(darkinshadows mostly in italics and centered)
I never said that food and religious issues arent linked...
Post 40: Religion is totally different to food.
Sounds like you did to me.
I said that you cannot compare the two. They are there own issues.
They are strongly related issues. Are they not?
[snark alert] Your little chart proves nothing.
So the OP has a ethical reason... that isnt religious.
Her decision to "go vegetarian" is based on her ethics and her belief system. A belief system is a collection of beliefs which are mutually supporting in that a test for any one of them is a test for many of the others. (link).
Religions are also belief systems. From a psychological point of view they are the same thing - although not legally. But generally, vegetarianism and veganism come from the same place as religion, and have the similar impacts.
Isn't it generally accepted that ethics are based in religious beliefs?
I gave an explanation in a later post why I thought it was a "religious issue" and why I inadvertantly didn't put " ... and vegetarian" along with the word "vegan" in my post 29, to wit: "... but most of the time, it's a distinction without a difference."
It's a matter of degree, if an individual decides to become a vegetarian based on moral or ethical principles as the OP has done or take that further step and become a full blown vegan. You don't have to agree with me, although I'm more than willing to advance my case in detail. You certainly don't advance your cause or case by being snarky and belittling. State your case and we'll argue the specifics.
And if you read the OP and take the topic as a whole, you will see that it isn't really about the ethics... it is about whether or not to insist her slave obey her.
Isn't that an ethical question in this context? Doesn't it seem to be an ethical problem for her, whether or not to "force" her sub to do something that he and she have strong and diametrically opposed beliefs about? Isn't she wrestling with her conscience? Isn't that an ethical dilemma?
[snark alert] Do not try and sit there and tell me she isn't considering all outcomes - she obviously cares for her boy - and don't try and make it a force issue. Things change - as I said in another thread - people have sudden revelations all the time - you can't expect to just sign a contract and agree limits at the start of a relationship and just think thats that... nothing is ever gonna change.
I didn't "sit here" and "try to tell you" anything of the sort. Don't project, or post to me about something that I didn't do, or say. This comment comes totally out of left field as far as I can determine. As a matter of fact, what I actually said was: "The OP's situation with her sub is their own dynamic, but I wouldn't castigate or blame the sub if he decided to not assume a vegan [or vegetarian] diet, nor would I particularly care if he accepted it."
And I think you have it exactly correct about there sometimes being "sudden revelations" - but from the wrong end. Why should a sub suffer and put up with something outside of the accepted dynamic without re-negotiating? Suppose, all of sudden your dom decided he liked the taste of roasted femsub, and you were on the menu? I guess you'll just hop on into the oven?
An extreme example, yes, but it fits your definition. Are you one of those "no limit" subs/slaves? Or would you be talking a mile a minute about "trust", "limits" and "our prior understanding"?
[snark alert] Because if thats how your relationship works or you expect it to work - I have news for you. It is going to become stagnant pretty damned fast.
[snark alert] Also note. We are discussing a dominant/slave relationship here. If you cannot understand that concept then don't bother answering because your point of view will not meld with this kind of agreement.
Since these two sentences are nothing other than
ad hominen, BS personal attack, I'll let your words speak for themselves.
quote:
Where did I not distinguish between vegetarianism and veganism? I do know the difference, but most of the time, it's a distinction without a difference.
In your post. (number 29) You spoke about vegans, not vegetarianism in your post.
You are correct. I have also explained my position above, and in an earlier post. To wit: it is simply a matter of degree (in most cases) whether one decides to dip their toes in the waters of vegetarianism, or take the plunge in the deep end and become a vegan. Argue the point if you wish, but please drop the snide snarky remarks.
You also stated.
quote:
Even chimps eat meat when they can get it.
If that is your reasons why humans are omnivores, then thats a poor example.
Chimps also rape the females in their tribe.
Chimps also commit regular acts of canniblism.
Homo sapiens also rape females in their tribe. Homo sapiens also commit regular acts of "canniblism". I fail to see how this invalidates my point. Rather, it reinforces my point that as a class, the family of primates that homo sapiens is related to, also eat meat regularly. There are exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions.
Does that mean we humans must all be rapists by nature - and also able to commit canniblism without negative outcomes?
Yes.
Humans were primarily fruit eaters. During later devolpment they ate meat when it was available to them - if they found it - there is no evidence that human ancestors killed and became hunter- gatherers until much later in evolutionary history..
Humans (homo sapiens) are not, and have never been "primarily fruit eaters". Cite some legitimate source if you wish to assert this.
What is "later development"? Do not confuse all hominds with homo sapiens, which is what it sounds like you are doing. If you want to get into a detailed discussion about the evolution of man, and what different species of hominds may have eaten at different stages, then we can go into that detail.
The anthropological record shows that the most of the extinct primates that lead to homo sapiens were at least occasional meat eaters. While they would eat fruit, it was likely not their primary/only source of food as you seem to be stating.
I challenge you to give any animal something that isnt on their food chain and they will consume it if they are on a survival mode.
I'm not sure of your point in this. On the surface, it seems to support my position, not yours.
Canine teeth are not relevant to the discussion of meat vs plant. Human canines are smaller than they would be if meat was the main and primary source of nutrition. Humans have no claws. They sweat through pores. The stomach acid is not capable of disolving raw meat in a continous manner. We have saliva glads that are far advanced. We have flat rear molars. Human ancestors were primarily tree dwelling, not ground hunters and only began foragers when we evolved down from the trees.
I'll give you the canine teeth thing, although I do believe it is relevent. I do not buy into the "display" theory of canine development. Your other examples? I'm not sure how they are relevent either. Man is an omnivore. He has characteristics of both carnivores and herbivores. Go look at the two links I posted earlier. If you wish to cherry pick certain facts to support your case, and ignore others, be prepared to be challenged.
I never said that humans were not omnivores ever, but primarily - in the beginning... they werent even herbivores, but frubivores.
Again, cite some relevant source for this incorrect assertion. Homo sapiens have never ... I repeat ... NEVER frubivores. Nor, from memory were any of the accepted "ancestor" species of homo sapiens.
quote:
There are good arguments that meat eating became a requirement for the human race when his brain started to expand. Or that his brain started to expand because he was able to eat more meat than his ancestors.
And? That doesn't prove that humans were originally omnivores or even carnivores. It just shows they evolved into being such.
What it "proves" is that meat and man have a long, long history. It is the organ of the brain that makes "man" uniquely "man", in my eyes. And ... again ... you make my point by admitting that "man" is an omnivore. Isn't that what you disagreed with me about to a large extent?
FHky
