in which I am feeling somewhat annoyed....

[lagilman]

Over on Facebook, an old high school friend of mine who has gone on to make a career of religion (she's a minister) took me to task for saying that...

I prefer not to eat horse meat, because to me they're companion animals the same as dogs and cats, and that's part of the agreement we make with them - they give us emotional comfort and service, and we don't eat them. She claimed that cows (teams of oxen pull things) were in the the same category, and generally was (politely) attacking my stance.

I wasn't in the mood to get into that argument. I told her that you could make exceptions for everything - that's why we have Vegans - and I hadn't said she was evil for eating horsemeat, just that I couldn't, so why was she telling me my moral decisions are somehow wrong, just because they disagreed with hers?

Yes, it's a moral choice on my part. This is where I draw the line. Emphasis on my and I, not YOU EBIL THING HOW DARE YOU EAT DA PONIES?

Apparently, she didn't like my logic (it's not logic, it's a moral choice, you'd think a minister would understand the difference), and therefore felt it was okay to go on the offensive about that drawn line, and how it disagreed with hers.

*shakes head*

I'm too goddamned busy for this.

Comments

[nick-kaufmann.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the Internet, where people think everything you say is an argument aimed directly at them. That's why I tend not to engage anymore.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

"why was she telling me my moral decisions are somehow wrong, just because they disagreed with hers?"

... because that's one of the core concepts of organized religion in general and Christianity in particular, and that mindset probably bleeds into more parts of her world view than what one does with oneself on Sunday mornings?

[lagilman]

I would disagree about painting quite THAT broad a brush over a rather wide-ranging faith system.... especially something that has little to do with religion.

[I hew to an if-there-are-souls-animals-have-them-too philosophy. She may not. But that wasn't what we were discussing. Hell, we didn't even get to the fact that I'm not sure if horses are kosher... I don't think they are.]

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't think souls entered into it at all, or Kosherness, or any specific Christian doctrine. I was referring more to the ... way in which particularly Christian people tend to defend their views.

I also don't think the above brush is a terribly broad way to describe Christianity. With most varieties I've encountered, there's a definite sense of "These are my moral beliefs, and they're correct beliefs, seeing as how they come from the one true god, and those of you who some how haven't come around to The Truth are -- at best -- uninformed."

Even when they're not being actively judgy, there's a general worldview sense of 'what we believe is The Right Way To Be, and we may tolerate the existence of conflicting beliefs, but we still know they're wrong and we're right because The Lord says so.' I mean, it's a religion of 'I am the one true god you shall have no other gods before me', not one of 'well, some people like these gods, and some people like other gods, and some people are happily atheist, and it's all cool as long as you're happy and you don't hurt other people.'

Then, as a bonus, you've got the fact that Christianity has prosthelization (sp?) as a core concept as well. That is, it's not enough to know The Truth about god, you're supposed to sell his beliefs to others as well.

Stands to reason that if one of the core concepts of her religion (and in her case, her vocation) is based on certainty of the correctness of one's moral/ethical/spiritual views + salesmenship of those views, the offering of an alternative viewpoint isn't likely to be seen as 'hey, people have different beliefs, isn't the world wonderfully diverse, let's all get along' so much as, 'No, YOUR view is wrong, mine is correct, see here are my facts I'm using to convince you.'

Even if your intent was simply 'I believe differently, and here's why,' I can see how it would read to her as a criticism of her views and and attempt to change her mind.

[lagilman]

Whereas I'd ascribe the "what we believe is The Right Way To Be, and we may tolerate the existence of conflicting beliefs, but we still know they're wrong and we're right because" to just about any strongly held faith. I've run into a number of equally Opinionated other-than-Christians in my day....

(it's just that there are MORE Christians in daily life for most of us, I suspect, that we ascribe that particularly to Christ's followers. But get on the argumentative side of an Orthodox Jew, and watch out...)

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

Oh, totally not unique to Christians, that's for sure.

But we're talking about someone who chose to make a career of religion, and I wasn't talking about all Christians everywhere or the religion as a multifaceted whole, so much as those who are ... for lack of a better term, its hardcore fanbase.

And the whole thing with her going on the offensive about you drawing your personal line, and her taking your statement of differing beliefs as an attack on her beliefs... I just feel like there's an us-vs-them, alternative viewpoints=attack mindset to certain aspects of Christianity.

And so it's not surprising that she reacts this way to this non-religious discussion that for *you* is about 'hey, this is just how I feel about the morality/ethics of this decision, not saying your differing opinion is The Wrong or EBIL HORSE MURDER time.'

Because my guess is that when she offers her opinions/logic (as a minister) on morality/ethics, she is coming from a place of 'I am Right, therefore you are wrong if you disagree.' So it's not a huge leap to think she takes that mindset into non religious areas, and projects that motivation onto others.

Anyway, sorry to TL;DR.

[lagilman]

Nah, discussion is good, and I see where you're coming from. I guess, because I knew her when she was a teenaged planning-on-pre-med student, I see her as Old Friend first, and A Minister, after....

[blazedglory.livejournal.com]

I respond to the point not reached in the original discussion, partly because I do not currently have the brain power for anything else.

I looked it up. The horse is one of those creatures that chews the cud but doesn't have split hooves. So, not kosher.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

Horses do NOT chew the cud. Grass, yes, cud, NO. An animal has to have a particular kind of stomach system and be able to regurgitate to chew a cud, and horses don't and can't.

See, this is what happens when I can't add anything useful to a discussion. I quibble.

Still, not kosher.

[blazedglory.livejournal.com]

I knew that. I'm sure I knew that. How on Earth could I have known that and forgotten it?

I confess to insufficient researched my response. See above re lack of brain power.

And now my brain power is confused. :)

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

This is the nature of "argument" on the internet. It's all driven by emotion and righteousness. I have learned that when I feel my back getting up about something I read online that my best course of action is to step away, as you did, because my time is more valuable, and because emotional arguments always shed more heat than light. Sounds to me almost like this person was looking to pick a fight, which . . . ::shakes head:: I just don't get it.

[lagilman]

Yah - I have discovered that NOT getting the last word is actually more valuable than insisting on it. The other person can feel all whatever that they "won" and you haven't wasted any more time in a pointless argument.

[I also suspect that she was *waiting* for someone to attack her for being glad that horsemeat would be available in the States, and when I said anything, she decided that was the attack. I really had expected better of her.]

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

when you start drawing those imaginary lines, it gets messy..

[lagilman]

I guess I don't consider it "imaginary".....

(and even if it were, it's a stated line and should be respected, be it moral, emotional, or a personal space sort of thing.)

[martianmooncrab.livejournal.com]

Imaginary wasnt a good choice, everyone draws their own lines in their heads, as to their right/wrong black/white .. you dont really know where someones personal lines are until you nudge up against them. They arent that tangible or noticeable otherwise.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

Whee! A chance to add my Bitch, Please to yours!

I get this argument all the damn time. I'm a vegetarian, and at the time I became one, it was for moral reasons. I am most emphatically not the type of vegetarian that preaches the lifestyle like a religion -- it's what's right for me, your choices are up to you, and I don't have a problem with that. My husband eats meat and we've managed 12 years of marriage without that being an issue.

My mother, on the other hand? Can't stop telling me how wrong I am, how unhealthy I am (which is funny since I'm pretty damn healthy -- she's the one with IBS, cholesterol problems, and borderline diabetes), and how weird I am. And not in the teasing-affectionate way you might think, but with all the raging fire of a zealot castigating a sinner.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

That's very tedious. I am not a vegetarian but there are strong moral arguments for being one, which I accept, and some people just seem to get on better with it as a diet.

The British do not eat horse - I suspect, for the reasons that LAG outlines above. I have eaten it in France, and don't have huge issues with it, but nor can I say that I am entirely comfortable with it. I completely agree with Scarlettina above with regard to emotional outbursting on the net. I have taken on the Outrage Brigade in various of its forms and for various reasons, but in general, it's best left alone.

[lagilman]

the "unfollow thread" button on FB is one of the few truly useful upgrades they've made.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

Yes, finally FB does something to benefit it's minions, er, users. *g*

[seachanges.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem stems from the notion that if your personal beliefs differ from theirs, you are somehow passing judgement on them. They don't hear "I couldn't eat horse meat, I'd find it too upsetting." They hear "ANYONE WHO EATS HORSE MEAT IS EVIL!"

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

On one list I used to participate on, one person tried to draw the argument that the country was spiraling into such a dreadful economic situation that PEOPLE WERE GOING TO END UP EATING OUR HORSES!

To which I said, "So what?" It's really not my business what other people put or don't put on their dinner plates unless I'm planning to eat over at their house (or they're expecting me to feed them). People have eaten horse in this country throughout its history. At the same time, nobody's gonna eat MY horses, thankyouverymuch. Including me.

I'm not sure I'd call it a moral choice--at least not on my part; other people can base their choices on beliefs about souls and whether you should or should not eat things with them. Is it a moral choice if you say, "I don't eat things I love?"

I mean, I eat beef, but not a pet calf.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

It's like C.S. Lewis pointed out years ago, a lot of people can't tell the difference between morality and custom. In this case, they can't draw the line between moral and personal decisions.