Korean Job Discussion Forums

[The Bobster]

The reason I ask is that I've known a few - a minority among the many, to be sure - who sometimes behave as though they feel what can only be called disdain toward people who don't share the same opinions as they do about which living creatures ought to be eaten. In fact, it's often as though they just don't feel they can be comfortable around people who don't "believe" the same thing they do.

And I put that word in quotes for a reason. Opinions are a lot like religious faith. You can marshall facts and history and documents to help convince you and others, but in the end it's often a very personal matter. Most of things we refer to as opinions are not things that can be proved scientifically to everyone's satisfaction. Because of that, people are going to disagree.

And that's cool. It's cool to disagree, as long as we don't demonize the other person whose beliefs are different, which is something that happens with a lot of religions, of course. When it does happen between religions, though, many times some really bad stuff happens. You know, planes flying into skyscrapers, crusades that last a century or more, genocide and death camps. That kind of thing.

Well, if it IS a religion, we need to behave with tact and courtesy toward those who have a different take on things. Don't we? I mean, we need to approach things from a perspective such as, "While this IS something I feel strongly about, I realize that others have a different perspective, and their opinions are as valid and worthwhile as mine."

My thesis is that when we fail to be able to recognize the value and validity of people whose opinions differ from us, and when we allow those opinions to affect our relations and behavior to others even on a simple level of courtesy, THAT is when we start to stumble without intention into the realm of extremism.

And that's a harsh realm, a place none of us really wants to go.

We don't have to agree, and we probably won't, but we CAN be polite to one another, and respect each other. And if we can talk about how to do that, perhaps we can do it a little better.

[laogaiguk]

Many vegetarians are normal people who care about their health and animals. It's not a religious thing. On the other hand, the militant ones (and there do seem to be quite a few wacko vegetarians compared to other things) seem like religious fanatics, but are actually just wackos and are not practicing a religion. Still, I could see a religion coming out of militant vegetarianism.

[Rteacher]

Even from a religious point of view it's "hate the sin - not the sinner"...

Everyone should be respected on a basic level (we're all part of God) but it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone's beliefs are equally respectable.

And because association is very important in progressing toward various goals, those who are serious about becoming vegetarian should probably limit their association with those meat-eaters who still think that slaughtering 10 billion animals a year in the U.S. alone is a good thing...

[RACETRAITOR]

I would say that veganism is closer to a religion than vegetarianism. In veganism they took an idea (don't use any products that harm animals) and came up with as many twisted, convoluted rules to follow it, even when doing so is an unhealthy choice.

[kermo]

Ethics and religion aren't exactly peas in a pod. I'd classify it more as a political choice, though I agree with Racetraitor in some respects.

[RACETRAITOR]

[Justin Hale]

Militant vegetarianism qualifies, since it involves a principle that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.

[Rteacher]

Well, there was enough proof for a great scientist like Einstein to make the following statement:

"Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
http://choices.cs.uiuc.edu/~f-kon/vegetarian.html
I agree with "RACETRAITOR" that some vegan groups have concocted a twisted philosophy (especially in regard to cows ...) and some of their propaganda efforts on behalf of animals are counterproductive.

[Omkara]

Vegetarianism can be simply living according to the dictates of reason. This style of living is living autonomously. It is ethical living. It is a philosophy in many cases.

Religion begins with metaphysics and moves from this position to action, sometimes adopting vegetarianism.

Vegetarians are really a good bunch of folks who have taken the implications of diet seriously. No one familiar with what exactly is involved with our diet has not taken to serious thought about the subject.

For most rational vegetarians, the issue is not what we eat, but how we eat. Our eating is unethical for many reasons. For example, our beef consumption is responsible for 20% of the USAs oil consumption. And this is only the beginning.

I love to eat meat. But I am a vegetarian. Once I became familiar with the issue, there was only one choice left for me.

I would hunt for meat. That's ethical. What we get from the store, that's profoundly disturbing to any ethical man.

Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma." It is a great book, no preaching involved. You'll enjoy it and will never look at food the same again.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yResuAasCnA

[peppermint]

[Czarjorge]

I don't understand the pro-animal rights aspect of vegetarianism. I was a veggie for exactly that reason for a long time. Eventually I came to wonder if I wasn't just being speciesist. Should we value a chicken more than a carrot? They're both destroyed and converted by our consumption of them.

[rD.NaTas]

carrots are ppl too

[The Bobster]

[flakfizer]

[pastis]