which there is for animals and children.

What vegan alternatives for pets?

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

So simply by being vegan you're making a statement that you think you're superior to others?

Not my argument at all.

You seem to love building straw men and murdering them. Try to debate a subject attacking a position someone has actually made, instead of erecting your own distorted version of my argument for some cheap soundbite.

kylith wrote: »

I find myself wondering if OP ties himself into knots about the fact that religious people and volunteers of all kinds espouse a set of values that could be interpreted as implying he's less moral, or if it's only people with different diets to him set him off.

If a religious person claims to be morally superior to me, then yes, I will take offence and do my best to disprove it.

I don't see why we should let the concept of veganism away with it.

Lau2976 wrote: »

You act like it's some kind of abuse to not eat animal products :rolleyes: I was brought up not eating meat and was vegan for many years, I'm 24 and not dead or sick because I didn't eat meat or animal products.

Children are brought up to like the food we train them to like. a child who doesn't eat meat won't miss it. i see no issue giving pets and children a vegan diet if there are healthy alternatives to meat, which there is for animals and children.

You see no problem giving cats (obligate carnivores) vegan diets? That's the problem right there!

Lau2976

Duggy747 wrote: »

What vegan alternatives for pets?

http://plantgoodness24.ie/categories/65/Vegan_Pet_Food.html

I prefer to feed my pooch all natural food though, if I wouldn't eat it, she doesn't

OldNotWIse

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's not - as I'm not using that evidence as the basis of my argument. This is logic 101.

Nice try though, I can see you've managed to fool a few people.

And if you read my previous posts, you would not have erected such a straw man right there.

Again - people are not actually engaging with the posts. What we have are soundbites, rhetorical spin, cheap jokes and anecdotal waffle.

I probably should have thought better to start a thread in a dungeon of ignorance and thank-whoring.

You just have a major chip on your shoulder because you think that vegans think they are better than you. That's really all that's going on here. Oh and also the mental gymnastics you're engaging in to defend your position. Pity it's not an olympic sport eh?

Lau2976

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You see no problem giving cats (obligate carnivores) vegan diets? That's the problem right there!

No I don't, as far as research is concerned there is healthy alternatives so whats the issue?

OldNotWIse

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's not - as I'm not using that evidence as the basis of my argument. This is logic 101.

Nice try though, I can see you've managed to fool a few people.

And if you read my previous posts, you would not have erected such a straw man right there.

Again - people are not actually engaging with the posts. What we have are soundbites, rhetorical spin, cheap jokes and anecdotal waffle.

I probably should have thought better to start a thread in a dungeon of ignorance and thank-whoring.

:D:pac: Jaysis! The debauchery!

OldNotWIse

Lau2976 wrote: »

No I don't, as far as research is concerned there is healthy alternatives so whats the issue?

The issue is that OP feels like all the vegans are being really mean to him... And you know, it's true because like...he said so. It is in fact "logic 101" so how dare you question it. Nope, no generalisations or presumptions to see here. Rock solid evidence we have here. Hot

One eyed Jack

OldNotWIse wrote: »

:D:pac: Jaysis! The debauchery!

Bit of an oul' persecution complex going on with the OP. They're looking for people to argue with them. People need to be called out for thinking they're superior to other people or something...



I think that's the general gist of it, which shows a bizarre lack of self-awareness on the part of the OP.

Grayson

I've only known one annoying vegan but to be fair it was more her and less the fact that she was a vegan. She wouldn't use utensils or pots & pans that had even been used on meat or dairy.

eviltwin

I honestly can't understand the point you are trying to make OP. Must be the lack of meat in my diet .

wretcheddomain

The last seven posts or so have had no substance. They were simply rhetorical points or cheap jibes.

What's more frustrating is that some still assume I'm referring to the attitudes of vegans - when I'm not.

Yes - I did state in my OP that many vegans jump to the moral high ground and, yes, I believe that to be true in the same way many religious people jump to the moral high ground.

Veganism, in this respect, is akin to a religion. It has a set of beliefs and those beliefs are based on an ethical foundation. Just like mainstream religion, I believe this ethical foundation is insulting. Religion insults atheists by claiming the latter cannot have a moral foundation if not for the presence of a supernatural deity. Veganism is premised by the idea that it's not ethical to farm and consume animals. Both religion and veganism implicitly claim a moral edge.

1. Does this mean all vegans think they're morally superior to non-vegans? No.
2. Does this mean all religious people think they're morally superior? No.
3. Does this mean I think all of either category judge those? No.

All of the above are diversions simply made up by rhetoricians on this thread.

Like religious extremists, we also have a small minority of vegan fundamentalists. The latter, though small in minority, force their beliefs onto their children and pets. This, as before, is no different to a religious individual enforcing circumcision on their child to make a covenant with God. In both cases, the child has no consent to their parents own personal beliefs. I think these are reasonable points to object to.

I see no reason to allow the concept of religion to assume a moral edge any more than I see no reason to allow the concept of veganism to assume the same thing.

But, no matter how many times I clarify this, some poster will come along yet again to try and misrepresent my perspective.

Lau2976

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The latter, though small in minority, force their beliefs onto their children and pets

But your setting your own beliefs as the standard for everyone. would you teach your child not to kill? Not to steal? That's exactly what a vegan does when they bring their child up vegan, they choose to bring their kids up with their own beliefs Same goes for pets.

Magico Gonzalez

More cheeseburgers for the rest of us...and Guinness.

So, fine.

osarusan

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I probably should have thought better to start a thread in a dungeon of ignorance and thank-whoring.

After Hours truly is a dungeon of ignorance....a twisted place devoid of hope...a wretched domain.

wretcheddomain

Lau2976 wrote: »

But your setting your own beliefs as the standard for everyone. would you teach your child not to kill? Not to steal? That's exactly what a vegan does when they bring their child up vegan, they choose to bring their kids up with their own beliefs Same goes for pets.

You're comparing teaching a child not to murder with the consumption of pork or ham?



One is a fundamental of society while the other is a lifestyle choice.

eviltwin

Vegans aren't always "forcing" their diet on their children. If I cook I'll cook a veggie meal. I don't have the time or inclination to cook multiple meals according to everyone's tastes. Those days the kids eat veggie. If my husband cooks he will usually cook meat so that day the kids eat meat. Its as simple as that really.

I can't see what the big deal is. Everyone has their own ethics they live by don't they?

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't see what the big deal is. Everyone has their own ethics they live by don't they?

On that relativist basis, should we allow parents to force their children to smoke if its part of the former's ethics?

Should we sit back and say nothing while child circumcision is enforced in the name of religious ethics?

Where are you willing to draw the line, or can any parent do as they wish in the name of ethics?

Lau2976

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You're comparing teaching a child not to murder with the consumption of pork or ham?



One is a fundamental of society while the other is a lifestyle choice.

But that "lifestyle choice" is someone's fundamental belief, and to suggest it is not id condescending.

wretcheddomain

Lau2976 wrote: »

But that "lifestyle choice" is someone's fundamental belief, and to suggest it is not id condescending.

You hit the nail on the head - it's "someone's fundamental belief" - not the child's.

osarusan

wretcheddomain wrote: »

• Some vegans impose this choice on their children.

No more so than people who are not vegans impose their choice to eat meat on their children.

That you do not notice this is actually extremely telling about your position on veganism.

Lau2976

wretcheddomain wrote: »

On that relativist basis, should we allow parents to force their children to smoke if its part of the former's ethics?

Should we sit back and say nothing while child circumcision is enforced in the name of religious ethics?

Where are you willing to draw the line, or can any parent do as they wish in the name of ethics?

Being a vegan is HEALTHY, smoking is not.

Lau2976

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head - it's "someone's fundamental belief" - not the child's.

Like going to school isn't the child's choice? Or not eating ice cream for breakfast?

wretcheddomain

osarusan wrote: »

[/LIST]

No more so than people who are not vegans impose their choice to eat meat on their children.

That you do not notice this is actually extremely telling about your position on veganism.

The child has been given no choice as to whether they subscribe to their parent's perspective on meat.

It's possible, for example, that the child would abhor animal cruelty, but still continue consuming meat. We simply do not know.

Lau2976 wrote: »

Being a vegan is HEALTHY, smoking is not.

If someone had it as part of their ethics, then according to you, you could have no objection. After all, ethics is relative, right?

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

On that relativist basis, should we allow parents to force their children to smoke if its part of the former's ethics?

Should we sit back and say nothing while child circumcision is enforced in the name of religious ethics?

Where are you willing to draw the line, or can any parent do as they wish in the name of ethics?

Well I'd exclude anything illegal obviously :rolleyes: I'm not going to force anyone to live by my ideals. Its up to each parent to decide for themselves how they want to raise their child. Its up to each individual to choose to eat how they want to. Its none of your business what I choose to eat or not eat.