From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Holier Than Thow (was: Rich & Michael)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:02:03 GMT

Terra Incognita writes:

>Hi.  I'd like to come out of the woodwork to back up the original poster
>on this issue (the attribution seems to be missing).  Unfortunately, not
>all of us have time to maintain archives of the threads on this group;

Ok, if one doesn't have the evidence then one really doesn't have 
the intellectual warrant to make fast and loose invidious
remarks about specific people or groups.  The human proclivity
towards prejudice is something we ALL must struggle to keep at
bay within ourselves and one of the best ways is to insist on
responsible intellectual standards whenever the one dares to 
make invidious remarks.


>what I think this person is trying to say is that the judgemental tone
>assumed by some of the stricter veg-heads on this group can be very
>discouraging to those of us who are less-than-perfect aspiring vegetarians.

We know what he trying to say, but what is his evidence?  I know
that I have never assumed such a tone and I have argued for the
advantages of veganism.  Nor have I found any such tone, say, with
Michael Traub's postings who is made a frequent target of attack.

What I have seen repeated posted are petty quibbles,
rude remarks and outright insults by SOME of our 
omnivorous kibitzers.  Are vegetarians therefore
required to genuflect and tug forelock to such remarks?
Are we never entitled to make a sharp reply to someone who
would post a destructive assertion?   Vegetarians are people
too, who also are due some respect and civility, especially
on their own conference.


>Earlier today I saw a message from an Angela Byington -- a farewell
>message, as it happens, making the same point.

I am not so certain that it was the same point, but I'll
let Angela speak for hereself.


>>
>>>Like religious bigots, overrighteous vegetarians have no sympathy and
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>appreciation for people who are trying in their own way to accomplish
>>>similar goals.
>>
Ted Altar responds:
>>Here we go again.  RUDE remarks and derisive INSULTS.  I least I am
>>here responding to a direct quote.  Can you do the same?  If not,
>>then all we have here is an unsubstantiated and unwarranted calumny.
>>
>I think you're overreacting a wee bit.  Granted, he might have worded
>his statement a little more gently, but I wouldn't call it rude, and
>in the main I think it's true that some people take on vegetarianism
>and veganism as a sort of religious crusade. 

Come on, being called or liken to a "religious bigot" is simply
rude and insulting.

It is rude and insulting because:
     
      1.  It is an inaccurate and false analogy.  Look at the sociology
        of religion and you soon see how any such comparison is very
        addleheaded and incorrect.  I've already made and documented
        this point in the past.

     2.  It is not supported by choice quotes or any other documention.
       It is merely somebody's defamatory opinion, glibly made.  Anyone
       can insult, but it takes more effort and thought to construct
       an argument and provide supporting evidence for that argument.
      
     3.   It was intended as a destructive remark, one that would 
      only serve to injure or wound.  It is certainly not a kind or
      helpful remark.  We all would like to see the standards of
      debate elevated and those who have put in the time and effort to
      provide informed and intelligent postings are being overshadowed by
      these kinds of useless and mean-spirited remarks.

      n
> People who get *that*
>serious about anything do seem to have a tendency to get self-righteous
>and intolerant, and vegetarians are no exception. 

Is there nothing that you yourself might be very serious about?  How 
about chauvistic and sexist remarks made by aggressive males towards
woman?  Being serious about a wrong does NOT automatically entail
self-righteousness, or even a tendency towards such. 



> The strict and rather
>intolerant veg-heads who post here probably think that they're taking
>the moral/ethical/healthful/environmental high road and are doing those
>backsliders among us a service by showing us "the way". 

Yes, and who are they?  It is easy to point a finger in a vague 
direction, but how about responsibly specifying who you are talking
about?   Have I ever reprimanded you for backsliding?  Are you talking
about real people who can here answer to your charges or are we 
maybe only lapsing into sterotype without real representatives?


> I admire
>someone who can be so scrupulous about their diets and lifestyles all
>the time (at this time, I still can't imagine life without cheese, sigh),
>but I think that in some ways they try to set an impossibly high standard
>for the rest of us, particular those neo-vegs or almost-vegs who post
>here looking for recipes, nutritional information, and helpful advice.

Well, that is fine but there really is no need to admire those
committed vegans or to feel put-out by seemingly "impossible" standards.
No one is asking or demanding that you reach a certain goal.  That
is your perogative and business, and my sincere best wishes whichever
way YOU decide to go.

Also, may I say that I have not yet seen any vegans on this net seeking 
admiration or asking for such.  Instead, I have simply observed people 
like Michael Traub assiduously posting ORIGINAL recipes, HELPFUL information,
THOUGHTFUL answers to the many queries here posted, and the occasional SHARP
comment to those who do initiate rude and insulting remarks.  And how has
his efforts and labour been rewarded by some?  Glib calumny and insults by 
those few who are not interested in proffering constructive criticism or 
in posting helpful information and recipes.  Good folk like Michael
Traub don't seek admiration, he only wishes to be helpful and
would only ask for some due respect (and maybe some self-reflective 
and more serious inquiry from our omnivorous kibitzers).
 

>To many people, the label "vegetarian" *is* synonymous with "weirdo
>hippie granola-head [insert your favorite insult]", and the less tolerant
>vegetarians who post here probably perpetuate that image in the eyes of
>a lot of newbies who start reading this group. 

Again, I don't know who these "less tolerant" vegetarians might be.

In any case, I think some defensive omnivores are going to view
vegetarians as "weirdo hippie granola-heads" no matter what we say
or do.  They simply have a need to do this when faced with
information that would challenge their unexamined preconceptions
and habits of meat-eating.  That would be fine if only they would
keep it to themselves, but have here seen posted insults calling people
like me a "fanatic".  You should see some of the remarkably
insulting and even vicious e-mail I have received for some of my postings.
Such insults only serve to dissuade good folk from making further
postings.  I know that I have better things to do than defend my 
practice and person against those few omnivores who would resort to 
cowardly hate e-mail or post public insults about vegetarians.

                                      ted

Newsgroups: rec.food.veg