Comments Policy

*swearing is fine, but name-calling will only be tolerated if it genuinely helps you make a point or if it makes me laugh. Arbitrary, eh?

*racism, homophobia etc. will not be tolerated. Period.

*if you disagree with something I write, tell me so and be specific. If you disagree with the entire premise of the site and everything I write, go bother someone else. The internet is too big to read sites that you hate.

*I encourage all comments that are respectful and intelligent, but anything that doesn’t add substance to the discussion will be promptly removed.  If you want to argue with vegans, go to YouTube where that kind of idiocy reigns supreme.

*I encourage thoughtful criticism of my posts.  Really, I do. But if you’re coming here to parrot some anti-speciesism dogma that I’ve undoubtedly heard hundreds of times, you should consider whether that would be a good use of your time and mine.

1 Response to Comments Policy

  1. I posted this at LetThemEatMeat, but I’ll post it here incase you don’t read it there.

    One possible framing might be to highlight veganism as a “positive”
    philosophy. Grassroots omnivorism is sparked by things like peak oil
    and distrust of industry (pollution/additives/greed). Taking away oil
    (energy) to combat nature’s tendencies makes traditional omnivorism a
    much more practical philosophy to hold. Distrust in society is
    perfectly rational in todays’ climate. In terms of food security,
    maintaining purity of food/water supply, and being financially just,
    omnivorism is a desirable framework.

    On the other hand veganism might be hopeful on future energy
    technologies like solar. Instead of being strongly influenced by
    tendencies (overwhelming physical energy) of nature we can help “fight
    back” through the use of energy technologies. Trust in society allows
    people to invest in veganic social programs/culture without overwhelming
    fear from insecurity. A perfect example is bear behaviour. Normally they are immensely territorial, but when the salmon run hits bears will all be at the same river to feast. Territorialism drops and they all make peace because food is abundant.Veganism is hopeful, perhaps even naive. But ask all those entrepreneurs who went out on a limb to try and manifest a hazy dream. In this framework omni/veg isn’t so much about philosophy. It can be seen as a rational (or irrational) framework based upon the person’s worldview, information exposed to, general trust/distrust of other people, assessment of resources, future energy sources,and feasability of successfully creating a future practical framework with all of these independent actors.

    So instead of arguing at a philosophical level, or at “higher/lower consciousness”, and “The Secret” bullshit about how omni’s aren’t enlightened, perhaps arguing if the “hopeful” philosophy of veganism is completely naive or realistic. The arguments would be on data like practicality of solar energy. Makes it a lot less personal, yet still argues for veganism just as strongly.

    For ex, a pro-vegan argument would be the rise of co-ops, which is moving away from independent single-shopper consumer units towards one where the consumers consciously work towards the benefit of the group. This creates security and trust (a critical necessity for any joint long-term project, yes?). Omnivorism might be argued for by citing examples where “knowledgable” ecologists wreaked environmental disaster by foolishly manipulating the food web. Instead of arguing for “naive idealism” hubris (a certain level of distrust/skepticism too) is one of the best philosophies to possess. It’s not about “right or wrong”, or “belief/disbelief” in some cosmological ethical proof. It’s in large part the human social psyche, and how that relates to security of life. If ur best friend of 40 years raped you you would develop some severe trust issues, right??? Nobody could tell you that ur trust issues are “silly”. Although an extreme example it clearly demonstrates how emotions related to social humans affects practical actions involving human-human trust and security.

    From my limited and very biased view, this type of framework might be an effective route to explore veganism.

    Any thoughts?

    If this makes sense to you and you see it as a desirable line-of-thought to explore I’d love to invest time in exploring it if you would.


Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s