4 ms·

I think it is important that we are compassionate to those who haven't yet found their way over, but I draw the line at tolerating defense of vegetarian 'ethics

I think it is important that we are compassionate to those who haven't yet found their way over, but I draw the line at tolerating defense of vegetarian 'ethics'. > each to their own So while I generally agree with this, is it fair to say it when it doesn't apply equally for all sentient life—or is it just convenient? > There are people who classify honey as an animal product and there are people who disagree. This really isn't subjective.

aziaziazi 2y ago
The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws. In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right about the definition but fore sure that was correlated: my garden _is_ a (big) cage/prison/limit. However the way he said it triggered my defence mode[0] and it took me months to process the message. Consider also cobalt associated with slavery. From the view of biologist and most vegans, humans are animals and then cobalt consumption problematic (it’s used in many tech, not just smartphones). I also occasionally wash my hand in public places with probably animal sourced soap and yes it’s for convenience as for cobalt and my pets. _Anyone_ allow themselves to slightly bend their ethics to not becoming mad. From the "only-good-meat" eater that don’t restrain for the (probably industrial) delicatessen slice during a wedding cocktail. To the vegan that use electronic devices or feed his cat with animal products. I’m a rational guy and hate seing those irrational behaviors everywhere including myself, but pointing others wrongness is often inefficient to pass a message, if not counter productive. [0] Here’s a masterpiece if you don’t know it yet: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive-communication.html https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive... All those assertions said lol, I’m quite bad at communicating and the best behavior I found is to never ever engage myself a conversation about veganism or ethics, I just wait for questions and respond with neutral and concise terms. Often the interlocutor gets curious and ask more details and I believe there’s more chance he update his opinion by himself than me teaching him.
- emptiestplace 2y ago
  I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't discussing personal choice in definitions - honey is objectively an animal product, produced by bees. This isn't about how people choose to classify things, but rather about factual reality. Similarly, "each to their own" becomes problematic when there are victims involved - it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    I did misinterpreted indeed, probably with: > but I draw the line at tolerating vegetarian ethics Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it, which sounds a bit absurd. Flat earth theory exist even if it’s silly. You may have used tolerate in the sense of approve or consent I guess. > it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing. I agree this is problematic for the victims which usually doesn’t get to participate in that choice. It’s not fair. But I believe it is a personal choice, constrained by societal statu quo (or you get trouble) even if irrational, silly or awful. Some countries prefer maximizing freedom or tradition over fairness or minimizing victims.
    - emptiestplace 2y ago
      > Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it You should work on that, I guess?

aziaziazi 2y ago

The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws. In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right about the definition but fore sure that was correlated: my garden _is_ a (big) cage/prison/limit. However the way he said it triggered my defence mode[0] and it took me months to process the message. Consider also cobalt associated with slavery. From the view of biologist and most vegans, humans are animals and then cobalt consumption problematic (it’s used in many tech, not just smartphones). I also occasionally wash my hand in public places with probably animal sourced soap and yes it’s for convenience as for cobalt and my pets. _Anyone_ allow themselves to slightly bend their ethics to not becoming mad. From the "only-good-meat" eater that don’t restrain for the (probably industrial) delicatessen slice during a wedding cocktail. To the vegan that use electronic devices or feed his cat with animal products. I’m a rational guy and hate seing those irrational behaviors everywhere including myself, but pointing others wrongness is often inefficient to pass a message, if not counter productive. [0] Here’s a masterpiece if you don’t know it yet: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive-communication.html https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive... All those assertions said lol, I’m quite bad at communicating and the best behavior I found is to never ever engage myself a conversation about veganism or ethics, I just wait for questions and respond with neutral and concise terms. Often the interlocutor gets curious and ask more details and I believe there’s more chance he update his opinion by himself than me teaching him.

emptiestplace 2y ago
I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't discussing personal choice in definitions - honey is objectively an animal product, produced by bees. This isn't about how people choose to classify things, but rather about factual reality. Similarly, "each to their own" becomes problematic when there are victims involved - it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  I did misinterpreted indeed, probably with: > but I draw the line at tolerating vegetarian ethics Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it, which sounds a bit absurd. Flat earth theory exist even if it’s silly. You may have used tolerate in the sense of approve or consent I guess. > it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing. I agree this is problematic for the victims which usually doesn’t get to participate in that choice. It’s not fair. But I believe it is a personal choice, constrained by societal statu quo (or you get trouble) even if irrational, silly or awful. Some countries prefer maximizing freedom or tradition over fairness or minimizing victims.
  - emptiestplace 2y ago
    > Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it You should work on that, I guess?