Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Alex Melonas
Washington, DC
Recent Activity
-
Alex recruited Julie to sign the petition | -
Alex commented on the article |@M Sch: Does a single small-scale veggie farm have to meet year-round dietary requirements for the argument Stephanie is making to be valid? Or could a combination of such farms be the variable of interest? Second, where is your empirical evidence for your statement on marginal land use?
Finally, a very good "animal rights" argument might run as follows. Pigs and cows have been use-bred. They exist in huge numbers. We could use those animals (i.e., allow them to forage). Doing so is in accord with the principle of equal consideration of interests: that is a truly symbiotic relationship if the human is not a speciesist. That would mean that those pigs and cows could not be killed when they are no longer useful, and their social requirements would have to be met. I can think of a similar argument for the use of mules and horses by the truly non-speciesist.
-
Alex commented on the article |@Linda: (You are trying to convince me. That is why you keep responding.)
Vegan "chicken" quesadilla: flour tortilla, salsa, "chicken" (tempeh product), "cheese" (almond-based product), "sour cream" (soy product).
What is the substantive difference, the ACTUAL difference, when thinking about a "variety of foods" between the chicken quesadilla and the "chicken" quesadilla?
Drinking is an "integral part of the event and fundamental in most cultures", but you would not challenge, say, the christian who ethically abstains from alcohol for not considering your "worldview" when making the decision not to allow drinking. Furthermore, what is more "integral" to the event than the ceremony itself? And since you have no say in what form that ceremony takes, be it religious or secular, then a "worldview" is being "forced" on you. And you ACCEPT IT. Why do you NOT take issue with that example of "force"?
-
Alex commented on the article |
@M Sch: I suppose if vegan was called "vegan-tarian" or some other variation of "vegetarian" your point would be relevant.
-
Alex commented on the article |
@Sarah D & Clare: I agree, people do irrationally regard fish flesh as not "meat", but I would suggest that so-called "pescatarians" do not help clarify that confusion. Why not simply say, "I only eat fish"? Why insert yourself at all in "vegetarian" discourses?
-
Alex commented on the article |
You wrote:
"Well, a variety of prepared dishes is not the same as a variety of foods. Obviously there are limitations in vegan cuisine - that is not to say there is a limit in how and what ways the vegan choices are prepared."
You just agreed AND disagreed with me in the same sentence.
Yes, you can choose not to participate in the religious theme being "forced" on you, and you can choose not to eat the food being "forced" on you, and you can choose not TO GO to the wedding underpinned by a "worldview" being "forced on you. To me, unless you can tell me why I am wrong, there is no practical or moral difference between these examples.
-
Alex commented on the article |
@Linda: It is not necessary or sufficient for a "variety of foods" to mean vegan and non-vegan. A full vegan spread clearly qualifies as "variety"...unless you have an argument to the contrary?
But you are, as a viewer, participating in the ceremony. If it is religious, you may be asked to pray, recite scripture, and listen to explicitly religious themes. What is the difference, then, between being "forced" to participate as a viewer in a ceremony where a "worldview" is being "pushed", and being "forced" to eat from a particular spread where a "worldview" is being "pushed"? What is the difference between being "forced" not to consume alcohol, or conversely, being "forced" into an environment where alcohol is freely flowing, when you may or may not agree with the "worldview" instigating the wedding planners' decision, and being "forced" to eat from a spread that is designed around the wedding planners' own "worldview".
In each of these examples, you HAD NO choice in the decision. I contend that the wedding planners are under no obligation to consider your particular wants or "worldview". And you do, too...except when it comes to the food served for some reason you've yet to explicate.
If a guest has a particular "dietary need" (note: that is qualitatively different than simply not liking the taste of vegan food), that guest should be a conscientious consumer. But if that guest simply doesn't like vegan food, then I am under no obligation to provide him an alternative. Nor are you under any obligation to satisfy the "tastes" of every guest at your wedding. You merely provide a spread of your choosing, and hope people like it.
@Justin: What are you talking about, "the proper way to hold an ethical argument" and all?
-
Alex commented on the article |
@Linda: If you don't intend to minimize the moral issue at stake, then don't use phrases like "reasonable...normal distribution".
But you didn't tell me WHY those examples are different. You merely asserted it, which is rather convenient for your argument here.
-
Alex commented on the article |
@Linda: What you call a "reasonable...normal distribution" is clearly an effort to minimize the moral question at stake. What you've done is label ethical veganism "extreme", because the ethical vegan would view your "reasonable" solution wholly unreasonable given the ethical issue at stake. Anti-racists should not reasonably accommodate a racist; and anti-speciesists should not reasonably accommodate the speciesist. You can provide input if you'd like, just like the racist can, but the planner is under no obligation to take that input.
No, I am absolutely saying that the majority of people I encounter who say they don't like vegan food have never have a variety of prepared vegan foods. They view veganism as a subtraction. That is, take away the cow, and leave the salad and potatoes. Or add tofu to replace the cow. In other words, they are not making an informed decision. A vegan wedding goes beyond pieces of tofu on sticks. For the guest who is allergic to soy/seitan, given that soy/seitan doesn't exhaust the range of vegan foods, I would suggest the other options. I am not going to consult everybody with an allergy, or even request that information. Be a knowledgeable consumer! If you are allergic to wheat gluten, find out what's in the food.
At the totally flesh dominated wedding I would feel just fine with that arrangement because I DON'T have a say in what the wedding planners "force" on me during their wedding. That situation is EXACTLY like which music is selected, and who performs the ceremony, and whether it is religious or secular, and so on.
-
Alex commented on the article |@Sandy: I don't understand: What causal evidence has been presented here, or anywhere else, that links eating flesh to intelligence. The non sequitur is quite clear. What contributed, evolutionarily, to our development, occurred in tandem with a myriad of other environmental factors over hundreds of thousands of years. To use that fact to surmise a causal relationship between eating flesh today and intelligence is facile.
Secondly, I agree, the ADA is quite conservative. However, that makes their empirical claims about the nutritional adequacy of a vegan diet that much more interesting. Beyond that, of course, we have living, breathing, thriving vegans. But, importantly, as a physiological question, veganism is healthy at all stages of the life-cycle and that HAS NOT been refuted.
What you are doing is putting your thoughts and assumptions up against empirical data Sandy.
Impact
6 Actions
1 Recruit
Organizations
-
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals1 Action 0 Recruits
