Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

A new test (suitable for vegans)!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A new test (suitable for vegans)!

    Now it's possible to found out, in an objective and scientific way, how much of a bad-ass vegan you are. Have a look at:

    http://www.rootsofcompassion.org/bet...zzz/quiz.shtml

    Most people here on MWM are not vegans at all, of course, but I wouldn't want to fail to adhere to the wonderful tradition of providing links to fun but essentially meaningless web-based tests only because the test in question will be completely irrelevant to a vast majority of the people accessing that link. (Wonderful sentence!) :D

    The test may also work for lacto-ovo-veggies as well, by the way.
    You can't spell "politically correct" without "correct".

  • #2
    I'm not vegan (a few eggs, a little dairy here and there, and a tiny bit of leather in the wardrobe), but got this...

    You are doing your bit, you can feel smug as you read the PETA magazine, and sip herbal tea, you middle class fluffy piece of shit!

    Smug and middle class-- certainly! Fluffy piece of shit-- up for debate. :D

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Doc
      You are doing your bit, you can feel smug as you read the PETA magazine, and sip herbal tea, you middle class fluffy piece of shit!
      Yeah, me too Doc don't worry ;)

      The natural enemies of conservationists like me are "bunny huggers" they just don't understand how anyone can support a cull of any kind and accuse us of all evils!

      Arrgh Etive is a hedgehog murdering bitch!...............

      Actually I don't support blood sports and failed a pest control course (which someone signed me up to for a laugh) by setting off all the live traps at lunchtime to save the squirrels.

      I have more than my fair share of leather garments being a biker (and a bit of a leather fan). The only thing I do for the"vegan cause" is include vegan variations in my soup recipies (available on request).

      Great site Rymdolov!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Etive
        Originally posted by Doc
        You are doing your bit, you can feel smug as you read the PETA magazine, and sip herbal tea, you middle class fluffy piece of shit!
        Yeah, me too Doc don't worry ;)

        The natural enemies of conservationists like me are "bunny huggers" they just don't understand how anyone can support a cull of any kind and accuse us of all evils!
        Nice to know I'm in good company. :D I'm also with you on extremists. It seems odd that many of them spend too much energy criticizing the people who do a little, accusing them of not doing enough, and not enough time dealing with the people doing nothing. Maybe I'm not a crusader, but I'm happy doing my part in my way and encouraging others...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Etive
          Great site Rymdolov!
          Well, my girlfriend found it, I'll pass your gratitude on to her. Good to hear about the squirrels! :D

          I find views on extremism interesting. When I was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian, some people accused me of being inconsistent. "If you care about animals why not go all the way", they would say. Now that I'm a vegan people say "Well, it's good to care about animals, but do you have to be so extreme?". It's just the same with animal rights activism. Those who do something illegal and then go home to bed are treated as terrorists or hooligans, but those who perform their actions openly and are willing to accept their punishment are seen as only wanting attention. You just can't win, can you?

          Anyway, I think that you change people's habits by setting an example, not by preaching.
          You can't spell "politically correct" without "correct".

          Comment


          • #6
            It's amazing how some people feel very comfortable telling you how well you're living deeply personal aspects of your life.

            I get some criticism from people-- "Oh, you're such a hypocrite because you won't eat meat but don't care to exploit dairy animals"-- while they're stuffing a steak in their mouths.

            I'm not trying to make a statement with it. I'll talk about it with people who really want to know my reasons for the lifestyle I lead, but I mostly ignore people who want to feel smug by telling me halfway is the same of nothing. I've had wonderful, rewarding conversations with people who are genuinely interested my reasons for choosing my lifestyle and some of the issues that go along with it.

            Like with every other issue in life, people who are interested in learning don't resort to sanctimony first.

            Comment


            • #7
              I was a fairly strict lacto-ovo-veggie for about seven years, then started eating fish. Now I also eat free-range poultry and have also been known to nibble on the odd ham sandwich that would otherwise go in the bin. Factory farming's what I don't like, but I can't be bothered to go around lecturing people on the subject.

              To my mind, I'm just eating what I want. Fortunately we have a good range of food available in the UK. Not eating meat is no more inconvenient (nor odd, in my opinion) than not eating sprouts, olives or any of the other things that I love but some people hate!

              I remember at the height of my veggiedom feeling a bit alienated about the world and freaked out about the fact that so many people were gnawing at dead animals when they could be eating "Sosmix" instead. So I sort of know where the vegan psychos are coming from. But why just focus on that one issue when there's so many ghastly things going on? The only way to be really pure would be to kill yourself!
              \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Doc
                I'm not trying to make a statement with it. I'll talk about it with people who really want to know my reasons for the lifestyle I lead, but I mostly ignore people who want to feel smug by telling me halfway is the same of nothing. I've had wonderful, rewarding conversations with people who are genuinely interested my reasons for choosing my lifestyle and some of the issues that go along with it.

                Like with every other issue in life, people who are interested in learning don't resort to sanctimony first.
                I try not to make such a big fuzz either (though my activity her on MWM is an obvious exception; I seem to have been involved in many discussions about vegetarianism). In my experience there are psychos on both sides. I know plenty of omnivores who seem to take it as a personal insult that someone could refrain from eating meat, and there are just as many vegans who are like that. I think that one of the reasons that so many vegetarians are a bit preachy could be that one of the animal rights movement's most influential philosopher, Tom Regan, has written that we who have seen the light, so to speak, have an obligation to work actively against the oppression all the time. Though I understand him in a way, I'm not convinced that this is the most efficient or ethical way to advance a philosophy. What you eat is a very personal and private part of your life and people mostly want to be left alone with it. This is, I think, why so many people are provoked by the concept of animal rights - it becomes part of your life very easily. It's not difficult to turn off the news if you're disturbed by reports of starving kids on a different continent, but you have to eat every day, if you know what I mean.

                I understand Mikey_C's opinion about there being lots of other important issues. I'm not sure I understand what TheAdlerian means when writing about "natural" behaviour, though. How do you define "natural"?
                You can't spell "politically correct" without "correct".

                Comment


                • #9
                  An example would be that I have never seen a cat eat vegetables.
                  Cats are carnivorous. You can put a dog on a vegetarian diet (provided that it's designed for dogs and has all the things dogs need), but you can never put a cat on an entirely vegetarian diet. It just isn't healthy for cats.

                  In my experience there are psychos on both sides.
                  I agree, but in my experience, there are more psychos on the vegan side. Most "meat-eaters" just want to be left alone. It's a shame really because I don't have a problem with what anyone else wants to eat, but I find myself consistently pissed off a vegans because they get preachy with me.

                  Personally, I buy all my meat at a local butcher shop that I trust. It tastes much better anyway and the prices are pretty good. However, that doesn't stop me from enjoying a meal somewhere else. I'm not going that far out of my way. I took your little test just to see what it said. Supposedly I don't care about animals. That couldn't be further from the truth and that's the sort of things that pisses me off about vegans in general. Where were all the questions about adopting pets and taking in strays and reporting animal abuse? Doesn't that count for anything?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Perhaps the reason people find some vegans or vegetarians to be preachy is because they are an exception to the rule. It is a meat-eating world, after all, so why would a carnivore say anything about following the norm?

                    I know there are extremists who are nearly evangelical. However, if we are relying on anecdotal evidence to make our cases, I have had many more carnivores try to convert me than I have tried to convert. Who, in that case, is putting there nose where it doesn't belong? I am not defending the actions of any extremist who tells you about your own life. I just want to point out that I am just as offended as the next person when someone tells me to ignore my own convictions.

                    This conversation gives me some insight into what is different about our world views, Adlerian. You see eating meat as part of our animal nature. I see our humanity as the key factor that makes us overcome that. My humanity allows me the choices that distinguish me from that animal state. In that sense, I find that eating the way I do is actually affirmation of my most natural state, rather than a denial of it. My food choices are only a small part of that larger universe of conviction. I suspect that Rymdolov has a similar impression?

                    Having said that, I also think it's only my business. I usually don't talk about it unless someone asks. But since I'm engaged in this discussion...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid question, but wouldn't TheAdlerian's definition of how "natural" eating meat is also apply to sleeping around (casual sex with as many partners as possible)? It feels good, the body enjoys it, and it would keep the human race ticking over, providing variety and helping the species survive various natural threats. There's a risk of infection, but then too much red meat isn't going to do you much good in the long run either. Promiscuity is also part of our "animal nature". However, many people choose to "mate for life", or make some form of similar commitment. These people aren't generally dismissed as "unnatural", "petty rebels", or considered to be "preaching" when they invite you to their ceremonies and demand presents to validate their choice. Is there a parallel there, or am I talking out of my behind?

                      Just because we can do something, and it does us good as individuals, doesn't mean that we should do it, or that it does the planet any good. What's good for the body might not be quite so good for the soul... in my humble opinion. Not preaching, just adding to the debate already in progress.

                      Er... I don't sleep around, btw, it was just an example.
                      "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A quick clarification: The test that I linked to is not supposed to be taken seriously at all, at least that's my impression. When I called it "objective" and "scientific" I was being deeply sarcastic.

                        Originally posted by Doc
                        I see our humanity as the key factor that makes us overcome that. My humanity allows me the choices that distinguish me from that animal state. In that sense, I find that eating the way I do is actually affirmation of my most natural state, rather than a denial of it. My food choices are only a small part of that larger universe of conviction. I suspect that Rymdolov has a similar impression?
                        Well put! I think I'm going to start quoting you instead of doing my own thinking, if that's ok. No, seriously, I didn't feel unnatural when I was eating meat, but I felt like a hypocrit. I had my opinions and a general world view and eating meat didn't fit with it. I felt irrational. When I became a vegetarian it didn't change me physically, but I felt that I had finally stopped lying to myself. So I guess we have basically the same view on this, except that I wouldn't want to bring in the word "natural" at all.

                        This is my basic objection to TheAdlerian's reasoning. What's natural or not is, in my experience, only brought up as a slightly more rational-sounding substitute for what is Gods will or not. Whether you worship "Nature" or "God", my answer is the same: We have no good way of knowing the purpose or intention of either, so we will have to do what seems good, instead of hiding behind nice but essentially pointless metaphors. This is where I sort of agree with TheAdlerian, I guess:

                        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                        Anyway, we are trapped here and the best we can do is promote the happiness of the only thinking beings on the planet. /.../A counter argument that I might agree with is that killing and eating animals is psychologically hurtful to humans and that prevents well-being.
                        I would write "feeling beings" instead of "thinking beings", though, which brings animals higher up on the list. When it comes to killing animals without feeling bad about it, well, I'm pretty sure that I could kill both humans and other animals under certain extreme circumstances. I don't interpret this as if it's ok to kill for pleasure.
                        You can't spell "politically correct" without "correct".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I just want to point out that I am just as offended as the next person when someone tells me to ignore my own convictions.
                          Of course! I'm not suggesting that vegans don't have a right to be offended if they are insulted...just that most people who eat meat don't walk up to vegans and give them shit about it. People who eat meat don't usually cause a fuss about vegan restaurants. People who eat meat don't usually start threads on forums telling people that it's wrong to be a vegan. Btw, I'm not saying that is what this thread is...just that I have seen it a number of times on other forums.

                          The cat example was used to support one of my ideas but I know that there are plenty of meat preferring animals that also like plant matter.
                          I know. I was just taking it a step further and pointing out that not only do they not like vegetables, they can't be sustained on an entirely vegetarian diet.

                          Hey D not all animals sleep around.
                          Wolves mate for life also.

                          This has even generated evolutionary theories about the size and shape of the primate penis. Of course, I will happily share this with you if you so desire.
                          I'm curious about this. Please share.

                          I'm reading an interesting book right now called The Lucifer Principle. It's by Howard Bloom and it talks about what is natural for humans and how we are actually very inclined towards violence and such. It's very interesting and, so far, kind of funny. I know that sounds bad, but the author has a great sense of humor. I would suggest that anyone who's curious about the "nature" of humans pick up a copy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As a point of interest, my sister had a cat who was mad about eating carrot scrapings whenever he could get hold of them. However, this has no bearing on the discussion!

                            I don't have a problem with the word "human" deriving etymologically from "caring". I actually think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that humans basically are caring. Why would I bother myself with working for a lousy wage in Social Services and helping people out through my trade union if I didn't think that? A "dog eat dog" world wouldn't suit me - if I honestly thought life was like that I would probably be considering suicide...

                            I agree with Rymdolov that use of the word "natural" in relation to human behaviour is the same as God-speak. "Nature" is such an all-embracing word which only makes sense if we believe in some kind of metaphysical reality counterposed to it. Personally I don't see how it's possible to do anything unnatural.

                            The discussion about thinking / feeling beings made me think about Peter Singer, the philosopher who developed the concept of "animal rights", but is now courting controversy by expressing the nazi-like view that it is acceptable to kill people with cognitive impairments. He derives his opinions from utilitarian ethics, rather than eugenics (as has been claimed), but he has succeeded in causing considerable (and understandable) offence to people with disabilities: http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/singer.html

                            Logically argued they may be, but I find Singer's views abhorrent. What he says about Down's syndrome, for example, bears no resemblance to the people I know, who are just as capable of leading a fulfilling life as anyone else, given adequate support. It does seem that some people can combine great concern for animals with a disregard for human life. I won't mention that Hitler was a vegetarian (whoops - I just did...) These are a small minority, I hasten to add!
                            \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So much to respond to...

                              Dee- I think you make a great analogy that gets at the heart of what makes us human.

                              Rymdolov- I simply put what you had already said in different words. I only want credit if you find a way to make lots of money putting my words on shirts. :D

                              Danistry-
                              I hope you didn't think I was directing anything negative at you. I suspect you spend your energy stirring the pot with more important issues. :D I hope you take that as a compliment, because that's the way I mean it.

                              Mikey_C-
                              Thanks for the information about Singer. I admired some of his early stuff, but didn't realize how horrid his positions had turned. And on a less serious note, my cat growing up loved vegetable soup more than almost anything else she could steal from us. I remember her chasing the last pea around an empty soup bowl more than once.

                              Adlerian- I think you raise a really interesting point about word origins and how they relate to enculturated values and actions. There's a great deal of anthropological research that deals with a lot of this. The simplest (and oddly most controversial) ideas are related to the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Also, I'm not digging at you here, but you are making a serious case for evolution with many of your ideas here, which is ironic given the discussion on a different thread.


                              As for myself, I don't think anyone is saying they are a better or worse person for what they eat or don't, and I personally don't feel that way. Better implies something relative. I eat what I eat for me-- not for anyone else, nor in comparison to anyone else.

                              However, if someone else does adopt a particular lifestyle because it makes them feel good, those positive self-feelings may be self-delusional, but they are nevertheless very real in their consequenses (as W.I. Thomas would point out.) If what you do or don't do makes you feel good, keep doing it, becuase there are enough things in this world working to make us feel bad.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X