Wednesday, March 16, 2011

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, 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.


Mr. Zed said...

I can really identify with your frustration Mango, there was a time when I used to go around the boards of the supposed "paleo diet" forums.

This idea that the Eskimos and the Indigenous tribes of the world are doing what's natural to Humans is very ignorant and uneducated viewpoint. A lot of the indigenous tribes aren't living any closer to nature than many people in Western society. If they have arrows and spears and language, that is totally unnatural and totally removed from the environment our ancestors or paleo man lived in. If any of our ancestors were like these indigenous tribes, it was more like for a few thhousand years, while millions and millions of years evolving to live on fruit in Sub-Sahara Africa.

But the thing that I find most offensive about the existance of those sites is the LIE that paleo man ate mostly animal products. Paleo man did NOT!!! He only ate meat when he was DESPERATE!!!

The real paleo diet consisted of mainly fruit and vegetation. It's the NEOLITHIC diet, when average life expectency plummeted to about 25, that's the diet they're eating. You could also call it the Neanderthal diet.

I don't know how it ever came to be (money was involved of course), but this idea that the "primal diet" or the "paleo diet" consists of lots of animal produce is an OBSCENE LIE.

All of the Great Apes choose fruit as their first choice, they only eat other foods when they don't have any fresh fruit in order to just get by. The Orangutans eat 90%+ fruit when they can, I think some lowland Gorillas are more into vegetation.

Mr. Zed said...

Errr... "you could also call it the Neanderthal diet".... point being that the Neanderthals starved to death and virtually went extinct (apart from a small amount of interbreeding with modern day Humans).

Lo0m said...

hmm, i was reading this and your previous post and got frustrated.. only two things were needed to stop it. this song (and lyrics!) and existence of my middle finger.. seriously, not only their knowledge of homo sapiens' history is seriously fucked up, their life is fucked up too and it's upon them to realise...

Fruitarian Mango said...

@Mr. Zed, thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. Although I'm inclined to agree with you about our history, I can see that the paleo people are entrenched in their ways, and there is no way any of them would be open minded enough to even admit that what you wrote even might be correct.

For certain you are right about the vast majority of indigenous people, that I doubt that can be denied. All though with the paleo people one never knows what they will deny.

I just spotted another inconsistency in their view point.. it's about there stance that vegans are just influenced by the sick environment we live in. Well, although I can't deny that at times there may be some influencing, I think there are a great many vegans that have become vegan in direct opposition to their environment. And what an argument anyhow, like the meat eaters don't just follow sheepishly what they have been taught, just accepting without question, and not even wanting to question!

Fruitarian Mango said...

@Lo0m, much as I also agree with you, (barring the song which I haven't listened to), this is exactly the sort of thing that one of them would say about us. It's like, we live on a topsy-turvy planet.

Unknown said...

all i say to my friends is what i learned from you last year and i love it and my kids love it...and even some of my friends. it is that i shouldn't be ending the life cycle of anything or anyone. i use the 'stranded on a deserted island' analogy, as that is how i figured out how to raise my 6 kids, although i didn't always live as i believed...anyway, if they won't consider the life of the other animals plants, how about themselves? if they end the life cycle of animals and food on the island, there will be none left. only fruit will be left to yeild it's nourishment. so, why not just start there and forget about the rest!? no one loses and the environment is saved!! yes!!!

Fruitarian Mango said...

Hi Marsha,
the amount of meat some of the paleos manage to consume must surely be hastening the destruction of our environment. Ecologically it's one of the most unsustainable diets out there, and there's really no way that if we all suddenly became such intense meat heads, that the infrastructure to support that could continue. As Mr. Zed indicated, even indigenous races eat far less meat than the paleo people, it just isn't readily available for them. Thank you for appreciating my words!

Lo0m said...

@mango : you're obviously right.. as i'm czech, 99% people i meet are heavily meat-oriented with their diet and it of course saddens me but i can't hate the blind, i may just offer a different perspective.. it's this "respectful murder" lie that really drives me nuts...

Mr. Zed said...

Mango: That is correct, but I wouldn't call them "paleos" because their diet has almost nothing to do with the paleolithic period. Fruitarians are following a paleolithic diet far more, the paleolithic period was for a very long time and was around for before agriculture.

From Wikipedia: "It extends from the earliest known use of stone tools, probably by Hominans such as Australopithecines, 2.6 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 BP.["

Australopithecus was the precursor to all of the great apes and was a frugivore and a reluctant omnivore. So definitely during most of the paleolithic era our ancestors were frugivores. All of the other great apes today are pure frugivores or very close to it when they are allowed to eat good quality fruit. Humans make this very hard to find though.

Mr. Zed said...


Unknown said...

It is interesting how you can remain so calm in the face of this ignorance.

Of course you are right, laws and morals correlate to some extent but are by no means the same thing. Laws are dependent on the culture which imposes them. Just look at how much the laws have changed over the course of the last centuries. Slavery used to be legal, but not moral. Moral is something that never changes. Of course it is wrong to end the life of another creature if it is not in self-defense.

Humans are under the illusion that their lives are worth more than the life of other creature, but on which logical principle is that based? There is no quantitative method to evaluate the "worthness" of a creature.

The logic behind that is truly the same one that a racist uses. "They are different from me/us therefore they are inferior."

The only truly reasonable approach to this is, is that every creature is worth the same; nothing and everything. If every meat eater would die this second I would not be sad, because so many other lives would be saved.

What are they to me, why should the life of a man be of more significance than that of a bird? There are merely physiological differences between these two being, mind is only a result of matter. They have developed differently, the human has developed speech as a form of communication to heighten his chances of survival and the bird has developed wings to do so. Which is worth more? There can be no answer to this that is based on logical reasoning.

Think about some time back, when there was still slavery. The reactions to people who were against slavery were very similar to the reactions of meat eaters when they debate with vegans. Historically, when there was "legal mis-justice", in other word when there laws that made immoral things legal, there always have been only very few who went against the grain. Most people just follow the meat-eater logic: "It is legal, therefore it is moral".

They lack in mental capacities, especially meta-cognition and emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence because they are not able to feel universal compassion. Meta-cognition because they do not possess the ability to create their own morals, to become the "Uebermensch" in the sense of Nietzsche. Their minds only exist as part of the collective mind of society. In that sense they are merely slaves and not a truly individual human. So I believe the only way to stop them is by a revolution and by creating laws that makes it unjust and therefore in their eyes immoral to take life.

It sickens me that so many people eat meat without even thinking about where it came from and about all the suffering that is part of it. They will not think once about the fact that their meat once was a living being that roamed the earth and was murdered so they may eat it.

What I do not understand is that you can call meat eaters you friends. I could never do that. The only way I could do that is by denying to myself that they are murderers. Still we should try to reform as many as we can, to help them break out from the limitations that society has forced on their brains. We need to make them realize the pain and suffering they inflict. I have met some people that I could help to realize their mistakes, but some could not be helped. Those who value their comfort over everything else. People who can look in your face and say "but it tastes so good" after you tell them what suffering stands behind their meal. It is those people who are plain evil. And in that way I do not hesitate to judge.


Fruitarian Mango said...

I think the issue is the same no matter where one lives really.. most of the worlds people are flesh eaters by choice, and have little consideration for animals, especially not if it interferes with their meals. I believe offering the different perspective is one of the most obvious things we can do, and believe that occasionally someone out there will get where you are coming from..

@Mr. Zed, 7 apples in ones mouth! That's quite some feat! Mind you, no telling how many a hippo could cram in there.. I have to admit, I know little to nothing of ancient human history, how paleo man may or may not have eaten.. even if he ever existed. Much of what we may or mayn't know of them is hypothesized, even the dates of their existence is in my opinion not altogether certain. In my opinion, people will believe what they want to about the diet of paleo man, you may well be right about, I'm not questioning it at all. Just, I feel that no matter how we may once have eaten, or not, is of little consequence to me.. Eating animals is just plain wrong and history cannot be used as an excuse or reason to continue doing so. However, it would be a great find to have what you say completely unquestioningly, and scientifically proven, as the flesh eaters tend to worship their fed supposed facts as much as the fatty fried morsel animal remnants on their dinner plates.

@Felix, I've deducted that remaining calm in the face of ignorance, although not always easy, or at times possible, is perhaps the best thing to do. one can remain calm and still take action of sorts, but not being calm will generally lead to irrational thinking, and not help ones case at all. As for meat eaters being friends. I grew up in a family of meat eaters. I too ate meat, my parents still do. I was fortunate enough to understand, and make changes, they have been less fortunate. I am not denying them as murderers. But to deny them as people I care about and who in turn care for me, would help no one. Showing disdain or unfriendliness toward flesh eaters, will only make them feel the same toward us, it will tie them together stronger, and rebel against vegan thought. Being friendly with them, and treating them as equals, which they are, will help them to accept us as friends too. I don't like their habits, and I do judge, and see nothing wrong with that. But nobody is plain evil. But many actions they may undertake are. Great points about the slavery and much else, I find myself agreeing. Yes.

Unknown said...


I was going through your comments in Richards blog .

There was one doubt which lingered in my thoughts ever since .Perhaps you would be kind enough to answer my humble query.

Why was it that you did not like your stay in the forests?

Just curious because I always thought forests are closest to nature and it would seem ideal .

Fruitarian Mango said...

@Jovin, firstly, I should reemphasize, it's not the forests that are difficult, it's the rain forests. Spend time in them yourself, and you'll likely agree. They are often inhospitable places, mosquitoes at all hours of the day, leeches, other biting insects, ticks too. I have a friend that hung out in the amazon for a while, with a native tribe, and he has recounted that they were continuously chewing on some leaf to deaden their nerves from the onslaught of bites. He himself initially did not do so, but eventually life became so miserable, that he began to do likewise. Jungles are difficult to navigate in, passage is not easy, and there are far more things to fear than out in the open.

Now a fruit tree orchard grown in a natural non linear fashion, that'd be more like it!

Unknown said...

But if man's natural habitat is in these kind of surroundings , just like other animals we shouldn't be bothered about insect bites !

Maybe it is because man has kept away from forests for so long that he no longer can tolerate them .

Mr. Zed said...

"Maybe it is because man has kept away from forests for so long that he no longer can tolerate them."

Yes, our immune systems and hormones are all out of whack. This is why people get autoimmune diseases and hypersensitivity diseases... our immune system isn't configured properly at all. Humans are a social species as well, you can't really expect to live by yourself for a long time as that's not very natural either.

Even if I could live in the rainforest and there were lots of people there, I don't know if I would do it. Sooner or later, the idiots will come and destroy your home. Maybe it's better to work as a sort of "double agent" from the inside, trying to dismantle civilization as best you can, to at least mitigate the damage for now which seems all we can do.

Fruitarian Mango said...

@Jovin who decides what a humans natural habitat is anyway? In my opinion, our natural environment would be one where I could be comfortably naked all day long, a constant steady temperature compatible with that idea, not have to be concerned by insect bites, venomous snakes or arachnids, other potentially dangerous animals or stinging trees with thorns, and have an abundance of fruit trees around me to eat from when I choose. The garden of Eden. Unfortunately, I believe if our natural environment ever really did exist, it has long been trashed and lost. Again also I add, that I was initially talking of rain forest, not just "forest". which potentially has a much more attractive lining to it.

I believe it is our duty at some level, to attempt to reestablish Edenic conditions through making changes to the way we think and live, and at some level through working silently or otherwise toward that end.

cyberryan26 said...

The place you described sounds like heaven to me too, Mango.