Vegansexual - The Rarefied World of Herbivorous Humans

dahduh said:
Let's replace 'Vegan' with 'KKK'. I think all left-thinking people will agree that it would be perfectly ok for someone who is disgusted by racism to feel morally superior to a member of the KKK and refuse to have anything to do with them.

If you accept that, then it's purely a matter of degree; and then at what point does one transition from 'acceptable and expected ostracism' to 'sanctimonious BS'? Consider, for example, that by some estimates the human race is already consuming ecological capital at twice the replacement rate; and that it takes ten pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. By that calculation, meat-eaters are the most disgustingly irresponsible and wasteful creatures crawling on the planet, and are going to destroy us all by their selfishness - at least as bad as a grand wizard of the KKK, and possibly worse.

And yeah, I just had a dinner of noodles and ground beef.... sigh. Just asking.
Click to expand...
It's a fair question and one that deserves an answer. If you don't mind, let me give you an anecdote first.

When I visited the Museum of Tolerance my group of friends and I encountered two doors. One door has a sign hanging over it saying “Those with prejudice walk through this door” The other door’s sign said “Those without prejudice walk through this door. My group tried to go through the one marked "those without prejudice".

It was locked.

Intuitively, at times, I feel myself morally superior to others. Hell, I'm human. Truth is, I'm not. That's an illusion that only breeds contempt and enmity. We might, at any one time, hold moral values that based on given premises are superior to others but that doesn't really make us superior.

At the end of the Holocaust, a number of enlightened Jews realized that they were not inherently superior to Germans. Any group of individuals could behave the same. We don't improve society by seeing humans as groups of inferior and superior. We improve society by seeing each other as flawed humans capable of both humanity and inhumanity.
 
RandFan said:
Intuitively, at times, I feel myself morally superior to others. Hell, I'm human. Truth is, I'm not. That's an illusion that only breeds contempt and enmity. We might, at any one time, hold moral values that based on given premises are superior to others but that doesn't really make us superior.
Click to expand...

I would agree to the degree that blindness-inducing righteousness is something to be avoided; history provides us with examples too numerous to mention. But you would imply that one cannot make a judgment about whether one package of moral stances is superior to another.

Perhaps you are motivated by the desire to avoid having to say one person is morally superior to another, and thereby avoid the self-righteousness curse. However, would you really claim that some ancient Israelite adhering to bronze-age morality with teachings about slavery and capital punishment for minor biblical infractions, is morally superior that say, Mahatma Ghandi? I don't claim that I am innately superior to that ancient Israelite, or that I would have behaved any differently had I been raised in the same environment; but I do like to think that society as a whole has evolved morally.

And I think veganism may be simply a step along this road, and I have to respect vegetarians who decline to eat meat on ethical grounds. I still eat meat, but they've got a point, and hey, I'm not ashamed to admit it; they may have a morally superior stance.
 
dahduh said:
I would agree to the degree that blindness-inducing righteousness is something to be avoided; history provides us with examples too numerous to mention. But you would imply that one cannot make a judgment about whether one package of moral stances is superior to another.

Perhaps you are motivated by the desire to avoid having to say one person is morally superior to another, and thereby avoid the self-righteousness curse. However, would you really claim that some ancient Israelite adhering to bronze-age morality with teachings about slavery and capital punishment for minor biblical infractions, is morally superior that say, Mahatma Ghandi? I don't claim that I am innately superior to that ancient Israelite, or that I would have behaved any differently had I been raised in the same environment; but I do like to think that society as a whole has evolved morally.

And I think veganism may be simply a step along this road, and I have to respect vegetarians who decline to eat meat on ethical grounds. I still eat meat, but they've got a point, and hey, I'm not ashamed to admit it; they may have a morally superior stance.
Click to expand...
Good post. I agree with much you've written. I think there are morally superior cultures and behaviors. If you accept premises like increased quality of life is better, lower mortality rates and homicide rates are superior, that liberty and freedom from oppression is superior then I think you would agree that society has improved, morally, for the better.

I think we are basically on the same level. I criticize religion a lot and I'm accused of bigotry. I think Western Culture is superior given the stated premises. However we as individuals aren't superior and there is no advantage to arrogance and contempt of others because they have a different world view.
 
RandFan said:
When I visited the Museum of Tolerance my group of friends and I encountered two doors. One door has a sign hanging over it saying “Those with prejudice walk through this door” The other door’s sign said “Those without prejudice walk through this door. My group tried to go through the one marked "those without prejudice".

It was locked.
Click to expand...
*Pulls out battering ram. Analogy falls apart.*
 
RandFan said:
Intuitively, at times, I feel myself morally superior to others. Hell, I'm human. Truth is, I'm not. That's an illusion that only breeds contempt and enmity. We might, at any one time, hold moral values that based on given premises are superior to others but that doesn't really make us superior.
Click to expand...

If someone has more money than I do they're richer than I am, if they have more body mass than me they're heavier than I am - why, if they have superior moral values to me are they not morally superior to me?



We don't improve society by seeing humans as groups of inferior and superior. We improve society by seeing each other as flawed humans capable of both humanity and inhumanity.
Click to expand...
Appeal to consequences fallacy. I regard the Samaritans as, collectively, a morally superior group to the KKK. This influences my decisions about where my charitable donations should go and as a consequence, I hope,improves society.
All humans may be capable of both humanity and inhumanity, that doesn't mean I can't access the likely moral conduct of an individual based on previous experience.
 
sphenisc said:
If someone has more money than I do they're richer than I am, if they have more body mass than me they're heavier than I am - why, if they have superior moral values to me are they not morally superior to me?
Click to expand...
You're comparing material objects with very abstract ideas. You do realize that, don't you?
 
I struggle to see any problem with the viewpoint in the article referenced in the OP - surely if you have a moral code then you will inevitably measure others against that and find some wanting and others not? Therefore if you have become a vegan based on what you consider to be a moral stand then it will form part of how you measure others?
 
Lonewulf said:
You're comparing material objects with very abstract ideas. You do realize that, don't you?
Click to expand...

In the case of money, no I don't - money is a social construct and, other than the small change in my pocket, most of mine exists in an abstract sense recorded in the form of values, electronically in a bank database. Personally, despite its quantitative nature, this seems at least as abstract to me as my personal morality which prevents me robbing the same bank.

In regard to weight, yes, this is relates directly to material objects, however I don't see the distinction as having any relevance to the analogy I was drawing. The point I was making is that when certain properties individuals possess are compared, it is perfectly normal to describe those individuals in terms of the 'degree' of possession of those properties, independent of how abstract those properties happen to be.
 
I'm not entirely sure if I think the analogy works all that well, really.
 
RandFan said:
When I visited the Museum of Tolerance my group of friends and I encountered two doors. One door has a sign hanging over it saying “Those with prejudice walk through this door” The other door’s sign said “Those without prejudice walk through this door. My group tried to go through the one marked "those without prejudice".

It was locked.
Click to expand...


What you're supposed to do at that point is yell "who's the dirty zionist blocking the damn door?" :D

Although I didn't know there was a name for them, I dated a vegansexual. At the end she said she felt she was sleeping with the enemy. My laughing aloud at that comment didn't do anything to repair the relationship.
 
Princess said:
I don't date non-vegans either. Am I a sanctimous woo now because I don't date people who I am strongly and deeply incompatible with?
Click to expand...
Yes, you choose an arbitrary basis for rejection.
*singsong voice* Evvvery sperm is sacred!
Click to expand...
Aye.
Oral sex is consentual and fun, perfectly fine with vegans.
Click to expand...
That t is misplaced, the sentiment a worthy one.
Although I'll admit, vegan foodplay just isn't sexy, no one gets their rocks off with tofu and agar in bed.
Click to expand...
I take it vegetables are not considered suitable props?
And before someone asks the inevitable, breast feeding is compatible with vegans too.
Click to expand...
Hurrah.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Tragic Monkey said:
Who would want to **** a vegan anyway?
Click to expand...
You may wish to have a quiet chat with the Marquis and Shemp, given that goats are vegan . . .

But yeah, TM, I am with you on this.
Click to expand...

Darth Rotor said:
Yes, you choose an arbitrary basis for rejection.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy is staggering.
 
Darth Rotor said:
But yeah, TM, I am with you on this.
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I find the idea that you get so much sexual attention that you would turn down someone based on their diet somewhat implausible.
 
Last edited:
sphenisc said:
If someone has more money than I do they're richer than I am, if they have more body mass than me they're heavier than I am - why, if they have superior moral values to me are they not morally superior to me?
Click to expand...
The amount of money a person has and body mass can be measured objectively and the truth of that fact exists a priori. There is no objective morality. Morality is a human construct and depends on the premises one assumes and the genetic predisposition and environmental variables one is subjected to. You would have to first decide what is good before you could begin to quantify the good acts and then you've only determined how a person has behaved based on those acts alone and not the nature of the individual.

What you are judging is behavior and not people. In fact, you can't even know the nature of a person. You can only look at the behavior and guess.

Most people would have accessed BTK as a moral person before his acts came to light. If he had not yet acted on his impulses we could easily have declared him morally superior to others up to the point he committed his first murder.

Moral superiority is an illusion with no basis in reality. We are simply humans responding to stimuli and our wiring. We sense (emotionally) that suffering is bad and we call any behavior that causes such suffering unnecessarily as bad. There is utility to that and it appeals to our evolved sense of right and wrong but there is little to gain in declaring ourselves morally superior and much to loose (not a proof but simply a consequence of doing so. In other words there is reason why me might not want to.).

Appeal to consequences fallacy.
Click to expand...
No. If I were trying to demonstrate the truth of a premise based on the consequences of behavior you would have a point. I'm only speaking to the consequences. No more. No less.

I regard the Samaritans as, collectively, a morally superior group to the KKK.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Samaritans are inherently superior? Or are you saying that at a given moment they exhibit certain behaviors that you have decided are moral?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Don't get me wrong. I think it perfectly fine that people gravitate to certain groups and seek out mates with similar morals and values. I think there is a problem however when groups see themselves as morally superior and look down on everyone else. This of course is one of the biggest criticisms of religion and I think it should be a criticism of politics.

It's woo. It's sanctimonious BS akin to the anti-abortionists.

Apologies to Bill Maher but new rule, no, you're not better than anyone else.
Click to expand...

The problem is that some people are better than others. For example I would say someone who beats his wife up because he can is a bad person and I would not want to associate with him.

Everyone thinks their own moral standards are the best, that is why we view spoucal abuse as a crime and not the result of a woman behaving improperly. So why should we not think that others who hold different values from us would do what we do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom