What Ego Trip?
It’s bizarre that some animal-eaters actually believe lifelong veganism is a possible ego trip. If it is so, vegans sure make great efforts for their entire lives, to keep their egos inflated – but for what? Do they get paid or any special benefits from those who know they are vegans?
Well, they just want to live lives as harmless as possible. They just wish to assert as little ego as possible upon animals, via not supporting their slavery, torture and murder. And there’s nothing fun about sharing the kinder lifestyle out of compassion despite being misunderstood and called ‘egoistic’ and such.
On trips, what kind of trips do animal-eaters take daily then? Assuming they already know the impact of their consumption (please see http://www.viva.org.uk/goingvegan/index.php if you’re not yet aware), would it be an apathy trip… or what? I wouldn’t know. Am no mind-reader and wouldn’t want to be presumptuous. The truth is, anything can be an ego trip – even being an adamant and defensive animal-eater, even claiming vegans being egoistic.
An interesting response to this article:
Part 1:
Re: ‘… seems to have read my recent article “Vegetarianism Can Be An Ego Trip” and here is his response.’ [links to the article above at moonpointer]
Reply: If this was referring to who I think it does, he didn’t read it at all. He only saw the title. I didn’t either. Thus, this article cannot be about the article titled above, but simply on the assumption in the title – that vegetarianism can be an ego trip.
Re: ‘I don’t believe in censoring alternate viewpoints (a belief not shared…’
Reply: Every Facebook account owner and blogger has the right to censor unwanted items on his or her page and websites just as everyone has the right to keep anything unwelcome out of one’s house. Here are previous posts on the subject of censorship: https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/censorship Seems like they were not read? Here is what was ‘censored’, replied point by point: https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/no-laughing-matter-for-animals
Re: ‘Here are the so-called censored views: Ironically, his article proves my point exactly. I am a human being whose beliefs differ with him. But he has reduced me into a simple label – “an animal eater”.’
Reply: The article clearly refers to presumptuous animal-eaters, who claim vegetarians and vegans can be on ego trips. It applies to one only if one is presumptuous and an animal-eater. It does not reduce any animal-eaters to animal-eaters and nothing else. Just as animal-eaters don’t see vegans as plant-eaters and nothing else. The use of the term ‘animals’ instead of ‘meat’ is a simple reminder not to objectify animals as ‘flesh’ or ‘meat’- to reduce them to a simple non-sentient label. There is a famous book by a bestselling author (Jonathan Safran Foer) who titles his pro-vegetarian book ‘Eating Animals’. Obviously, he also does not say animal-eaters do just that (eating animals) and absolutely nothing else that is worthy. Again, this is to de-objectify animals.
Re: ‘…I am against vegetarianism-elitism – the belief that that vegetarians are holier and kinder than omnivores just because they don’t eat meat. Vegetarian elitism demonizes those people who don’t share their faith and reduces them with a single label – “Animal eater”. The implication of vegetarian elitism is that those who eat meat are somehow lesser citizens on the spiritual path.’
Reply: There are extensive articles in moonpointer.com already, on how rational vegans would never feel holier-than-thou to animal-eaters. Here is one of them: https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/10/do-vegans-feel-holier-than-thou Moonpointer.com is against animal-eating elitism, but there are absolutely no posts in moonpointer.com stating that vegans are holier and kinder than omnivores in general, barring the exception that a vegan is roughly kinder to 80,000 animals that one lets off the butcher’s knife in one’s lifetime. Yes, veganism has to count for something. It is not pointless. There are absolutely no posts in moonpointer.com demonising animal-eaters, because moonpointer.com hopes to persuade animal-eaters to eat less animals. Pro-vegan posts simply speak of opening the circle of compassion to encompass more beings in terms of consumption. What is a nicer term for those who eat animals than ‘animal-eaters’, that at the same time does not objectify animals? ‘Omnivores’ isn’t a good term in the sense that it still doesn’t bring about greater empathy to animals. Wait… what about ‘plant-and-animal-eaters’? I don’t mind people calling me a plant-eater, by the way.
Related Articles In Response To Same Person:
All Mothers Deserve Respect, Of Course!
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/all-mothers-deserve-respect-of-course
Censorship Not
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/censorship-not
Inspired Article:
Sam & Sara #389: Eating Animals
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/11/sam-sara-389-eating-animals
Part 2:
Re: ‘… a few points to clarify: My article was originally a response to a Hare Krishna vegetarian who told me that it is impossible for an omnivores to be truly compassionate. It wasn’t directed to you.’
Reply: A few points to clarify. The top article (What Ego Trip?) was not directed to any person; but to be exact, it is on the idea that veganism (not ‘vegetarianism’ per se) might become an ego trip. Your article and its title is about vegetarianism. I hope you know the rather vast differences between vegetarianism and veganism.
Re: ‘I respect your position of being a “rational vegan” as a method of cultivating compassion.’
Reply: It’s wonderful that it’s agreed that veganism is a method to cultivate compassion. Indeed, it is, as can be seen at http://viva.org.uk/goingvegan/index.php, veganism has very significant and irrefutable impact in furthering compassion in many areas of life.
Re: ‘But if you have read my article (which it seems you didn’t), you would see that I have nothing against vegetarianism so long as we see it as a method and not turn it into an ego trip. If you agree with this, then we might be on the same page.’
Reply: It is heartening that you have nothing against vegetarianism (and veganism too, hopefully). Again, your article or reading it plays absolutely no part in the writing of the top article (What Ego Trip?), which is against the possibilities of both meat-eating and veganism becoming ego trips. None of your article’s contents were referred to. Even the title of your article wasn’t quoted. It has never been about you or your article. Moonpointer.com community’s bloggers (yes, there are a few of us, and I’m just one of them) blog for many; not individuals. This is reflected across all articles.
Re: ‘Regarding the “censorship”: I understand that you have the right the remove whatever you want from your Facebook/Blog/Twitter. But the fact was that I allowed your views to be linked and represented on my blog at that time (even though I did not agree with them) while you refused to do link my article on your Fb, which I provided so that your readers could have a fuller context of my views. This is why I have avoided communicating with you since then since you clearly don’t believe in dialogue or respecting alternate views, but instead wish to control the narrative on your own terms.’
Reply: Thank you for your understanding. Yes indeed, Facebook account and blog control is personal. There are perfectly understandable and respectable reasons why Facebook built in the delete and untag functions. People often delete their own disagreeable entries too, much more to say, others’. In the mean time, there has never been any request or insistence by moonpointer.com folks that any of their possibly disagreeable views be represented, linked, remain undeleted, or remain tagged on any Facebook account or blog, because we respect personal preferences. It is only right to do so. Moonpointer.com bloggers avoid communicating with those who seem to see such basic rights as disagreeable, who wish to control the narrative on their own terms only. Moonpointer.com folks believe in dialogue and engage in it robustly at moonpointer.com, in great detail too. We have hundreds of posts on veganism already, all open to comments. When any discussion at Facebook seems fruitless, it is halted as there is already the proven possibility of there being misinformed readers, whom due to many contradicting and lengthy viewpoints shared, become confused into thinking veganism has totally arbitrary effects. It would go against our cause of efficiently promoting veganism for a better world. Still, for the record, previous posts’ fuller contexts, as mentioned above, can be seen in the list below. (Again, your article on ego trip need not be mentioned as there was no reference to it.)
Censorship?
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/censorship
Censorship Not
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/censorship-not
All Mothers Deserve Respect, Of Course!
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/all-mothers-deserve-respect-of-course
No Laughing Matter For Animals
https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/05/no-laughing-matter-for-animals
Re: ‘In fact, your latest Moonpointer article simply referred to me as “this person”. Depersonalizing “the other” – is that compassionate?”
Reply: The above (Part 1) never used the term ‘this person’ but ‘same person’. Please be assured that there was no intention of ‘depersonalising’, but written so for readers to more easily relate the links at the bottom of Part 1 to the replies above it. If it’s a well known person’s name, it would make great sense to insert it, to attract more readers to click and read. Anyway, your name has all along been in the article in the first related link (All Mothers Deserve Respect, Of Course!). Your name was not above because this issue was seen as indeed nothing personal. In fact, it was sincerely out of respect, that your name was omitted, as moonpointer.com bloggers never wish anyone to take any issue personally, in case they do. Names are secondary to issues discussed. However, do again recap the above on why the top article (What Ego Trip?) that you responded is truly nothing personally about you in the first place – as [1] it is not about you (as your name was never mentioned), [2] it is not about your article’s contents (as they were never mentioned), and [3] did not even quote your article’s title. The related articles are included above only because the ‘Re:’ responses to it (Part 1, and this Part 2) are by you, to provide fuller context on your views here.
On an additional note, one of your Facebook friend’s comment recommended a link on Weston Price, please see http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/debunking-diet-myths-weston-a-price-foundation-stupid-traditions.html on why his views are shaky. Also, ‘John Robbins MD has written a critique in which he reviews the history of the Weston Price Foundation and provides evidence that Weston Price had recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet. The anti-vegetarian and anti-soy views of the foundation have also been criticized in several publications. Joel Fuhrman MD wrote a series of articles entitled “The truth about the Weston Price Foundation” in which he argues the Foundation is a purveyor of “nutritional myths”, largely because they have failed to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence.’ On the contrary, in the world’s most extensive nutrition study, veganism is proved to be the healthiest.
May all beings big and small be well and happy, free from fear and harm.
Extra:
From ‘Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians’:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html
‘That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neall arnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that “early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging–eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems.”…
In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don’t have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, “A Comparative Anatomy of Eating: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html “‘
Benefits of Vegetarianism: Vegetarians Live Longer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/benefits-of-vegetarianism_n_112431.html
Today I’ve not eaten any meat. I wanted to eat spinach and squash and other vegetables. Generally I don’t eat meat but I do eat pre-killed animals and the homes of unborn chickens and milk meant for calves.
My body seems to want and enjoy animal protein in the same way it seemed to want and enjoy squash today.
When I see a cat kill a mouse or a bird eat a worm I do not condemn the cat or bird or question its ethics. We agree that is their nature.
My digestive system has lots of systems dedicated to processing protein and eating protein leads me to eat fewer calories. My teeth seem more omnivorous than vegetarian.
Mostly however I think it is simple. Vegetarianism often seems to be a mental construct and maybe a denial of the truth of our bodies. If eating animals is part of our nature what is the problem? If it is not part of our nature why is it an almost universal human trait found in all cultures?
I don’t claim any answers. I eat dead animals on some days and not others. Maybe it’s just habit, but pure vegetarianism to me always feels like a subtle form of denial. Maybe in eating dead animals I am also creating suffering. But it’s arrogant to assume we can identify sentience.
When I look at a Tree that has healed a sawn off branch I wonder if it felt pain. I wonder if we don’t recognize its sentience because it lives at a pace too slow for us to see.
In choosing to not eat dead animals I am making an assumption that I can recognize the suffering I create and that I can recognize sentience. That seems to be rather arrogant.
If I was a vegan would I be forced to ignore habitats destroyed to produce fields, insects killed to protect crops, birds starved through lack of insects. Birds killed through eating pesticide-killed insects…..
I grew up in a family that grew our own vegetables as much as possible. Lots of slugs died in the process. In contrast, no slugs died as a result of me eating a dead sheep. Slugs feel pain, they appear to be sentient but they are not cute like Sheep.
Suffering that we do not see or choose not to see still exists, it is still our responsibility but it may also just be a consequence of being alive. If we all killed ourselves the suffering we create may well cease – would that therefore be more compassionate than even Vegan or Fruitarian lifestyles. Suicide seems to be the logical solution to which Vegan is only a partial solution!
[1] Re: ‘Generally I don’t eat meat but I do eat pre-killed animals and the homes of unborn chickens and milk meant for calves.’
Reply: To support pre-killed animals is to continually demand for killing. It’s simple supply-demand economics. Here’s what’s wrong with eating eggs:
‘… egg-laying hens may be crammed into battery cages or disgusting, disease ridden percheries and forced to produce twenty times the number of eggs as are natural to them. Even free range and organic layers face disease and parasites – and are slaughtered for cheap meat as soon as their productivity falls below the level that the egg business will accept. Male chicks are as useless to the industry as male dairy calves and all are killed – including those on free-range and organic systems.’ – http://www.viva.org.uk/goingvegan/index.php
Here’s what’s wrong with drinking cow milk:
‘Cattle reared for milk production are exploited and made to suffer, just like animals reared for meat. They suffer from lameness, mastitis (inflammation of the udders) and other illnesses and – worst of all – they are forcibly separated from their calves just days after they are born so that humans can drink their milk. Cows are not some kind of special animal that produces milk automatically: just like every other animal, including us, they only produce milk to nurse their young. Male dairy calves, meanwhile, are useless to the dairy industry and are usually shot at birth.’
[2] Re: ‘My body seems to want and enjoy animal protein in the same way it seemed to want and enjoy squash today.’
Reply: When there is wanting to practise greater compassion, craving of the taste buds can easily be conquered. Just because something is craved for doesn’t make it blameless.
[3] Re: ‘When I see a cat kill a mouse or a bird eat a worm I do not condemn the cat or bird or question its ethics. We agree that is their nature.’
Reply: If it is natural for humans to eat animals, why do humans not grab and eat the cat, mouse, bird and worm on sight, without qualms and fret of the blood and gore, and cooking and seasoning, as in the case of carnovorous animals? How is it natural for humans to pay others to build slaughterhouses far away, so that sight and sound of killing will be hidden away, to supply pre-killed meat?
[4] Re: ‘My digestive system has lots of systems dedicated to processing protein and eating protein leads me to eat fewer calories. My teeth seem more omnivorous than vegetarian.’
Reply: Human anatomy (including digestion and teeth( is more suitable for digesting plant protein (which is plentiful). The human body is more suitable for veganism than being omnivorous. This is clear, as can be seen at http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html
[5] Re: ‘Vegetarianism often seems to be a mental construct and maybe a denial of the truth of our bodies. If eating animals is part of our nature what is the problem? If it is not part of our nature why is it an almost universal human trait found in all cultures?’
Reply: Meat-eating is a human construct built on greed that denies the truth, as in the link above, of our human anatomy and instincts. If it is part of our nature, we would salivate upon seeing uncooked, living animals. Just because meat-eating is prevalent doesn’t make it natural. War is prevalent too – that doesn’t make it any more right. In the mean time, there are millions of vegetarians and vegans worldwide and their numbers are growing with education.
[6] Re: ‘I eat dead animals on some days and not others. Maybe it’s just habit, but pure vegetarianism to me always feels like a subtle form of denial. Maybe in eating dead animals I am also creating suffering.’
Reply: Indeed, it is just habit, that can be changed. Veganism is only the denial of the need to directly or indirectly cause suffering to animals. It is the affirmation of universal compassion. Yes, eating dead animals feeds to supply-demand loop for more killing.
[7] Re: ‘But it’s arrogant to assume we can identify sentience.’
Reply: Surely, a shrieking pig about to face the knife is more obviously sentient that a carrot? Even if the carrot is really sentient, it must suffer less. No scientist in their right mind will say a carrot is equally sentient to a pig.
[8] Re: ‘When I look at a Tree that has healed a sawn off branch I wonder if it felt pain. I wonder if we don’t recognize its sentience because it lives at a pace too slow for us to see.’
Reply: When you look at a cow about to be killed, struggling and bleeding, there’s no need to wonder if it feels genuine pain. Here are more scenes of animal suffering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2dGvZiHUJ0 Do compare that with how plants might (not) suffer.
[9] Re: ‘If I was a vegan would I be forced to ignore habitats destroyed to produce fields, insects killed to protect crops, birds starved through lack of insects. Birds killed through eating pesticide-killed insects…’
Reply: Here’s the worn ‘What if plants also suffer’ theory explained, on how eating animals definitely create much more suffering, even if plants do feel pain, even if insects are killed: http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/11/what-if-plants-feel-pain-too Do read to see it systematically explained once and for all.
[10] Re: ‘Suffering that we do not see or choose not to see still exists, it is still our responsibility but it may also just be a consequence of being alive. If we all killed ourselves the suffering we create may well cease – would that therefore be more compassionate than even Vegan or Fruitarian lifestyles. Suicide seems to be the logical solution to which Vegan is only a partial solution!’
Reply: Since this is a Buddhist blog, Buddhism does not advocate suicide because it does not lead to the end of rebirth. And rational vegans are always clear that veganism is but the right direction to lead a more harmless life; it has never been about imagining absolutely being able to not harm even a single sentient being indirectly; it’s about minimising harm.
Mike – it’s simply not doing to others what you would not like done to yourself. I don’t want to be killed – so I don’t kill.
It is the first step in all true spiritual paths:
Yoga: Ahimsa (non-violence)
Christianity: Thou shalt not kill
Buddhist: I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from killing living beings
The insight being there really there is only One.
@48c3 That’s a full response. I don’t deny that animals do not enjoy slaughter – I’ve seen the pictures, I know what it is like to kill a mouse or a fish. A slaughtered animal is an animal that only existed because it was destined to be eaten.
So you see veganism as the path to minimising harm. I currently see eating meat as part of that path for me – but I eat less than I used to.
But did you respond from Ego – Defending a choice that you believe to be right? Condemning me for making the wrong choice, using the wrong arguments to defend my choice. How did you feel as you wrote that response?
Your last paragraph lays out the defence of veganism without strongly attacking those who are not. If you had just written that paragraph what could you have done with the rest of your time?
[1] Re: ‘A slaughtered animal is an animal that only existed because it was destined to be eaten.’
Reply: Would this apply to humans who die violent deaths too? Do they exist only to be killed suddenly? To assume any sentient being exists only to be killed is the end of compassion for that being, before it even begins. There are many who actively refrain from eating animals out of compassion, which reduces the number of animals being so-called ‘destined’ to be killed. We can take ourselves out of the supply-demand loop.
[2] Re: ‘I currently see eating meat as part of that path for me – but I eat less than I used to.’
Reply: The path of reduction of meat intake is good for these irrefutable reasons: http://viva.org.uk/goingvegan/index.php It is the path to minimise harm. Eating plants kills the least beings as each meat animal has to eat many more pounds of crops used with pesticides to fatten up just to create a pound of meat. (E.g. Cows take up to 10 kg of plants to create 1 kg of beef.) Vegans consume as low on the food chain as possible to reduce killing.
[3] Re: ‘But did you respond from Ego – Defending a choice that you believe to be right?’
Reply: There is no ego involved. This is speaking up for animals. And it’s not a belief that it’s right – because it is right, as you can read from the facts in the links above.
[4] Re: ‘Condemning me for making the wrong choice, using the wrong arguments to defend my choice.’
Reply: There are no words of condemnation. It is you who are condemning a vegan to be egoistic (if you recall your words)? This is just a discussion on how meat reduction makes the world a better place. There are no wrong arguments used either, other than by you, frankly.
Here is a post from https://moonpointer.com/new/2012/10/do-vegans-feel-holier-than-thou to share. It might or might not apply, but it’s good food for thought:
‘I certainly don’t believe vegans are out to put others down with the “I am holier than thou because I am vegan” or “I am more compassionate than you; you have no compassion”. We simply speak the truth about what is happening, as to whether others choose to go this way, that’s their choice…
In the course of talking about veganism to my friends etc. I have come across many reactions, from peaceful acceptance to violent opposition. And the reactions from both extremes of these people indirectly revealed their natural compassion.
Certainly there are meat eaters who are compassionate and vegans who are mean. But this is not a compassion contest. It’s more of growing our own compassion and aligning ourselves with what is natural.’
No hard feelings… Here at moonpointer.com, as you can see in many posts on veganism, this current line of discussion is common and oft-repeated: https://moonpointer.com/new/category/vegetarianismveganism We are just speaking up for the voiceless animals.
Hi Mike,
I thought I will give some of my personal responses to your views.
“Today I’ve not eaten any meat. I wanted to eat spinach and squash and other vegetables. Generally I don’t eat meat but I do eat pre-killed animals and the homes of unborn chickens and milk meant for calves.”
Respond: Your an :angel: that day! I hope you can keep up with leaving the meat out (including pre-killed animals).
“My body seems to want and enjoy animal protein in the same way it seemed to want and enjoy squash today.”
Respond: How did you know it was your body and not your taste buds? I have been vegan for years but my body seem to enjoy the veggies.
“When I see a cat kill a mouse or a bird eat a worm I do not condemn the cat or bird or question its ethics. We agree that is their nature.”
Respond: The thing is, animals do not have the level of intellect to know what is right or wrong, unlike human beings. It’s just like trying to tell a small baby not to eat the dirt on the floor. They will never understand, you can raise your voice and scold them, sure they will be frightened, but you will just be wasting your time.
My mum once told a cat off for trying to play catch and kill with a frightened cockroach. The cat stared at her and said nothing. This happened to more than 1 cat, they will stop what they are doing out of fear more than understanding. Human beings can understand, so there is a higher potential for them to change.
On nature of human beings, then it is beyond eating meat or being a vegetarian. But that is another topic.
“My digestive system has lots of systems dedicated to processing protein and eating protein leads me to eat fewer calories. My teeth seem more omnivorous than vegetarian.”
Response: Our bodies came from evolution over many years. If our ancestors ate omnivorous, we became such. If they are carnivores, we will become such. And if they are herbivores, our body will adapt as well. The past determine the present, the the present, the future. And if we presently change our diet, the future human body will have a slightly different morphology. So it’s not really a matter of our body being such that we remain such.
“Mostly however I think it is simple. Vegetarianism often seems to be a mental construct and maybe a denial of the truth of our bodies. If eating animals is part of our nature what is the problem? If it is not part of our nature why is it an almost universal human trait found in all cultures?”
Response: What is the truth of our bodies? What may be such now, may not necessary be in the future – as explained from the point about evolution.
Why is eating animals according to the true nature? If 90% of the population has bipolar disorder, that will be considered “normal”, and the 10% who are considered “normal” by us now, will be considered disordered. Likewise, if the majority of the human population behave in a certain manner it does not mean it is necessary in accord with the truth.
“I don’t claim any answers. I eat dead animals on some days and not others. Maybe it’s just habit, but pure vegetarianism to me always feels like a subtle form of denial. Maybe in eating dead animals I am also creating suffering. But it’s arrogant to assume we can identify sentience.
When I look at a Tree that has healed a sawn off branch I wonder if it felt pain. I wonder if we don’t recognize its sentience because it lives at a pace too slow for us to see.
In choosing to not eat dead animals I am making an assumption that I can recognize the suffering I create and that I can recognize sentience. That seems to be rather arrogant.”
Response: After using my sofa for many years I kinda feel a heart pain for having to abandon it for it has been so loyal and dedicated. When I was a kid, I was really upset my mum threw away my toy koala bear because I had a good relationship with my toy bear, I talk to it and played with it. I think they are sentient, you would agree with me won’t you?
If we want to be so concerned about a plant’s sentience, all the more shouldn’t we be concerned about an animal’s sentience? Let’s just assume a plant is sentient, then what? We should just stop eating every single thing, and we shouldn’t even breathe or shit because it kills bacteria. Unless there is an option to killing without eating plants also, this is beyond discussion.
“If I was a vegan would I be forced to ignore habitats destroyed to produce fields, insects killed to protect crops, birds starved through lack of insects. Birds killed through eating pesticide-killed insects…..”
Response: Being a vegan is not about being neurotic. We can’t be absolutely 100% perfect on a vegan lifestyle, sure we still create harm on our environment and other beings, but there is less. If you want to go to such specifics, then you should be concern about the tuna you ate, which probably ate some fish, which ate smaller fish, which ate shrimp etc.
“I grew up in a family that grew our own vegetables as much as possible. Lots of slugs died in the process. In contrast, no slugs died as a result of me eating a dead sheep. Slugs feel pain, they appear to be sentient but they are not cute like Sheep.”
Response: A sheep graze on grass, and there are lots of worm larvae and who-knows-what wormy beings in the grass. As a result a sheep also develop lots of worms in it’s intestine. And when it dies, all of them poor ugly worms die.
“Suffering that we do not see or choose not to see still exists, it is still our responsibility but it may also just be a consequence of being alive. If we all killed ourselves the suffering we create may well cease – would that therefore be more compassionate than even Vegan or Fruitarian lifestyles. Suicide seems to be the logical solution to which Vegan is only a partial solution!”
Response: We all create some kind of harm yes. But it doesn’t mean if we cannot be 100% harm-free we should die. Veganism is not about being neurotic. It’s about being as harmless as possible.