(08-26-2014, 08:20 AM)xise Wrote: Trailblazing in the sense that unlike diary-only vegetarianism, which has been proven to be viable without major health concerns for thousands of years by generations of people - see Jains & Jainism - veganism doesn't have hundreds/thousands of years long track record over a number of generations. It's definitely exciting times to be alive from a dietary perspective.
True. We are pioneers, and we've made some mistakes. It has been a learning process and I'm very grateful for those who are paving the way. New studies such as The China Study support our experience that veganism is the healhiest diet for humans.
We do have some heroes!
Vegan Athletes
Sexiest Vegan Over 70 (I want to be like her when I grow up!)
Sickly, scrawny raw vegans
(09-18-2014, 12:54 AM)Account1 Wrote: You are confusing morals that you approve of with morals as a whole. Slavery was introduced in the west under a different ethical standard, not lacking a sense of ethics altogether.
Of course, it is up to the individual to discern what is an acceptable standard of morality and what they consider moral themselves.
But claiming that one's own morals are superior than others is always worth raising an eyebrow for.
First of all, I never claimed that my own morals are 'superior.' You used those words, not me.
Secondly, it has nothing to do with what I personally 'approve of' but with Law of One principles.
We know from the Law of One that both paths are acceptable. However, to someone who is aspiring to polarize STO, compassionate actions are preferable to cruel actions. (I define ''preferable' here as polarizing to one's chosen path, in the context of the Law of One; ie. cruel actions would be preferable for one aspiring to polarize STS.)
Meat-eaters often accuse vegans of being moralistic, as though that were somehow worse than supporting cruelty. I don't get that.
I guess the slave 'owners' accused those working to free the blacks of being 'moralistic' too. Oh well, then we are in good company!