From what I can interpret, it is not hypocrisy to select what you eat. And presenting your options to others regarding what we eat may or may not be hypocritical.
The line of hypocrisy depends on a simple thing: with what attitude, and reasoning, do we present our views of the world to others? In the act of presenting them, do we end up demeaning or censoring different views, or are we willing to listen to them in the same amount as we expect them to listen to us?
Killing a whale, or a bacteria, or a convicted criminal, or an innocent bystander does not cease to be killing. The only thing that changes is the justifications that are presented for each of these killings.
Since human beings often act based on previous training, cultural brainwash, or instinct/impulse/emotion, obviously they have to find a logical reasoning later to support these largely irrational and emotional acts. This leads to inconsistencies, contradictions, and fractured points of view.
If we analyse things from a broad perspective, most human actions, when taken as a whole, are quite contradictory from a purely logical point of view. The idea of having integrity, of keeping a consistent principle in motion during the course of one`s life, is impossible (in my view) to truly realise in practice. It is often the smallest, most apparently innocuous actions, that reveal contradictions regarding some big principle that we chose to follow. Everything can change, if the contextual circumstances change.
Why am I even mentioning this? Because of the attitude that too many of us will carry along, when entering a debate. There`s a lot of negative energy, because people seem to imply that their reasoning for consuming certain types of food instead of others is universally right.
The problem with this is that people naturally change, and have the right to. I am not the same person as I was 5 years ago, and in 5 years` time, I hope I am not exactly the same person I am today.
But I see so many enter these types of debates with a righteous attitude. They will completely defend their point of view to the bone, in a desperate attempt to prove "they are right", completely oblivious to the fact that in 5 years time, they might completely change their mind. And in the meantime, so much negative energy has been created and wasted in pointless debates that lead to nowhere. Because people can either choose to "be right, and have the last word", or demonstrate sympathy, affection and a willingness to truly listen.
Therefore, if we have principles, great, state them to the world, but even as we pronounce them, let`s not condemn others for choosing differently, especially if our own logic is contradictory and potentially flawed. The very moment that I decide to claim fault on another country or culture, my own cultural inconsistencies will become tremendously apparent to others. Especially when we try to cast blame.
The reality is, we are all co-creating, directly or indirectly, a great amount of damage to living species. Even many of those who are vegan will make use of services or industries that themselves, create poisonous substances, modify the land, or interfere with hundreds of thousands of ecosystems and living species. If we use paper, if we use the very internet, we are indirectly inflicting damage, because of all the infrastructures that had to be placed to make this a reality.
Seeing things from this global perspective, it makes things particularly frustrating, if in a debate we continuously blame another culture or person for the problems which, in a very concrete way, we are also responsible as well. While bashing others, failure to acknowledge the things that we ourselves might do as well to help will inevitably expose our inconsistencies and render our point moot. The people who might be willing to work with us will now work against us, because we isolated them.
If we don`t want to eat carrot, and our parents say "you should eat carrot because it`s healthy", and they say this in context of having just eaten really unhealthy things, and having a generally unhealthy lifestyle, that completely undermines the original effort, its hard not to pinpoint the contradiction inherent in such a statement. This is the trap that most debates fall into.
For a debate to be successful, both parties must assume that they individually do not hold all the answers, that their views are inherently incomplete, that there is something to be learned, that extends both of their reasonings. And they must be willing to listen.
If these factors are not present, then most of the debates end up becoming quite obvious displays of hypocrisy in bigger or smaller amounts.
Debate on consumption of meat is a difficult topic, which makes me all the more surprised to see the righteous manner in which is approached by so many people.
however, I am happy that in this forum, people really try to be civil most of the time, compared to most other places.
