Famous Vegetarians on Vegetarianism

[KrazyKat]

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]

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 animals?f rights and vegetarians charging that, ?gthey care more about animals than people.?h They often use the words ?ganimal rights?h and ?gvegetarian?h 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 ?gappeal?h, 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]

You know what's great about being a sadist?

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]

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]

You can enjoy angering vegetarians by eating meat.

lol that you can

 

[Mycernius]

Looks like conversion is a two way street
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=205949685&p=zx595x5xx&n=205950571

 

[Mycernius]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.