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.
