In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Believe as you wish.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I was just incredulous.

I've had 5 vegan friends, all who have let their tongues slip. Sure, maybe I've encountered some vegans that have not or would not say anything, but I'm talking about my friends...the people I would be eating around on a regular basis.

Ah, that explains it! You had mentioned supplying organic meats to former vegetarians/vegans, so I assumed you were referring to dozens of people over the years. Five isn't a very big sample size, statistically speaking.

There are noxious vegetarians and vegans, and they do leave an impact which leaves an opening for prejudice towards other vegetarians. That was the point I was trying to make, not that all vegans exhibit that behavior. But perhaps more do than you realize.

There are obnoxious people found in every walk of life.

I think there are multiple elephants in the room here that we're both dancing around.

We've already exposed some of them in this thread.

I think you have misunderstood my point then. In the scenario, I would not be motivated by trying to control others. I would be motivated by a desire to champion what I personally view as the oppressed (the plants, bugs, and other animal victims of production-scale agriculture/horticulture).

I suspect this is one of your perceived elephants. We've been down that road, and I think the argument carries zero weight.

Not suggesting that anyone do any of those things you would consider controlling, but rather be just as adamant and forward about how a vegetarian diet also results in death and suffering as vegetarian activists are about a meat-eating diet. Literally, tit-for-tat.

I don't think it's a good analogy because it would never happen, at least not until everyone is a vegetarian and then they take on the next level of compassionate living. You know as well as I do that even the most hardcore among us would find such a movement absurd. So respectfully, it really does seem like an effort to be tit-for-tat, without any actual substance.

And I'm not trying to make any grand point here, just trying to help you see it from the opposing viewpoint of this discussion as you had asked earlier for insight into the mind-set. I'm not suggesting anyone do any of these things.

Because no one really would do those things, which is precisely my point. The argument falls apart because it's not plausible. I don't see it as an opposing viewpoint at all.

An opposing viewpoint would be to prove that animals don't suffer and there is no need for compassion. That is the opposing viewpoint. And it can't be done.

Perhaps, when you say that you donate towards animal welfare groups, I misunderstood. The two organizations that come to mind are PETA and the Humane Society, so I had assumed it was one or both of those. PETA is noxious and imposing in their message, and the Humane Society does lobby in attempts to sway legislatures towards animal welfare. However (to drive my point home that I was simply painting a scenario for you), I stand with the Humane Society (I sit on the State Agriculture Council for the HSUS NC), mainly because they have recently been outspoken about their support for sustainable and humane farming as an alternative production system for a meat-eating diet. They don't wish the world to be vegetarian, they simply want to end the suffering and inhumane conditions of animals (defining suffering of farm animals is something we've already danced around about). They are changing the direction of their legislative efforts to create a more competitive and realistic market for small farmers. Using legislation can be a tricky monster, as you pointed out with your slavery question.

I'm not trying to change legislation. As with the abortion issue, that wouldn't work anyway.

I support both, actually. Both have their place. PETA is much more 'in your face' and gets more of a reaction, but they're effective. At this late stage of the game, even that isn't enough, sadly.