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.