I really enjoyed learning about why other students decided to enroll in
this course and it was a great chance for everyone to introduce
themselves to others and to the idea of veganism. I wish however, that
as a class we were able to agree upon a clear definition of the word
"vegan". As we saw in class there's a wide spectrum of the
interpretations of veganism. Much of what I have researched describes
veganism being based off the concept of nonviolence and non-exploitation
by choosing a plant-based diet among other things. But I don't entirely
believe that including dairy and eggs in a diet violates our commitment
of love and kindness towards other life. For instance, a member of a
small family-owned farm that treats their livestock as loved pets could
eat their eggs and drink their milk but would they be considered vegan?
Likewise, would someone who follows a strict vegan diet yet physically
abuses their pet be considered vegan? I think a good way to aid in the
clarification of veganism would be to distinguish between a vegan diet
and a vegan lifestyle. This thought is a great segway to the idea of
non-judgement as a diplomatic individual and as a participant in this
course; everyone is at a different point on their own path and should be
honored for even the small steps that are made towards understanding
veganism, not analyzed for not following strict definitions.
The
readings were especially interesting to me because it almost seemed as
though the two were to be thought of separately. But in fact, the
concepts behind argumentation and diplomacy seem so integrated and
connected. I think the biggest bridge between them is effective and
clear communication. One cannot make a good argument or be diplomatic by
explaining their beliefs solely through emotion or "loaded language".
In the diplomacy reading they discussed creating balance in
conversations between submissiveness (the other person's opinion being
unimportant) and aggressiveness (coming off as rude and offensive) with
assertiveness such that your argument is clear and there is no
judgement. Returning to the golden rule of kindergarten (treat others
the way you want to be treated), I wouldn't want to judge others about
their dietary choices because I know the feeling of intimidation and
discomfort when others put down veganism. The idea of concrete and
conciseness in arguments was also key in my eyes because if you don't
have a good short response to a non-vegan, you may lose their interest
after irrelevantly talking for ten minutes. However, no matter how
effective you may be at conveying your argument to someone else, the
communication may still be ineffective if the receiver is closed-minded
and is not "listening with their heart".
I also thought the reading
was interesting in that it became apparent that vegans make others
uncomfortable because it may cause them to evaluate their
decisions/customs; in class we also discussed how people are quick to
support any diet that confirms and comforts their eating habits. The
diplomacy reading pointed out that differences in food-related beliefs
amongst people may make them want to feel distant but if there are
connections to be made from even weakly built bridges, those are the
ones that encourage (and perhaps induce) change (and most of the time
change is good!). And although we mention a ton about non-judgement, I
still think it's such a difficult thing to do when we we're taught very
young that certain things have stamps of approval and if an idea or
action doesn't follow that approval then it's different and not well
accepted. But I like the idea of at that point assessing the opposing
beliefs and associated arguments based off validity of sources and
concrete examples to defend conclusions. From what I read, that's what
argumentation is all about anyway so I'm truly excited to see how my
ideas of veganism change after taking this course (will they be
solidifed or weakened?). I also look forward to learning more about the
impact our dietary choices make. And as we discussed in class, I
seriously believe that the argumentation paper should be assigned day
one of college because it outlines so many useful and effective writing
tips and tools for strengthening any conclusion in all courses.
I forgot to mention how I felt about the food in the above comment from class 1. I thought the sandwiches were simple enough but delicious and a great way to introduce a common food item that can easily be prepared vegan. I loved the smoothie and the fact that the kale nutrient booster was included in the drink. Due to my sweet tooth and the fact that they were so delicious, my favorite part of the first meal were the raw coconut almond butter cookies that melted in such a burst of flavor; I would love the recipe for those cookies! I felt satisfied, clean, and energized after eating that meal. In the second class period we enjoyed a main course of rice, bean, and veggie tortillas. This was an inexpensive meal that was filling and delicious. I especially enjoyed the homemade sour cream! There were chips and salsa for the side dish which both salsas were great. The dessert was fantastic! We shared a raw apple pie that was so different yet amazingly tasty! If I hadn't eaten three tortillas I could have probably eaten a third slice of the pie. I did eat a little more than I did the first day, so I admit I was a bit uncomfortable and tired but I didn't feel sluggish or have any stomach aches. I always get so excited for healthy delicious home cooked vegan meals that I need to remind myself to slow down sometimes haha. There was good light conversation during the meal and coupled with the beautiful afternoon, I think everyone had a great time sharing their stories and enjoying the food. As far as the discussion and readings are concerned I think I want to start off by recognizing that food is intimidate and greatly defines who we are as people; it became apparent that early civilizations spent so much of their time growing, gathering, and preparing food that it's inevitably deeply rooted in cultures and was a sacred action. Most opposition to what has been practiced for so long is not received well to the rest of a society and thus when one of the many examples of geniuses who had their ideas admired and trusted such as Pythagoras, makes claims that advocate veganism, they are widely ignored. Food does not necessarily play the same role in our lives as it used to. The second reading stated that by becoming insensitive to the suffering we cause to defenseless animals, we become insensitive to the beauty of the created meal that's oppressed and thus we disconnect increasingly more from our meals which in turns impedes our ability to be intelligent. Although there are many radical points the author claims, I do agree with this one; if intelligence is partly defined as the ability to make emotional connections with other beings, because our society has become vastly distant from the origins and appreciation of their food and can be ignorant to the treatment of the animal product they may be consuming, then in a sense people have become less intelligent.
ReplyDeleteAnother bold claim that the author makes was that from childhood we have been forced to be distracted and inattentive perpetuators of cruelty. After some consideration, children really don't have the choice as to what they eat and thus because cruelty is found within the confinement, mutilation, and slaughtering of animals for food, then yes most of us have been raised unwillingly on animals and therefore we have been promoting cruelty. And does eating animal products truly make us more violent, aggressive people? Well our habitually practiced actions have the most impact on others and the future thus if we wish to make this world a more kind, loving, and free place then we have to take a hard look at our most fundamental activity; blindly eating animals or explicitly making the decision to eat factory farmed animals is certainly not advocating compassion. After all it's true when the author suggests that factory farms share strikingly similar conditions as concentration camps. I think when we look at the history of vegetarianism/veganism, it's clear that many rituals are based on violent acts of possessing and killing animals for our form of power and wealth and in those acts of greed, continuing to eat animal products does not make a non-violence message to the world. There's a clear loss of compassion in many of our cultural activities already such as sport hunting, horse racing, and circuses in which we've proved our dominance and selfish ability to exploit resources and animals because we can. Perhaps it's easy for us to use animals as our property and right because we certainly emphasize the differences between the animal kingdom and us while we ignore any similarities; by isolating our species from the rest of animals we are probably able to create a mentality of domination that is reinforced by the exclusion of the suffering of food animals. And what about plants? They are mistreated when we chop them up and have feelings too right? Well I'm not sure there is a way that we can say definitively that they don't but if they do, that's even more reason to support veganism because the amount of food that's used to feed livestock could be drastically reduced and used to directly feed the mouths of the hungry and poor versus the rich continuing to get fat off meat while the poor starves due to the unfair distribution/use of primary production. And if plants have feelings then promoting a healthier diet in general could probably be achieved by decreasing the amount of corn syrup and other derivatives that are so unnecessarily used in processed foods (thus reducing the 'suffering' of corn). I find validity in the idea that unfortunately we are walking corn.
ReplyDelete