Different dictionaries.

After that recent debate I began with some paleo bods (see my last post), I've had time to think some about their stand point.

It became clear to me that they are basically in denial of their inner ability to extend love beyond themselves and their immediate family. Perhaps as a consequence of not being able to do so, they have also redefined words to have different interpretations, and even appear to have their own version of what they consider logical. When faced with the outright question of why they make the distinctions they do, they have more or less similar arguments to that a sexist would have justifying sexism, a white supremeist justifying supposed white superiority and a racist justifying racism.. They're women goddamn you! They're only men, what else do you expect?! They're not white you fool! They are not one of us, imbecile! They're animals pea brain!. Generally with the expletive added to belittle the questioner. Thus the question is altogether avoided. In other words, there is no rational answer.

One word they repeatedly branded in a form which based on any current dictionary really makes little sense, was "respect".

Now according to dictionary.com, respect as a verb has the following definitions:

–verb (used with object)
1. to hold in esteem or honor.
2. show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
3. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
4. to relate or have reference to.

They are using the word in relationship to animals that they enjoy hunting/killing, claiming that when doing so, they respect the animal. I countered them on numerous occasion, stating that there is no way one can reasonably say or suppose that one can be showing respect for an animal, if their intention is to kill, eat and wear it. But many insisted that I was wrong. (I noted that instead of being directed to some written definition to support their claims, I was told to F'off, or similar).

The only thing I can imagine they actually really meant, though none of them said as such, was that they (following definition no. 1) hold in esteem or honor, not the animal itself, but the slaughtered carcass of the animal.. That would make more sense..

Spock used to be my role model in logic..
Now look what the meat eaters have done to him!
Another word they seemed to be using in a manner I'm unaccustomed to, was "peacefulness", claiming bizarrely enough that hunting was a peaceful occupation.. I tried to get them to reverse the tables, and just try to imagine the peace the animal would be experiencing, but as far as I can ascertain, that is either not something they are capable of, or they just don't want to do so.

At least one comment there gave the impression that laws and morals are basically the same thing. and that laws are fundamentally imposed morals. I hasten to disagree with that one, for certainly it is not necessary that anything which is legally correct may be considered moral and also that anything which is not forbidden by law should be necessarily moral. Morals and ethics are to the best of my knowledge synonymous (please correct if wrong), and are basically individual characteristics we have. They are the criterion for what you believe is right or wrong. Naturally, as we are broadly shaped by our environments and upbringing, it's often the case that morals are widely shared and accepted, with minor variations from individual to individual.

It appears that for some unknown reason, the set of morals shared by vegans is often grossly expanded from that of the zombie flesh eater, the flesh eaters recognizing this fact often use it to claim falsely that we believe we are in some way superior. This is by no means meant as a compliment. In fact, as an intended insult, it shows that rather than just face the reality of our differences, for some reason they feel threatened and become defensive.

I almost feel like the omnivores fear the vegans, like we are a threat to their status quo. It was a common response from the paleo to throw profanity at me, I sort of lost count of how many times I was told to F on out of there, or told I was talking shit (though never any particular specific reference to what it was that was actually shit). One guy would have me fed to the lions! :)

In my opinion insults and profanity are poor excuses for debate, and often employed when the debater is struggling or unable to continue to debate rationally.

It's odd that vegans are often accused of being such an angry lot, of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but anger at meat eaters is the last thing I feel. I have many friends and family that enjoy flesh. We all get on fine. I feel more a frustration that they are so caught up in the dark ages, that their only really defense they have, given the abundance of alternative on supermarket shelves, is that well, Eskimos eat meat, and wouldn't survive without it. So would I be wrong in thinking the writer of that might themselves be an Eskimo? Likely, yes...

I don't really see what relevance it has, what Eskimos choose to eat. Nor the Masai, nor the rainforest nomads. Their environments are radically different to ours. Sure, I would question they're choices too.. and wonder why the Masai haven't planted mango trees everywhere, and I would happily debate that with them, but using them as an excuse for ones own habits bears no relationship with reality.