PDA

View Full Version : Famous Vegetarians on Vegetarianism



strongvoicesforward
13-04-06, 16:06
Throughout history up until the present there have been vegetarians of notable repute. Some are famous world wide, and some are famous in a more narrow sense. Many, most notably figures such as Mohandas Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, have had things to say on the practice of not eating flesh.

In addition, some vegetarians while perhaps not commenting on their vegetarianism, have accomplished interesting things which could possibly be attributed to their diet.

This thread will put forth those statements, beliefs, and accomplishments and discuss them.

strongvoicesforward
13-04-06, 16:15
Mahatma Gandhi, known for his non-violent struggles against oppression and injustice and leading the people of India out of colonialization under British rule, was a vegetarian who spoke extensively on the moral aspects for choosing a non-flesh diet.

His shining example of peace, respect, and value for all life to this day remains a light that many point to for guidance. The choice for not eating flesh he clearly believed was one based on morals.


But the basis of my vegetarianism is not physical, but moral. If anybody said that I should die if I did not take beef tea or mutton, even on medical advice, I would prefer death. That is the basis of my vegetarianism. -- Nov, 1921, Address given at Social Meeting to the London Vegetarian Society

Sensuikan San
14-04-06, 04:50
I know full well that this is a cheap shot - and apologise to all, but I believe also that Adolf Hitler became vegetarian, after 1931.

A visit to Wikipedia is interesting.

Some quotes, therefrom include:

In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler's, Léon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."

and: (I thought this was a jewel!!!)


Esoteric Hitlerist Savitri Devi placed great significance on Hitler's advocacy of animal rights, and admired his aim of "a continent without slaughterhouses."

What a great shame that he never put his philosophies into effect, as I'm sure he surely wished to. :rolleyes:

You can do so much with quotes, can't you? I guess it comes down to what it is you want to prove.

The full link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_of_Adolf_Hitler

W

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 05:18
When Gandhi had traveled to Britain he eventually came upon a vegetarian restaraunt which was selling literature. There he bought British philosopher Henry Salt`s books which were on vegetarianism and animal rights. Mr. Salt`s words had a strong impact on Gandhi and they strengthened his belief that vegetarianism was the right choice to live one`s life by -- a moral choice. Gandhi had a strong respect for Mr. Salt and was delighted when he had the opportunity to meet him.

A poem by Henry Salt:


Mr Facing Both ways

When the Huntsman claims praise for the killing of foxes,
Which else would bring ruin to farmer and land,
Yet kindly imports them, preserves them, assorts them,
There's a dicrepance I fain understand.

When the Butcher makes boast of the killing of cattle,
That would multiply fast and the world over-run,
Yet so carefully breeds them, rears, fattens and feeds them -
Here also, methinks, a fine cobweb is spun.

Hark you, then, whose profession or pastime is killing!
To dispel your benignant illusions I'm loth;
But be one or the other, my double faced brother,
Be slayer or saviour - you cannot be both.

Salt clearly sees the hypocracy of man and his long for peace and a hope that he will be delivered from tyranny by a saviour. He questions, how can man expect a saviour when he himself cannot even choose to be one when he has the power to act as one but fails to do so.

Perhaps that is why Gandhi could save India from continued domination by Britain -- He could choose to be a saviour to those weaker without prejudice. I am glad he chose that restaraunt and found Mr. Salt`s books.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 06:03
I know full well that this is a cheap shot - and apologise to all, but I believe also that Adolf Hitler became vegetarian, after 1931.

lol. He often ate Bavarian sausages and there is some doubt if he had ever given them up completely. But, besides that, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Albert Einstein, a Jew, was also a vegetarian, and he was far from broken, as was neither Gandhi, or is the Dalai Lama.

Stalin was a flesh eater and had millions brutaly murdered. Don`t forget Idi Amin, who was not only a flesh eater, but in addition to animal flesh, occassionally partook of human flesh.

To eat plants does not require blood to be purposely spilt and a life taken. Hitler`s deranged problem was that he couldn`t grant respect, dignity, compasson, mercy, empathy, to all beings. He was a captive of prejudice feelings of superiority which is what all flesh eaters are when they think they are allowed their indulgences in killing based on the "being" group they belong to. Racism springs forth from speciesism. It is a refinement (or futher Balkanization) of "we" and "them."

Sensuikan San
14-04-06, 06:23
You can do so much with quotes, can't you? I guess it comes down to what it is you want to prove.

Precisely my point!

Thank you SVF San!

In truth - there surely is no correlation between vegetarianism and character trait, is there?

W

Carlson
14-04-06, 06:57
Albert Einstein, a Jew, was also a vegetarian
him being a jew means what?

Sensuikan San
14-04-06, 06:59
To eat plants does not require blood to be purposely spilt and a life taken.
Yes it does.
Admittedly "blood" is a bit of a stretch - but is a "life" taken? ... of course!
(Unless you only eat dead plants .... uuuugh!)


Hitler`s deranged problem was that he couldn`t grant respect, dignity, compasson, mercy, empathy, to all beings. Not quite true. He was absolutely devoted to his dog "Blondi" and seems to have had an apparent affection for small children. He also had a soft spot for Martin Bormann, Josef Goebells, Albert Speer, Eva Braun and the Waffen SS.

He was a captive of prejudice feelings of superiority which is what all flesh eaters are when they think they are allowed their indulgences in killing based on the "being" group they belong to. Again, not quite true. He was more a captive of prejudiced feelings of inferiority which naturally gave rise to his megalomania and ... well we know the rest. He actually had quite an alarming inferiority complex, stemming from his art student days, his pre(1914-18)-war days and a rather unpleasant gas attack during WWI. Not to mention a rather curious childhood under a domineering father and a doting mother whom he loved ... but watched die.
I don't think that the odd Bratwurst was responsible for the death of quite so many people as you would imagine.
To think so would be quite unfair and cruel to the unfortunate pig that was responsible for the Bratwurst!


Racism springs forth from speciesism. It is a refinement (or futher Balkanization) of "we" and "them."
It does indeed. That goes without saying!
W

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 07:10
Precisely my point!
Thank you SVF San!
In truth - there surely is no correlation between vegetarianism and character trait, is there?
W
Except that those who are well respected throughout the world; those who act out of their moral convictions to choose a morally uplifting character trait (e.g. giving up entitlement to any superior status based on grouping); and those who are not and have not been judged as defunct monsters/devients of society and history are looked to as moral beacons by many in the world and put up as exemplary models of compassion, peace, empathy, and mercy. Their thoughts and words on matters related to their choices are cherished, respected, and guide many. Role models for emulation of good character and selfless acts are a reality and those role models are chosen for their accomplishments which often have to do with what had guided them as they achieved what they did.

Monsters of society and history on the other hand are ignored or condemned, regardless of wheather they were right or wrong on the view of their traits, opinions on matters, or practices they had adopted as a part of their character. Their personal thoughts on many matters are not wheeled out and carted around for championing. Why do so? There is no need to when a moral upright characters of fine standing are more than enough to spread a particular message.

You`re welcome, John. I am more than happy to point out those aspects which aren`t clear to you that you haven`t been able to work out in your life yet or come to understand.

Your "point" is blunted. Sharpen it up a little.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 07:20
Originally Posted by Strongvoicesforward:
Hitler`s deranged problem was that he couldn`t grant respect, dignity, compasson, mercy, empathy, to all beings.


Not quite true. He was absolutely devoted to his dog "Blondi" and seems to have had an apparent affection for small children. He also had a soft spot for Martin Bormann, Josef Goebells, Albert Speer, Eva Braun and the Waffen SS.

Do you understand what a "qualifier" is? Look at my quote above. What do you see there? Don`t you see the word "all" there?

And tell me how that short list of people and one dog you have comes to mean "all" which is what would be needed to negate my use of the word all because I used it in a negative statement.

The statement is QUITE true. He did not extend respect, dignity, compassion, mercy, empathy to all beings -- or else the Holocaust never would have happened.

Sensuikan San
14-04-06, 07:22
Except that those who are well respected throughout the world; those who act out of their moral convictions to choose a morally uplifting character trait (e.g. giving up entitlement to any superior status based on grouping); and those who are not and have not been judged as defunct monsters/devients of society and history are looked to as moral beacons by many in the world and put up as exemplary models of compassion, peace, empathy, and mercy. Their thoughts and words on matters related to their choices are cherished, respected, and guide many. Role models for emulation of good character and selfless acts are a reality and those role models are chosen for their accomplishments which often have to do with what had guided them as they achieved what they did.
Monsters of society and history on the other hand are ignored or condemned, regardless of wheather they were right or wrong on the view of their traits, opinions on matters, or practices they had adopted as a part of their character. Their personal thoughts on many matters are not wheeled out and carted around for championing. Why do so? There is no need to when a moral upright characters of fine standing are more than enough to spread a particular message.
You`re welcome, John. I am more than happy to point out those aspects which aren`t clear to you that you haven`t been able to work out in your life yet or come to understand.
Your "point" is blunted. Sharpen it up a little.
With all due respect .... What on earth are you trying to say?
W

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 07:25
Admittedly "blood" is a bit of a stretch - but is a "life" taken? ... of course!
(Unless you only eat dead plants .... uuuugh!)

lol. I never forget. There are those reductionists amongst us.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 07:30
With all due respect .... What on earth are you trying to say?
W

Respectfully, leave it to others to tackle if it is above you.

Sensuikan San
14-04-06, 07:35
Originally Posted by Strongvoicesforward:
Hitler`s deranged problem was that he couldn`t grant respect, dignity, compasson, mercy, empathy, to all beings.
Do you understand what a "qualifier" is? Look at my quote above. What do you see there? Don`t you see the word "all" there?
And tell me how that short list of people and one dog you have comes to mean "all" which is what would be needed to negate my use of the word all because I used it in a negative statement.
The statement is QUITE true. He did not extend respect, dignity, compassion, mercy, empathy to all beings -- or else the Holocaust never would have happened.
Do YOU understand what a qualifier is? Read my quote (with added italics):

Not quite true ....
The operative word is "quite" - I NEVER claimed your quote was ABSOLUTELY untrue.
Don't play with me on semantics.
You pride yourself on your skills at debate. You have told us all, so many times, to the point of boredom! Put your money where your mouth is!
W

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 07:48
Ok, John, we have a disagreement on the mechanical use of the word gallh here. I think it is a misunderstanding on how both of us are using it. When I used it I meant it as not extending those feelings to gallh groups in the inclusive as a bunch.

I can see you took it as groups separately. In that case your gNot quite trueh can be accurate.

I could have worded my phrase a little better. But ,the fact that he did not extend those feelings to all groups, is still true because not all were the benefit of those feelings.

Anyways, it is semantical.

Sensuikan San
14-04-06, 07:50
Game.

Set.

... and match!

W

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 07:53
Game.
Set.
... and match!
W

lol.

Not quite. We were playing on different courts ("all").

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 08:27
Henry David Thoreaufs gWaldenh is a classic work of literature/commentary by a man well respected in American history. Thoreaufs Walden has not only inspired conservationists and naturalists, but also those choosing to not eat flesh and turn to vegetarianism as the more moral and civilised life to choose. His words ring with a timeless message and are still read by many:

Extract from gWaldenh:


It may be vain to ask why the imagination will not be reconciled to flesh and fat. I am satisfied that it is not. Is it not a reproach that man is a carnivorous animal? True, he can and does live, in a great measure, by preying on other animals; but this is a miserable way - as anyone who will go to snaring rabbits, or slaughtering lambs, may learn - and he will be regarded as a benefactor of his race who shall teach man to confine himself to a more innocent and wholesome diet. Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilised.

Thoreau clearly makes the analogy that the flesh eater is comparatively a savage and that the vegetarian lifestyle will civilise him, acting as his race' benefactor teaching him a more peaceful way to go on with life.

This book has inspired many. It will continue to do so.

Carlson
14-04-06, 08:49
ok now that i keep reading into this thread. what is the point?

what does it matter if they are vegetarians?

why not a thread who list all the famous non-vegetairians?

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 09:38
ok now that i keep reading into this thread. what is the point?

The point is I like discussing them and offering my opinion on them -- and this is under the "Opinion" forum.

A lot of these words by these great men influenced me and perhaps they will others as well. Perhaps others will have other great vegetarians of high repute they can share with me and even increase my knowledge on them and the scope of those who have chosen a non-flesh eating lifestyle.


...what does it matter if they are vegetarians?

Great words by great people influence many.


why not a thread who list all the famous non-vegetairians?

Go ahead and make one. No one is stopping you. I see it worthy of my time to devote myself to this thread. If you feel it worthy of your time to react to it by creating a thread that is an opposite one, then go ahead.

KrazyKat
14-04-06, 11:45
Anyways, it is semantical.

For what its worth, I thought that your point was perfectly clear.

I always found it interesting that the British 'converted' Ghandi from a mroe 'religious vegeratianism' to moral vegetarianism from an animal rights perspecive.


As for whether or not vegetarianism is related to peoples character, in my personal experiience people that care about human rights, poverty, environmental issues etc. tend to be more likely to be vegetarian. And personally after becoming vegetarian myself I feel that I became more aware of moral issues like those I listed above.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 16:02
So, who was Henry Salt, besides being a philosopher, animal rightist, and vegetarian who made a deep impact on Gandhi and many others?

So often we hear the tired old accusation thrown at those who care about animalsf rights and vegetarians charging that, gthey care more about animals than people.h They often use the words ganimal rightsh and gvegetarianh derisively, as if the words were pajoratives.

However, many in the animal rights and vegetarian movements care deeply about all life and the many injustices people are subjected to. Henry Salt was a champion of caring and social progress. He was a founding member of the Humanitarian League which set about to not only make social progress for animals, but also attacked the prison system, winning reforms that would lead to a system of gappealh, and revised the imprisonment for Debt Law. But, as noted, he was a staunch supporter of animal rights and vegetarianism.


"Vegetarianism is the diet of the future, as flesh-food is the diet of the past. In that striking and common contrast, a fruit shop side by side with a butcher's, we have a most significant object lesson. There, on the one hand, are the barbarities of a savage custom - the headless carcasses, stiffencd into a ghastly semblance of life, the joints and steaks and gobbets with their sickening odour, the harsh grating of the bone saw, and the dull thud of the chopper - a perpetual crying protest against the horrors of flesh-eating.". -- Henry S. Salt, The Humanities of Diet

mad pierrot
14-04-06, 16:43
You can enjoy angering vegetarians by eating meat.



Seriously, I agree with Sensuikan. In fact, I think it would be foolish or at least a little naive to believe that someone has higher moral character just because of their dietary habits.

strongvoicesforward
14-04-06, 17:25
You can enjoy angering vegetarians by eating meat.
Seriously, I agree with Sensuikan. In fact, I think it would be foolish or at least a little naive to believe that someone has higher moral character just because of their dietary habits.

Choosing to be a vegetarian does not make you moral in an absolute way. And if you chose this more moral diet over flesh eating it does not make you immune to being immoral for a variety of other reasons, anymore than choosing to be Christian does not make one moral. Christianity is merely a choice of religion. But, chosing to be Christian is a more moral choice than say chosing a religion that would support torturing and throwing human sacrifices into a volcano.

Many people are not aware of some of the great people in history or the present who had been or are vegetarians. Those who are not familiar with vegetarianism may be prone to believing the derision thrown at them by flesh eaters and those who do not support animal rights. I think it is important that those curious about vegetarianism or starting to explore it know that the practice has had many great historical persons of high moral character (or enjoyed wide respect based on altruistic motives) as a member of that gdiet practice.h

Dietary habits do not make or cause one to have a higher moral character absolutely. A diet habit is a moral choice but it does not define one`s whole as moral.

Carlson
14-04-06, 18:31
You can enjoy angering vegetarians by eating meat.



:cool:

lol that you can

Mycernius
14-04-06, 19:37
Looks like conversion is a two way street
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=205949685&p=zx595x5xx&n=205950571

Mycernius
15-04-06, 10:04
Just to give balance, this from wikipedia about Casey Kasem and Shaggy

He also walked out on his role as Shaggy in 1995, when he was asked to voice Shaggy in a Burger King commercial. Kasem a vegetarian who believed that Scooby-Doo and Shaggy were setting bad examples for children with their overeating habits felt that it was no longer appropriate for the character, whom he wished also to be a vegetarian. He returned to the character in 2002, after Hanna-Barbera (or rather Warner Bros.) agreed to portray Shaggy as a strict vegetarian, notwithstanding the fact the Shaggy has been seen by countless viewers gorging himself on any food in sight, including plenty of meat, since 1969.

nurizeko
16-04-06, 11:17
I reckon warner bros. shoulda laughed at him and fired his ass.
Vegetarianism is a personal dietary choice, it should be as simple as that, the way vegetarians seem to treat it like a religion is frankly quite annoying.
Shaggy the character isnt a vegetarian, his voice-actor coulda not been a total douche and just accepted that people dont share his dietary values but, he let the ***** gene within him tell him to be a sh**brick, just like the ***** gene tells christians and muslim fundies to show no respect for others not in their state of mind.

strongvoicesforward
17-04-06, 03:53
"I do not regard flesh-food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world - if we are superior to it." - Mahatma Gandhi, his Mission and Message

----------------------------------------------------------------

So often we hear the tired old refrain, "We are at the top so we can use all the other animals for our benefit, sustenance, or pleasure." It is nice to know that Gandhi, one of the greatest persons who has ever championed non-violence, didn`t think so. For certainly, he saw that tyranny and violence is what brings a suffering animal to the dinner plate. He knew violence begets violence.

If we are so superior, then we need not copy that of the natural world which is violent when it is not necessary. And in many parts of the world, it is not necessary. But perhaps we are not superior. In that case then we have no right to base our decision on, except other than that: might makes right.

But then, that will lead to more violence, which we have definitely already seen in our brutal history work its way up from killing larger and larger animals to larger and larger groups of people. We have most certainly become efficient in our butchering skills. I would say that homo rapiens are quite skilled at butchering. A superior skill that has a waft of sickening odour to it. Go to any littered battlefield or slaughter house and one will see fies are everywhere in both descending on the carcasses of the dead -- one destined for consumption by the earht, the other for an intestinal journey of ignorance shoved down and through by arrogance.

I am pleased to stand with Gandhi`s opinion on the matter.

bossel
17-04-06, 04:54
We err in copying the lower animal world - if we are superior to it.
Hmm, aren't there a lot of animals which follow vegetarian diets? So, either way, we would be "copying the lower animal world".

strongvoicesforward
17-04-06, 05:55
Hmm, aren't there a lot of animals which follow vegetarian diets? So, either way, we would be "copying the lower animal world".

From above post:

If we are so superior, then we need not copy that of the natural world which is violent when it is not necessary.

Yes, and violence was an abhorance to Gandhi. When he speaks of not needing to copy animals, he speaks of the violence they use in order to sustain themselves, which is a necessity for them. It isn`t for us. We err when we think we need to perpetuate violence on to them when it is not necessary.

But, then, if we are not superiour to them, then I guess that is why we do it. But, if that is why we do it, then we are relying on "might makes right," which most people do not accept -- eventhough that is what we do by seeing the things we do. There is some inconsistancy in what we profess and what we do. Gandhi is pointing that out.