![Gilbert_Chesterton[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3W9h4bT.jpg "Gilbert_Chesterton[1].jpg")
How can i deal with the fact that almost all thinkers that i admire and feel inclined to believe are incredible harsh on vegetarianism in an ignorant sense? I can't help but doubt and disregard they other opinions by seeing their ignorance.
Pic related.
>being this dismayed that the quintessential fat englishman has strong opinions about food
>>7457241
Reconcile via the fact that this specific issue is:
A) Not at all their area of expertise/reason they are known or respected.
B) extremely fucking dated. Realize that, thanks to select bible lines, some of these people grew up in eras where it is generally held as fact that animals don't even feel real pain.
in short, don't ask your dentist for legal advice.
>>7457241
Reconcile via the fact that this specific issue is:
A) Not at all their area of expertise/reason they are known or respected.
B) extremely fucking dated. Realize that, thanks to select bible lines, some of these people grew up in eras where it is generally held as fact that animals don't even feel real pain.
in short, I don't ask my dentist for legal advice.
(Or in your case: don't give a shit that my dentist thinks I have grounds to sue.)
>>7457241
>How can i deal with the fact that almost all thinkers that i admire and feel inclined to believe are incredible harsh on vegetarianism
You could turn this into something good. Admire their thoughts while keeping your own active.
>I can't help but doubt and disregard they other opinions by seeing their ignorance.
This is obviously wrong. Do otherwise.
>>7457241
vegetarians are degenerates - hegel
>>7457322
Continued.
Do you find their arguments against vegetarianism convincing?
I'd love to hear them then.
BTW, who besides Gilbert the ton Chesterton are you referring to?
>>7457315
>Vegetarian morals are relative in time so its an absurd to take it seriously
I have been vegetarian for 14 consecutive years, and I still find myself agreeing with this.
I feel like so much the real arguments for vegetarianism and veganism rely heavily on technology and environments, which in turn rely entirely on the eras we are born into.
Even if we have the means today, I honestly don't think anything will be done about issues like factory farming until
1. they aren't overshadowed by more pressing issues (war/climate change) and the solutions become more viable.
and (most importantly)
2. Science proves conclusively that animals are intelligent (relatively speaking), conscious, feeling beings to the point where their abuse can surely be seen as tragic.
Until these criteria are met (even when issues like climate change or water shortages are aggravated by factory farming cattle) I wont get mad at others for disregarding ideas like vegetarianism. Though I feel like anyone who has owned a dog or horse could be convinced that most mammals are at the very least conscious and feeling to a degree relative to our own.
It's only a matter of time, but we still have to pass that time.
>>7457337
cont.
If you have both the means (health food is usually more expensive/requires more prep time) and the moral inclination by all means be vegetarian.
but when you see someone else who disagrees (now or in the past) know that they are neither wrong, in this place in time, or invalidating your belief because for the time being the whole issue is subjective as fuck.
>>7457337
"Vegetarian morals are relative in time"
What does this mean? That only in a surplus society is not killing animals to survive viable?
Now I'm no expert but I think mankind have been vegetarian for 90% of its history.
I would like to add that even if it's "moral" or not, the whole rigmarole with climate-change gives plenty of good reasons to go vegi. No?
>>7457346
Continued.
I punctuate like a bad poet.
>>7457337
I understand what you are saying but:
>2. Science proves conclusively that animals are intelligent (relatively speaking), conscious, feeling beings
They don't need to be intelligent. It's a fact that they suffer physical and mental pain. For me this more than enough reason to not kill animals for their meat.
>>7457325
I know is obviously wrong, but its very hard to give yourself enough freedom to accept an idea from a person you see deep flaws.
Others would be Thoreau (Walden is a mixture of extremes for me, completely genius and completely idiotic) and Nietzsche (almost the same as Walden, but even more arrogant). Also, pretty much every christian in exclusion of Dostoevsky, which is one of the only authors i feel i can completely "trust" (in a brotherhood sense).
>>7457354
>Dostoevsky
You /anti-semite/ then?
Kidding...
>to accept an idea from a person you see deep flaws.
What?
>>7457241
Vegan classicist here. Fascinating writngs on the topic. Check this out, OP.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/De_esu_carnium*/1.html
Hopefully this whole debate will one day be invalidated by Star Trek-style replicators.
