Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 167 guests, and 10 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    parentologyco, Smartlady60, petercgeelan, eterpstra, Valib90
    11,410 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 11 of 15 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,296
    Val Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,296
    I tend to agree with JonLaw on his last point.

    I think this thread is highlighting how people can feel slighted or attacked or whatever when they're different. In this case, vegans/vegetarians are indicating that they feel negativity directed at them.

    Similarly, gifties can feel hostility from NT types (especially in schools, but in many other settings, too). NT types can feel as though the gifties think they're superior to them.

    And on and on, depending on which particular group of thousands you happen to fit into, depending on the setting.

    So maybe a lot of people's reactions can come from feeling discomfort. Dunno. Just an idea. Obviously, there are times when one group really is trying to slight or attack the other one. But personally, I don't think that's the case here. I do think there's been some misinterpretation, though.

    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    Originally Posted by madeinuk
    Originally Posted by Dude
    Originally Posted by madeinuk
    I utterly reject the notion that vegans are somehow morally superior or being vegan means that one is automatically more intelligent than everyone else.

    I think it would be necessary for someone to have first proposed that notion in order for your rejection to be relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that the opposite has been stated and agreed to, by people on different ends of the omnivore/herbivore continuum.


    The 'opposite' you are referring to being that vegans are morally reprehensible and stupid?

    I didn't see that either being stated or universally agreed to on this thread myself nor do I think it. Do you?
    FWIW, I took Dude's post as defense of the veg*ns and not as a means of calling us morally reprehensible nor stupid. I believe that he was stating the none of the veg*ns has claimed moral superiority nor greater intellect.

    Originally Posted by JohnLaw
    What's about milk cows?

    Milk cows seem perfectly content to *be* milk cows.

    At least, the milk cows I've encountered.

    They're well fed and cared for.
    At the risk of being preachy here wink , my ethical motivation for not eating dairy is as follows:

    Cows, like all mammals, lactate only when they have given birth. As such, they need to be impregnated to give milk and the baby cows are generally removed from their mothers so the milk can be utilized for human consumption. We have a dairy farm about a mile from my house or less. It has, on the perimeter, a large field of dog igloos that are used to house the male calves as they cannot be turned back into the dairy herd to be milk cows themselves. These male calves never leave the igloos in which they live and are slaughtered as veal fairly early in their lives. I believe that they are kept in small confined areas so that they do not develop significant muscle tissue and their flesh remains soft.

    Actually, I tend to think that the cows who are destined to be meat have better lives from what I see of them locally. They have a good amount of pasture space and fairly good lives and the calves are not taken from the moms. They live among the herd. Until they head to the feed lots, which are about 40 mins from my house, their lives look pretty decent and certainly better than that of the local dairy cows.

    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    C
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    C
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 2,172
    Originally Posted by Val
    I think this thread is highlighting how people can feel slighted or attacked or whatever when they're different. In this case, vegans/vegetarians are indicating that they feel negativity directed at them.

    Similarly, gifties can feel hostility from NT types (especially in schools, but in many other settings, too). NT types can feel as though the gifties think they're superior to them.

    And on and on, depending on which particular group of thousands you happen to fit into, depending on the setting.

    So maybe a lot of people's reactions can come from feeling discomfort. Dunno. Just an idea. Obviously, there are times when one group really is trying to slight or attack the other one. But personally, I don't think that's the case here. I do think there's been some misinterpretation, though.
    For the most part, I'd agree with you here. I have not felt attacked by the majority of the posters and do think that the majority of the rankling at the others of different beliefs has probably been due to misunderstanding. The only person whose posts I have found to be truly attacking have been DAD22's.

    If I am wrong here, I am open to reinterpreting my reactions, though. For those of you who are not veg*n, please do tell me how I should interpret these posts in a manner that is not meant to insult or bait the veg*ns or imply moral inconsistency:
    Originally Posted by DAD22
    As I posted earlier, veg*ns kill animals so they can eat plants. Small mammals are killed when harvesting combines run across a field. Insects (a type of animal) are killed by pesticides. You can attempt to minimize the massive amounts of animal deaths required to sustain you, but unless you're farming your own land with special animal-safe techniques, you're responsible for a lot of death. To imply that there is a difference of kind rather than a difference of degree between most veg*ans and most meat eaters is either disingenuous or ignorant.
    Originally Posted by DAD22
    Most likely any negative reactions are born out of prior experiences with outspoken, self righteous, judgmental, proselytizing veg*ns.
    Quote
    There's also the issue of animals killed during the farming process.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Debate_over_animals_killed_in_crop_harvesting

    If you don't value human life over the lives of field mice, I'm afraid it's going to be very difficult to continue your existence. Vegetarians and vegans still have animal blood on their hands.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Originally Posted by Dude
    Originally Posted by madeinuk
    I utterly reject the notion that vegans are somehow morally superior or being vegan means that one is automatically more intelligent than everyone else.

    I think it would be necessary for someone to have first proposed that notion in order for your rejection to be relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that the opposite has been stated and agreed to, by people on different ends of the omnivore/herbivore continuum.

    It has?

    Truly just confused as to where-- in this thread, I mean-- that opposing viewpoint has been espoused. I have seen that initial notion proposed, and repeated-- but with caveats that I think may make it at least somewhat valid. No, not moral high ground or anything, but that higher intelligence correlates with veganism/vegetarianism. Atheism also correlates highly, as has been noted repeatedly as well. I do not see anyone of faith objecting vehemently to that assertion, however, but a few have remarked that this doesn't fit their profile personally, ergo "smart =/= atheist" any more than "vegan = smart" seems entirely relevant.

    I do think, for whatever this is worth, that some are feeling a touch more defensive than is warranted by anything being said here.

    I sincerely do not mean that to offend. Just that I see no judgment here for being veg*n meaning anything in particular.


    Naturally, I object to a morally-based veg*n point of view being imposed upon me. I object to this in much the same way that I object to being told that I need "educating" in order to become a person of faith. I don't. I'm not ignorant because we disagree in our conclusions.

    Regardless of my personal feelings about eating other creatures, I mean. Not everyone has the physiological means, the financial means, nor the TIME required to find work-arounds for the limitations in their own families. I know a great many people who would prefer to be veg*n but cannot due to their circumstances, and instead they choose to minimize their animal protein consumption, or eat what they, personally, can live with. I think that several of us posting in this thread have embraced that kind of life and been fairly open about our logic or rationale, and our reasons why we do as we do. In addition, I do NOT think that it is my place to tell anyone else right from wrong within their own dietary rules-- this includes choices about eating/not eating meat or anything else in particular.


    I should also point out that I've had acquaintances inform me in no uncertain terms that I'm morally bankrupt because I have participated in animal research, and that they hoped that some animal rights group would destroy my lab, etc. etc. That strikes me as distinctly sociopathic, too. Pretty sure that most diabetics using human insulin are kind of thrilled that animal research over a period of 100 years has resulted in a life expectancy which is rapidly approaching normalcy. A lot of modern allopathic medical interventions wouldn't exist without animal models.

    So some of us are pretty familiar with the militant variety of radical veganism. I consider those people to be nearly as scary/unbalanced as religious zealots. But I realize full well that those are a VERY few bad apples, and that most veg*n people are just like anyone else.


    Here is a philosophical puzzler for vegans:

    If vegans ran the world, so to speak, meat would no longer exist. Animal 'husbandry' would give way to... what, exactly? So no more dairy farming. No more backyard chickens. No beehives, right? What then? What will happen if all of those things go away? Farming brings animals into being. Those animals live simply because of that industry and husbandry. If there is no purpose for them, they would never be born at all. Is that not exercising human dominion, as well? Or are domesticated animals "mistakes" that need correction?

    I'm genuinely curious about that. I've never understood the purpose of "freeing" animals that have few innate instinctive survival skills. It seems more cruel than captivity, honestly. If life is sacred-- and I can concede that this is a valid outlook-- then eliminating animal husbandry completely means that many animals will never have the chance to live a life to begin with.

    Of course, eliminating honeybees is also extremely problematic for a host of reasons, and that one means that if even 20% of the world population attempted to be vegan, we might all be in real trouble. Everyone thinks that honeybees are "natural" but they most certainly are NOT-- no more than domesticated turkeys are natural.

    Maybe Jonathon Swift was on to something. wink


    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Originally Posted by JonLaw
    In all seriousness, isn't a major question here the actual human carrying capacity of the earth in terms of (sustainable) agriculture/animal husbandry?

    Well-stated.

    And it's THE elephant in the room, honestly. Well, IMO, it is.



    ETA: interestingly, I crossed posts with Val and Cricket. Interesting both how similar and how different our observations about the conversation were! Many similarities. smile

    Last edited by HowlerKarma; 06/27/13 03:10 PM.

    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Originally Posted by squishys
    You know, the OP was about vegetarianism. Now all the meateaters have jumped aboard to give their two cents on why meat is good. Yes, we get it. No one is better than you.

    And I don't find the jokes about killing or eating animals or mocking veg*ns respectful at all.

    We have?? confused

    Again, not seeing this, if it has taken place. I have seen NO posts trashing being veg*n.

    I thought that the point of this not being a matter of being BETTER was sort of the point of it all to start with. I also think, for better or worse, that for a HG child, even if s/he is thinking that s/he holds moral superiority, learning to keep those kinds of thoughts to one's self and be reasonably gracious is a social skill of no small merit. It's a discussion we've had in our home re: Atheism/Christian Fundamentalism, frankly.



    As for the joking, well, that is sort of what we do around here. There isn't anything too sacred for some of us. Sorry about that if it offends occasionally, but in my defense, I'm an equal opportunity offender there. The only real joke that I can think of was my cat one, and that was to make a point that most omnivores have some pretty strange logic going on (and to point out that I'm not someone rounding up neighborhood strays to remake Re-Animator in my basement or anything).

    I have three cats and I love them dearly, even when it is far from convenient. Oddly, there IS no sharp dividing line in my head between companion and food animals. I'm unusual in that regard, I'm aware.




    Last edited by HowlerKarma; 06/27/13 03:24 PM.

    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    Originally Posted by Dude
    Originally Posted by madeinuk
    I utterly reject the notion that vegans are somehow morally superior or being vegan means that one is automatically more intelligent than everyone else.

    I think it would be necessary for someone to have first proposed that notion in order for your rejection to be relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that the opposite has been stated and agreed to, by people on different ends of the omnivore/herbivore continuum.

    It has?

    Truly just confused as to where-- in this thread, I mean-- that opposing viewpoint has been espoused. I have seen that initial notion proposed, and repeated-- but with caveats that I think may make it at least somewhat valid. No, not moral high ground or anything, but that higher intelligence correlates with veganism/vegetarianism. Atheism also correlates highly, as has been noted repeatedly as well. I do not see anyone of faith objecting vehemently to that assertion, however, but a few have remarked that this doesn't fit their profile personally, ergo "smart =/= atheist" any more than "vegan = smart" seems entirely relevant.

    Because you asked nicely, here is a sampling of some of the previous statements in this thread which, in my reading, disconnect the notion of intelligence or morality from the choice of diet:

    Originally Posted by earlier in the thread
    Originally Posted by Cricket2
    We recently joined a local meetup group of vegans [...] I really reject the notion that people who understand the atrocities in factory farming (dh has certainly been exposed to that through watching videos like Food, Inc.) yet are willing to continue to eat meat obtained from such sources (dh is) are insensitive, evil, amoral, or innately cruel.

    Originally Posted by doubtfulgues
    i don't know of any global attributes that might sway one person more than another, but in our family it seems to depend on exposure.

    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    I think that the major difference in conclusions is dependent (at least for high IQ people) on whether or not they adopt beliefs as follows:

    a) all creatures which are sentient possess something which could be termed a "soul"

    b) creatures with souls (see a) should be granted more-or-less equivalent rights

    c) all creatures which are sentient are "animals"

    d) human beings are/are not somehow different from animals



    I think that it is the combination of these factors and parsing their meaning that leads to such radically different decisions in whether or not to consume meat or other animal products, and to what degree.


    Originally Posted by Zen Scanner
    I actually wouldn't factor intelligence into the question. As it too is a bit of wash playing into some of the above factors.

    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    One question-- is it fundamentally cruelty?

    Originally Posted by Cricket2
    Something is presumably different in the kiddos who make massive lifestyle changes from exposure to things like Food Inc. vs those who see the same movie and who are possibly upset but who don't make lifestyle changes as a result. I really don't mean "better" and I think that is why this is so interesting to dd and me. We really don't agree with other veg*ns who think that there is something wrong with people who respond differently.

    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    I do think, for whatever this is worth, that some are feeling a touch more defensive than is warranted by anything being said here.

    I sincerely do not mean that to offend. Just that I see no judgment here for being veg*n meaning anything in particular.


    Agreed in its entirety.

    I have no response to the bit that followed on a veg*an militancy, on account of I don't think bringing extremists into the conversation is particularly helpful. Hopefully, militant vegans don't represent the beliefs/behaviors of any participants in this thread any more than Ted Nugent represents mine.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    I'd hope not! Much as I like Ted in some respects, he kinda scares me in others. wink Also, as noted, I know many veg*ns who are lovely, nonjudgmental people.

    I guess I thought it wasn't entirely irrelevant since it was (obliquely) referred to in the original post that veg*nism might be related to IQ. It may be that I was puzzled over "opposite" and the intended meaning there, as well. smile



    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 1,453
    From what I could see - Dad22 and HK were being seen as 'slighting/attacking' by vegans when all I saw them doing was asking intelligent questions and trying to talk through some obvious inconsistencies (from their perspective) in the vegan approach to diet.

    That is ultimately why I chimed in - I do agree that this did go off on a bit of a tangent and apologise to all that I may have inadvertently offended.


    Become what you are
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Originally Posted by madeinuk
    That is ultimately why I chimed in - I do agree that this did go off on a bit of a tangent and apologise to all that I may have inadvertently offended.

    I started a new post on the awesomness of Harvard so that we can inadvertently offend each other in an entirely new way.

    (I was looking for decline of the legal profession stuff and found this article by accident. I don't know whether it is accurate. But it is funny.)

    "Brown and Cornell are Second Tier"

    http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....and_Cornell_are_Second_T.html#Post161199

    Page 11 of 15 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

    Moderated by  M-Moderator, Mark D. 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5