Being that veganism is based in part on showing compassion to animals, it seems that it would be an unequivocally extreme stance to deny them the care they require as a direct result of our domesticating them. Counterintuitive, right?

On another note, I actually will be the first to admit that I have what some would consider extreme beliefs in other areas, myself. A lot of what I do is based on logic and fact, yet still influenced by emotion. Things have to make sense, and saying you care about animals but refusing to provide them with basic needs isn't logical or compassionate, you know? Odd. :dizzy:

Soulbliss - I thought your analogy was a good one, and I wasn't trying to undermine it. It just set my mind off on a bit of a tangent!

Very interesting! Whilst I was aware that vegan meant essentially 'way hardcore vegetarian - NO animal products, yo!' I hadn't really thought about it as an overarching philosophy in this way. Your description makes it sound rather reminiscent of (some elements of) Buddhism, or Jainism.

NB - a substantial minority of the kids at my school are Jains. Jainism, for those folks going 'Huh?' at this point, is much like Buddhism in many respects (as I understand it) and originated with a contemporary of the Buddha. However, they're so determined to avoid causing inadvertant harm to other living creatures that they limit WHICH vegetables they are permitted to only those that can be safely harvested without inadvertently harming insects/worms etc. So root vegetables etc are right out.

It is a very interesting question, and I think it shows that nearly every philosophy exists on an infinite spectrum. To some degree, our position on that spectrum IS arbitrary. Where do we draw the line, and why? I think it's something everyone should think about and carefully consider and make a conscious choice. That doesn't mean everyone will make the same choice.

If a pet is ok, what about a seeing eye dog? In college, I had this very discussion with two vegans. One (who had a pet at home) was pro-pet, but anti-service dog (because the animal is forced into "slavery" she said, and it was wrong, even if the dog seemed to enjoy it, to benefit from the labors of an animal). The other said that owning a pet was just as wrong because using an animal for any purpose, including companionship was wrong. That the entire process of domestication was so wrong that we needed to prevent breeding of all domestic (and therefore artificial) animals until they were (as they shoud be in her view) extinct. I can't say that I didn't understand the logic behind her argument (despite not agreeing with it). In some ways, the most extreme view is almost easier to understand than a moderate one, because how much control or interference in another species IS appropriate? If you're willing to say at least "a little" you've entered the gray area, like it or not.

Buddhist here. :wave: I just wanted to add that all of these approaches to eating can be seen as having merits, or not. The Jainist food philosophy does seem extreme to me. If you follow the path of denial far enough, you end up not doing anything because of the potential harm anything might entail.

One question that interests me is, Does someone feel "morally superior" to others because of what they choose to eat? If so, then they may have moved beyond certain choices, but they have not transcended the ego.

Jay

Yes, that is of interest to me too, because obviously if someone is feeling superior (or even inferior ;) ) there is ego involved.

I think someone can make what they feel to be the most correct choice for themselves personally, without having any judgment as to where that means others stand in terms of a hierarchy. At least, I know I can. I do what I do and others do what they do. It is what it is. :carrot:

The choices I make are very personal ones and have nothing to do with categorizing in relation to others. My moral compass is my own and what others choose to do has little to do with why I make my individual choices.

I was thinking about this in the middle of the night which is always dangerous but one of the things that struck me as kind of interesting is your choice to eat low carb as a vegan. Clearly, not the easiest eating plan for you to follow. For instance, eating a mediterranean diet with lots of grains and legumes would be much easier.

One of the principles that I consider to be almost a core low carb principle is the idea that we are returning to the diet of our paleolithic ancestors. I know Atkins doesn't say much if anything about this, but it is a feature of many of the other low carb diet books. Jonny Bowden calls it "our factory recommended diet." Caveman clearly ate meat and in fact, didn't stop at the muscle parts. About the first half of the protein power book is devoted to this topic and how eating a diet full of processed foods and grains has been a nutritional nightmare for humans. Not sure I buy ALL of that but it is the argument at anyrate. Despite that, I think Diana Schwazbein has made an effort to come up with some lower carb menu plans for vegetarians. I'm not sure they are vegan friendly but you could probably make the necessary changes. Do you have any of her books?

I became very fat eating what most would consider a "sensible" vegan diet, a whole foods, "balanced" very Mediterranean style diet. I've always eaten many green vegetables, legumes and beans, very "healthy" foods. Even staying within my calorie range and exercising, I wouldn't lose much weight! Now, I can eat more calories, stay satisfied longer and lose much more rapidly than before. Staying in ketosis has helped me curb my hunger and thus adjust my relationship with food to a healthier balance. I may adjust back to a more broad diet (if I can do it without becoming broad again!) as time goes on. I do miss lentils, but I like shedding this excess fat more!

I don't have her books but I have read hers as well as others (Protein Power, all the Atkins books, Taubes' book and so on).

I admit that it is an unusual choice I've made. I don't want to eat animals or animal products, yet I've chosen a plan that is traditionally based on these very things. All I can say is that it's working for me at this time (I've lost over 30 pounds this last 10 weeks) and I haven't felt I needed to deny my true hunger at all during the process. It's helping me redefine my relationship with food, and I feel better and better every day.

SoulBliss - WOWWWW!! 30lbs in 10 weeks! That's excellent! That's really the bottom line to all these diets...if something's working (whether it fit a plan or not) DO IT!!! Cuz, that's what's right for you.

BTW, what has your exercise program looked like over those 10 weeks you lost all that weight...curious...may help me! Joyce

Well, YOU are the workout Guru and you look GREAT to me ;)

Honestly, I have been doing my own thing which is gentle to moderate yoga 3 times a week (90 minute classes), Pilates once or twice a week (50 minute classes and this kicks my @$$!!!), weight training 3 times a week (soon to be 4) and 30-90 minutes of cardio (treadmill) as often as I can, at least 4 days a week.

I did have a week of illness (resulting in 8 pounds lost that week) where I didn't work out on my normal schedule. I am just getting back to my routine.

Aaaaaah!!! Figures...damn! I knew it. The book I'm reading is soooo right! It says that basically you've got to FEED the muscle and BURN the fat...not diet the fat away! Basically, you'll get more results with MORE exercise/activity! There's just no way around it! Damn! I always ask (workout regimen) when I talk to someone who's lost like you have. It helps reassure me of what I already know I have to do! If I want that 'fitness model' body...then I've gotta work out like a "fitness model"! Gonna try upping cardio to twice per day (one in a.m. and one in p.m.) on off weight-training days. Thanks.

Odd, I keep trying to use the "quote" button and it won't work!


I think those who are extremely strict about how specific terms may or may not be used by others might feel insecure, and want to preserve the esteem of the labels they use for themselves. If you're living your principles, why would it be so concerning if someone's cousin is being expedient in expressing her food preferences?

It's not about "esteem", it's about integrity and consistency, for me personally. It's about what is convenient for me, too! I say this because it is tiresome and irritating to be continually offered/served animal products because the person with the misconception knows a "vegan" who eats "insert non vegan food here".

That being said, I appreciate being "expedient" and you are right, a server doesn't care about your ethical/personal/religious/fetish/what-have-you motivations, they just want to know what you want and if it's vegetarian food you are asking for, I hope it's vegetarian food you get, not fish or sea creatures or soup with chickn broths.

I have to say this has been one of the most interesting and informative threads I have ever participated in. This was a thread that has gone far afield (back again, far afield again, and I think is starting to come back again) and easily could have raised tempers to the point that a moderator would have felt the need to step in and shut the thread down. Which would have been a shame (at least selfishly for myself) because I learned so much.

I think it's too easy (and therefore too common) for people to assume that anyone who has beliefs far from their own is extreme, bizarre, crazy, evil (insert insult of choice, in other words). Or worse, in my opinion when people "agree to disagree" in a way that prevents discussion, because that's such a valuable way to learn about others (books and media are great, but there's no substitute for learning through direct communication).

Here here Kaplod! I totally agree with you! I think nothing beats it when a group of articulate, well-informed women come together for an equal exchange of ideas, questions, views, etc. This had also been a great thread for me as I have noticed that not all threads have been quite the exhilerating experience!:carrot: Generally, when you don't agree with the "masses" you are taken as "volitile" or "hostile" or better yet "a thread to society"!:lol: We all have strong feelings when we believe something...it's that equal exchange of those feelings (which of course, that's all they are), that's informative and educational (if only to understand other belief systems in the world). That is one of the reasons why people travel...to see how other people live. Great post!

Oh my goodness. I learned so much on this thread. Thank you Soul and Bambi and others for having the discussion and not shying away from being frank. I LOVED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION WITHOUT HURT FEELINGS, SARCASM OR PREACHING. Soul, you have a wonderful of looking at things. Your persepctive had an impact on me that you may not realize and it wasn't just limited to the Vegan way of life. This goes so far beyond eating plans. It made me think about how the majority of people present or percieve almost all things that they feel strongly about. Even, if they only focus on something as a passing fancy (Bambi IT IS naughty to tease your sister but I understand. tee hee. ) On an overall note SB could not be more correct about whole heartedly focusing on one's own commitment to a particular philosophy as opposed to focusing one's energy outward and trying to influence the thinking of others. Not only do you begin to spend too much time judging others but you stop seeing where you yourself are falling down on the job so to speak. Sometimes I watch bitter debates pop up and just want to say to, "How about you focus on you and wait for someone else to ASK you for advice or ASK you about the way of life you have chosen?" I think most of the time people don't realize how preachy they can end up sounding when that was entirely not their intent but the damage has been done and their audience has mentally checked out . Typically I experience the preachy (or as you SO aptly put it, "Superior" or "Inferior") ego thing when someone has newly discovered something and jumping in with both feet while telling everyone else they should do the same (superior). One certainly doesn't want to want to dampen their enthusiasm but it often takes a lot of sefl control not to say, "Enough already". By the same token I see the people driven by inferior ego issues preaching about a particular thing because it might be the only thing they ever succeeded with and as such they constantly seek reinforcement and "wise old sage" accolades from others. I have a guy at work like that. Whenever we have a picnic or a potluck or some kind of gathering, he has to bring the conversation around to the running shoes he buys and uses, how all other brands are awful, how the shoes made him successful in running marathons blah, blah, blah. I kid you not. We could be talking about bras, natural peanut butter, the best way to remove pet stains or whatever and he brings up running shoes and not just the shoes. No one can talk about any different kinds of shoes. He will keep bringing the conversation back the the shoes he uses. It wears one out. People who might have actually had an interest in running end up running away from him!!!


Anyway, I really, really enjoyed the informative thread and I learned a lot about some things with which I had no previous experience.

BRAVO!!!!

This is a very interesting discussion, it has gone from protein to vegetarianism/veganism to religion and back again. Quite intriguing some of the thoughts expressed here.

Since religion was mentioned (and also cavemen) I wanted to make a point that I have understood based on the Bible. It seems that according to the Bible humans did NOT eat animals prior to the flood of Noah's day. It was after the flood that Noah was given permission (by God) to eat meat.

Why at that time and not at the time of Adam? It seems that Adam and Eve ate fruit and later maybe grains that they cultivated from the ground. It does say that Able herded sheep. Did he use them for food? The Bible doesn't say, possibly for clothing only. But he did use them for animal sacrifice and his brother Cain sacrificed fruit and veggys.

I wonder though if since the Bible seems to indicate that Noah was the first given permission to eat meat if the earth produced different quality of vegetarian foods prior to the flood. If the Bible is correct and the flood was earthwide, then it stands to reason there was a lot of water in the sky at one time. This likely produced a greenhouse effect over the planet, making it warm and moist and easy to produce food everywhere on the globe. It also likely screened out most of the UV rays that cause so much damage to people today. People's lifespans were much longer prior to the flood, and according to the Bible Shem(a flood survivor) lived a very much longer time after the flood than did his descendants. In fact it appears that he lived so long that he saw buried as many as 7 to 9 generations of his descendants.

So this would indicate that there was some damage perhaps genetically (maybe due to the increased radiation) after the flood that didn't exist before. Something that shortened man's lifespan. (Or perhaps it was that Vegan diet that they practiced before the flood and perhaps they had more variety and better quality veggys then?)

I'm thinking that perhaps the change in the diet allowed by God was based on a need for more protein (due to increased radiation and need to repair the sun's damage) or perhaps because the earth's climate wouldn't be uniform any more and non animal proteins would be harder to find especially in the far north.

(One evidence for the idea of a "greenhouse" condition earthwide is the mastadons they have found buried in ice in Siberia who were so quick frozen that they still had ferns in their mouths unswallowed. It indicates that a quick climate change happened, possibly the loss of the water canopy that kept the world uniformly warm).

I agree with the idea of not hurting animals, but I also believe that God put them here for a reason and has allowed us to use them at least since the flood.

Still that is neither here nor there.

What I aim interested in asking though is this: If Vegans believe in not harming animals at all, and yet some keep a pet, how can this be done in say the case of a cat? Cat's are natural carnivores and don't function well on a vegetarian diet. How then could you even keep a cat and still not harm it by trying to feed it a diet that is unnatural for it?