|
On February 13 2011 01:33 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote:That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other.  In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move. You could have won this argument really easily if you'd just told him rainbows are gay. Show nested quote +If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so. Show nested quote +I'm assuming this is in response to my post? I'm not sure since it doesn't make much sense ... Nazi's? As for the rest of your post: I was using sexism and racism as a bridge to show that people's perception of morals change over time, which you should've seen if you read my post carefully. And even though I've never related sexism and racism to "specie-ism", saying Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics. is still non-sensical, what does it proof besides the fact that you like to give your opinion? Let's review: 1 The OP (who is not you) began his argument by saying that much like racism and sexism, 'specism' is a form of discrimination.
It is discrimination, I'm just questioning whether it's warranted. And indeed, I'm not OP, so the "civil rights" and "nazi" comments don't make any sense in response to my post.2 His intended audience, presumably, are people who eat meat. His ideal to either defend his way of life, or to convince others to adopt it as well. I would say it's the latter. What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it. You're also making a personal judgement on what OP's intentions are.3 I say that this is a pretty poor way to open an argument. You alienate your entire intended audience by associating the plights of human rights, to the plights of animal rights. Regardless of what I think of animal rights, I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument. Most people are going to stop reading the OPs argument at this point. What promise does a 2 page rant that begins with how meat eaters are akin to women haters and bigots have? Even if his arguments did get better, he shot himself in the foot. What do you mean with "you"? I'm not OP and my post had nothing to do with human rights, hence the comment that it doesn't make sense.
Also " I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument" ?
Interpreting what other people are going to be thinking is not an argument, and it certainly doesn't give people the liberty to disregard OP's points, let alone not read it. There's also no worse way to begin an argument than bringing up Nazi's in an unrelated thread, I'm sure you're aware of Godwin's law.4 In defence of the OP, you say that no matter how one opens an argument for veganism, they are going to find something they find offensive to them, because they are looking for it and 'construing it.' 95% of posts have been attacking OP for "pushing his beliefs upon people" "being a hypocrit lettuce murderer" or "being pretentious". Yet no-one has quoted where he implies these things, leaving me to conclude that people are looking for things to be offended by. Yes, it is nearly impossible to address a controversial topic like the possibility of not eating meat without getting flamed, do you disagree?5 I respond, sarcastically, that I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much effort to be offended by a statement which puts one on the level of misogynists and bigots, and that if that there was a good argument to be had, it probably wouldn't have opened up with this clearly provocative statement. As I said, it's only "clearly" provocative when you are looking for something to be offended by. He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you deny the truthness of this statement? Or were you too consumed by the controversial nature of the statement to see that it's actually a completely valid comparison?
OP is putting specie-cism on the same page with sexism and racism since they're all forms of discrimination. When I say red, purple and yellow are colors, that doesn't imply you're all of the above or does it? Hence my sidenote that everyone can find offensiveness in a controversial post, even when it isn't intended. So I implied it might be in everyone's interests to not form entire arguments concerning OP's perceived insults and discuss the contents instead.
6 You respond, as you have to with most posts in this thread, complaining that I somehow didn't read your post properly, or didn't read it at all, or that I'm too stupid to get it. I don't see how that defends opening one's argument with a statement that can only be taken as an attack on the reader's morality, but okay. Sure, maybe one day in the year 2050 we'll all look back on the year 2011 and think how barbaric they were for eating animals. Or maybe we won't. It's besides the point. It doesn't help your argument now, by fantasizing about a time in the future when eating animals will be akin to owning a slave. Your post had no contents that adressed mine, as such I'm going to comment on how your post makes no sense in reply to mine. You can hide behind the notion that I'm "bullying" in this thread, but it doesn't conceal that your post, like most, focuses completely on criticizing the OP for perceived insults to people eating meat, instead of attacking it's content. Kinda like an ... ad-hominem, how ironic.
I never fantasized over "one day in the year 2050", that's why I'm asking you to read my post for what it says. Once again:
"Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct."This concludes our review. Please study it well as you will no doubt be tested in the future for its contents, though likely in a different context. Right.
|
Maybe meat-eaters get mad at vegans because the meat-eaters are always "looking for something to get offended by." That's possible, I suppose. I also think it's possible that the meat-eaters get mad because vegan rhetoric invariably involves claiming moral or nutritional superiority.
You're saying that the OP mentioned speciesism alongside sexism and racism simply because they belong to the category of "discrimination." You even say that it was as innocent as saying "red, purple, and yellow" are all colors.
Do you actually believe that? You don't think that, just perhaps, comparing speciesism to sexism and racism in any capacity is a loaded comparison? You don't think that comparison has an agenda?
I think that the OP finds those three -isms to be equally immoral. I think he wants his fellow TLers to agree with him in that assessment. I think that his posts in this thread clearly evidence that evangelistic fervor. I also think that him opening his please-convert thread with the old sexism-racism-speciesism triad was passive aggressive at best, and I think it's perfectly understandable that it rubbed a large portion of his audience the wrong way. I don't know see where the confusion about his motives is.
That's my theory, at least. Like I said, though, your meat-eaters-want-to-be-offended theory is pretty good, too. Maybe it has to do with the protein and/or hormonal payload of their dietary regimen. Who knows?
|
On February 12 2011 04:23 Saechiis wrote:
Why does 90% of posts here come down to:
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it.
I apologise for poking fun at your tragically short memory, but this is where the argument began. With you saying the OP "is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others" and "in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat."
I'm not sure at what point you got confused, but hopefully this will help you to follow the my relatively simple train of thought.
|
On February 13 2011 03:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote:That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other. In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move. I like your style, Slayer, even if you made a totally newbie move. I also like the fact that you recognize that sensationalism is the only thing that's going to get you airtime in a debate like this. You're going to have to be more polarized, rabid, and partisan if you want to get anywhere in life!
No, I fucking hate debates and shit because of this, If I build a career it's going to have nothing to with them.
|
On February 13 2011 04:10 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Maybe meat-eaters get mad at vegans because the meat-eaters are always "looking for something to get offended by." That's possible, I suppose. I also think it's possible that the meat-eaters get mad because vegan rhetoric invariably involves claiming moral or nutritional superiority.
I know they get mad about it, it shows pretty clearly in this thread. I'm arguing that getting mad isn't a proof that veganism is bad idea. I'm tired of playing the "you're claiming to be superior"-game as it comes down to personal, subjective, judgements of intention. I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals, but there'll be 10 that say I'm doing it for personal gain. As such, it's infinitely more useful to focus on what makes veganism worse than eating meat.
You're saying that the OP mentioned speciesism alongside sexism and racism simply because they belong to the category of "discrimination." You even say that it was as innocent as saying "red, purple, and yellow" are all colors.
I never said it was innocent, I said that red is a colour, like blue, but besides the fact that they're both colours they have nothing in common. Saying that specie-cism is a form of discrimination doesn't imply it's equally reprehensible as other subgroups of discrimination, like sexism and racism. As such, Chef's claims that OP implies meat-eaters are nazi's, racists and sexists, is fallicious. When I say your head is red, it doesn't imply your head is yellow, green and orange too.
OP could've been more delicate, but it doesn't take anything away from his point.
Do you actually believe that? You don't think that, just perhaps, comparing speciesism to sexism and racism in any capacity is a loaded comparison? You don't think that comparison has an agenda?
What you and I think is irrelevant since it doesn't disprove OP's claims.He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you disprove that?
I think that the OP finds those three -isms to be equally immoral. I think he wants his fellow TLers to agree with him in that assessment. I think that his posts in this thread clearly evidence that evangelistic fervor. I also think that him opening his please-convert thread with the old sexism-racism-speciesism triad was passive aggressive at best, and I think it's perfectly understandable that it rubbed a large portion of his audience the wrong way. I don't know see where the confusion about his motives is.
I think that he, I think he wants, I think that his posts, I also think that, I think. But it's not the "What do you think OP's intentions are?"-thread. It's the "specie-cism and veganism" thread. Reply to what he has to say about specie-cism and veganism, not what you think his agenda is. Even if he was implying that eating meat is immoral, if you don't think it is, why don't you explain him why it isn't?
That's my theory, at least. Like I said, though, your meat-eaters-want-to-be-offended theory is pretty good, too. Maybe it has to do with the protein and/or hormonal payload of their dietary regimen. Who knows?
Your theory completely revolves around your opinion and it doesn't relate to the merits and/ or demerits of veganism. I have argued that it's practically impossible to non-offensively discuss veganism when 95% of replying posters eat meat. How would you suggest one to make a thread about the benefits of veganism over eating meat without rubbing meat-eaters the wrong way?
On February 13 2011 04:32 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 04:23 Saechiis wrote:
Why does 90% of posts here come down to:
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat. Show nested quote +What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it. I apologise for poking fun at your tragically short memory, but this is where the argument began. With you saying the OP "is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others" and "in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat." I'm not sure at what point you got confused, but hopefully this will help you to follow the my relatively simple train of thought.
I tested your ability to reason in a rational matter. But as expected, you're only known on TL for your witty remarks. When you take out the "witty" though, there's no content left in your posting. Please continue without me though, I'm sure there'll people that will mistake your shallow posts and evasions as a cover for something much grander.
|
On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote:
I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy.
|
On February 13 2011 05:35 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote:
I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy.
I bet you're wondering why no-one is quoting your post saying lol.
It's because it isn't funny.
|
Saechiis this responding-by-bolding-inside-quotes shit has to stop.
|
I'm known on TL for writing silly StarCraft fanfiction and hyping BroodWar.
I think you've gotten yourself deep into this argument and you feel like you can't give an inch. I'm not saying there aren't decent arguments for vegetarianism, or that as humans we shouldn't be able to think 'raising a chicken in a cage its whole life to be eaten by us' is a little fucked up. It's a really complicated argument which I don't want to get myself into. So I choose this fringe argument where you're arguing the OP was in no way saying meat-eaters are reprehensible, when I give you quoted proof, and you try to deny it with 'well that's not what he really meant'... I don't know. I think that's pretty dumb. Of course it's what he meant. He wouldn't have mentioned sexism or racism if he didn't. He wouldn't have coined the term 'specie-cism' if he didn't. He'd have just gone straight into 'why eating meat is bad.' He labeled meat eaters as 'specie-ists' with what I think are pretty obvious intentions.
The term specism itself is unnecessary and silly. You're damn right I'm specieiest.. And so are you. I'd save a human life before I'd save an animal's. Is that like saying I'd save a white person before a black person? I don't think so, but that's the comparison being made. I also won't let dogs ride at the front of the bus. Or on the bus at all, unless they are a guide dog, because I am also breedist. Also, dogs are not allowed to eat at the dinner table with me, they have to eat from a crappy bowl on the floor. How reprehensible. In truth I don't own any pets though, because I'm actually slightly unnerved by the idea of owning another creature. However, I'm not going to call my friends who own pets speciests, or cruel. Maybe one day I'll even own a pet when I get over it. A little slave bunny who doesn't have the freedom to leave me and I keep solely for my amusement. Yeaaah. Then when it dies of old age, I'll eat it.
|
On February 13 2011 06:04 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 05:35 Impervious wrote:On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote:
I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy. I bet you're wondering why no-one is quoting your post saying lol. It's because it isn't funny.
Either the OP wants to talk about veganism/vegetarianism.....
Vegetarians are particularly subject to pernicious anemia (results from deficiency of vitamin B12) unless they eat generous amounts of milk and eggs. A lack of vitamin B12, found only in animal sources, can seriously interfere with the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow. To make up for milk products, vegans should eat plenty of calcium-rich plant foods. Other problems include iron deficiency, animal protein deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency, which can interfere with the body's ability to absorb calcium. There is a possibility of low levels of zinc, which is needed for synthesizing protein.
.....and does not realize that fortified diets or suppliments do not fix these issues for everyone as well as he'd wish they would..... It can be unhealthy for someone to eat a vegan/vegetarian diet in many cases.....
Or he is arguing that the animals deserve better living conditions.
If it is the first scenario - he's misinformed or lying to persuade people and deserves correcting, and the condecending tone is far from warranted. Thread finished quickly.
In the 2nd one, he'll find many, many people who share similar views (myself included). And a lot of this argumenting could have been prevented if he had left the vegan/vegetarian + comparisons to sexism/racism out of the picture. Not much more than chiming in with agreement would have come up in the thread. Thread finished quickly.
This thread has kept going because of that condecending tone that he and others have had, going in either direction. It's not constructive at all.
In 100 years, people could look back and think we were barbaric for eating meat (especially if substitutes and suppliments improve drastically). However, things could take a complete 180 degree turn, and they could look back at people arguing for a vegan/vegetarian diet as being complete fucking retards, because suppliments and other substitutes/fortified foods cannot possibly replace the nutrition that meats give us. Either way, we won't know until we get there.....
Trying to insinuate that eating meat is comparible to sexism or racism is fucking dumb. And, of course, that is going to piss off anyone who enjoys a non vegan/vegetarian diet.
|
On February 13 2011 06:16 Chef wrote:
I'm known on TL for writing silly StarCraft fanfiction and hyping BroodWar.
I think you've gotten yourself deep into this argument and you feel like you can't give an inch. I'm not saying there aren't decent arguments for vegetarianism, or that as humans we shouldn't be able to think 'raising a chicken in a cage its whole life to be eaten by us' is a little fucked up. It's a really complicated argument which I don't want to get myself into. So I choose this fringe argument where you're arguing the OP was in no way saying meat-eaters are reprehensible, when I give you quoted proof, and you try to deny it with 'well that's not what he really meant'... I don't know. I think that's pretty dumb. Of course it's what he meant. He wouldn't have mentioned sexism or racism if he didn't. He wouldn't have coined the term 'specie-cism' if he didn't. He'd have just gone straight into 'why eating meat is bad.' He labeled meat eaters as 'specie-ists' with what I think are pretty obvious intentions.
The term specism itself is unnecessary and silly. You're damn right I'm specieiest.. And so are you. I'd save a human life before I'd save an animal's. Is that like saying I'd save a white person before a black person? I don't think so, but that's the comparison being made. I also won't let dogs ride at the front of the bus. Or on the bus at all, unless they are a guide dog, because I am also breedist. Also, dogs are not allowed to eat at the dinner table with me, they have to eat from a crappy bowl on the floor. How reprehensible. In truth I don't own any pets though, because I'm actually slightly unnerved by the idea of owning another creature. However, I'm not going to call my friends who own pets speciests, or cruel. Maybe one day I'll even own a pet when I get over it. A little slave bunny who doesn't have the freedom to leave me and I keep solely for my amusement. Yeaaah. Then when it dies of old age, I'll eat it.
I'll give an inch when there's a reason to, but no-one's even discussing specie-cism and veganism in this thread. It's all a discussion about OP's "evil" intentions which I've argued a million times isn't even relevant to the discussion. But still you're pretending like OP's intentions proof anything about the merits of veganism.
You're also once again jumping on specie-cism as if it's a synonym for racism and sexism. They're all forms of discrimination, that's where the comparison stops. Everyone is a specie-ist since everyone makes the separation between humans and animals, that's not the point as I've tried to explain over and over and over and over again, yet you insist on taking it as an insult.
I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it. Rather you make a "witty" comment so you seem clever and avoid the discussion all together. If you don't want to dive in, then don't respond. Don't dip your toes in the shallow water and pull back when it gets too cold, it's an insult to the effort I'm putting in.
On February 13 2011 06:08 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Saechiis this responding-by-bolding-inside-quotes shit has to stop.
Why? Does bolded text make it harder to read? Still waiting for your reply, I'm curious.
On February 13 2011 06:34 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 06:04 Saechiis wrote:On February 13 2011 05:35 Impervious wrote:On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote:
I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy. I bet you're wondering why no-one is quoting your post saying lol. It's because it isn't funny. Either the OP wants to talk about veganism/vegetarianism..... Show nested quote +Vegetarians are particularly subject to pernicious anemia (results from deficiency of vitamin B12) unless they eat generous amounts of milk and eggs. A lack of vitamin B12, found only in animal sources, can seriously interfere with the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow. To make up for milk products, vegans should eat plenty of calcium-rich plant foods. Other problems include iron deficiency, animal protein deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency, which can interfere with the body's ability to absorb calcium. There is a possibility of low levels of zinc, which is needed for synthesizing protein. .....and does not realize that fortified diets or suppliments do not fix these issues for everyone as well as he'd wish they would..... It can be unhealthy for someone to eat a vegan/vegetarian diet in many cases..... Or he is arguing that the animals deserve better living conditions. If it is the first scenario - he's misinformed or lying to persuade people and deserves correcting, and the condecending tone is far from warranted. Thread finished quickly. In the 2nd one, he'll find many, many people who share similar views (myself included). And a lot of this argumenting could have been prevented if he had left the vegan/vegetarian + comparisons to sexism/racism out of the picture. Not much more than chiming in with agreement would have come up in the thread. Thread finished quickly. This thread has kept going because of that condecending tone that he and others have had, going in either direction. It's not constructive at all. In 100 years, people could look back and think we were barbaric for eating meat (especially if substitutes and suppliments improve drastically). However, things could take a complete 180 degree turn, and they could look back at people arguing for a vegan/vegetarian diet as being complete fucking retards, because suppliments and other substitutes/fortified foods cannot possibly replace the nutrition that meats give us. Either way, we won't know until we get there..... Trying to insinuate that eating meat is comparible to sexism or racism is fucking dumb. And, of course, that is going to piss off anyone who enjoys a non vegan/vegetarian diet.
I'm not OP and I want to have a constructive discussion regardless of what OP said that pissed people off. Please read my posts for the last pages and reply to them without bringing up anything related to the OP's perceived intentions.
On a sidenote, THIS is condescending, especially towards someone who chooses to no eat meat out of beliefs.
On February 13 2011 05:35 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote:
I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
|
Simple - I love animals as well.
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
+ Show Spoiler +Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
|
On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote:Simple - I love animals as well. My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them. Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)? I have. Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it. So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well. Show nested quote +And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes? Do you think that racism is bad? Do you think that sexism is bad? If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue. + Show Spoiler +Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
|
Ok, want some info about veganism?
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet
# 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem
# 59% are plagued with food cravings
# A whopping 67% report scattered thinking.
# 46% feel they are looking older than they should.
# 54% feel run down, chronically tired.
# 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
|
On February 13 2011 08:07 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote:Simple - I love animals as well. My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them. Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)? I have. Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it. So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well. And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes? Do you think that racism is bad? Do you think that sexism is bad? If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue. + Show Spoiler +Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it. I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
I copy/pasted this from internet.
analogy (əˈnælədʒɪ)
— n , pl -gies
1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details
2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system
3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts
4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects
5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc
It seems that you were completely unfamiliar with this concept before reading this thread. We excuse you for that now, but from now on please be a little more careful when treating people as "trolls" for using analogies, like you did with me and now with Impervious.
And I'm still awaiting for your reply. I bolded it because you seem too like bolded letters.
|
While I'm happy you keep telling me how witty I am, I'm not sure why you keep saying this argument has nothing to do with the OP. You were the one who brought the OP up in the first place, and that was what I responded to. If you didn't want to talk about the OP anymore, seeing how he DID bring up a point you know you can't defend anymore, why wouldn't you just concede it?
I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it.
While you make think you're being diligent by going thru an entire post like that, it's actually pretty insulting and bad internet etiquette. That's why someone else told you to stop doing that. I didn't not respond to it because that would be too difficult, but because that's a really inane and tedious way to argue.
|
On February 13 2011 08:19 agarangu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 08:07 Saechiis wrote:On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote:Simple - I love animals as well. My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them. Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)? I have. Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it. So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well. And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes? Do you think that racism is bad? Do you think that sexism is bad? If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue. + Show Spoiler +Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it. I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder. I copy/pasted this from internet. analogy (əˈnælədʒɪ) — n , pl -gies 1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details 2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system 3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts 4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects 5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc It seems that you were completely unfamiliar with this concept before reading this thread. We excuse you for that now, but from now on please be a little more careful when treating people as "trolls" for using analogies, like you did with me and now with Impervious. And I'm still awaiting for your reply. I bolded it because you seem too like bolded letters.
The allegations are getting worse and worse. Now my arguments are even bad because I bold them so they can be read properly or because I respond to posts piece by piece.
If you're going to copy paste the meaning of analogy from the internet it's common practice to post a source. It would also be nice if you explained to me how it relates to anything. I don't wish to take your place in this argument too.
On February 13 2011 08:14 Impervious wrote:
Ok, want some info about veganism?
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet
# 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem
# 59% are plagued with food cravings
# A whopping 67% report scattered thinking.
# 46% feel they are looking older than they should.
# 54% feel run down, chronically tired.
# 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
A quote from Ghandi in 1946 is not relevant to a discussion on veganism in 2011. He was not even a nutrional expert in his days.
As for the numbers, that's interesting. Could you post the source? Can't really comment on it's validity since I don't know the context of the survey.
I've never claimed veganism was a healthier choice though, it's common knowledge that the best diets consist of varied food. I've said that one can live without eating meat, even normal if you're balancing your diet correctly. It was never under discussion that being vegan is a sacrifice.
Also, how popular do you think veganism was more than a hundred years ago? I'm betting it wasn't 1% Probably not even 0,1%
If you just don't post offensive oneliners to bait people, no-one's going to call you a troll.
|
On February 13 2011 07:09 Saechiis wrote: Why? Does bolded text make it harder to read? Still waiting for your reply, I'm curious.
Yes. It does as a matter of fact. The quote function is for quoting, not for posting.
On February 13 2011 07:09 Saechiis wrote:I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it. Rather you make a "witty" comment so you seem clever and avoid the discussion all together. If you don't want to dive in, then don't respond. Don't dip your toes in the shallow water and pull back when it gets too cold, it's an insult to the effort I'm putting in.
Here’s where you’re wrong. You seem to think that people don’t respond to you point-by-point—the way you do—because it would be too difficult to argue against the points you’ve laid out in that manner.
Wrong. People don’t respond like that because it’s the most tedious and most captious way possible to argue on the internet. If you can’t just out and say what you mean in a paragraph or two, no one’s interested.
Allow me, if you will, to illustrate. Here is my best argument in full-on Saechiis style:
On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote:
Maybe meat-eaters get mad at vegans because the meat-eaters are always "looking for something to get offended by." That's possible, I suppose. I also think it's possible that the meat-eaters get mad because vegan rhetoric invariably involves claiming moral or nutritional superiority.
I know they get mad about it, it shows pretty clearly in this thread. I'm arguing that getting mad isn't a proof that veganism is bad idea.
I wasn’t arguing that anyone was offering proof for anything one way or another about vegetarianism. I was simply pointing out that it’s very understandable that non-vegs get mad about being mentioned in the same breath as wife-beaters and slave-owners. The fact that you think I was offering proof that vegetarianism is bad only serves to highlight your obviously lacking reading comprehension skills, as well as your insistence on bringing into the discussion blatantly irrelevant arguments. You’re a strawman builder. You should go into the scarecrow business.
I'm tired of playing the "you're claiming to be superior"-game as it comes down to personal, subjective, judgements of intention. I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals, but there'll be 10 that say I'm doing it for personal gain. As such, it's infinitely more useful to focus on what makes veganism worse than eating meat.
I never said that you were claiming to be superior. Read my post again because you obviously didn’t and you obviously don’t care to understand my point anyway. My entire reply concerned the OP, which has nothing to do with you except insofar as you insist on defending him.
I also claimed that the rhetoric of veganism invariably involves the rhetoric of superiority, of condescension. That would obviously be outside the scope of this thread to demonstrate sufficiently, but the posts within this thread certainly attest to that tendency, especially the OP.
Also, you have on numerous occasions in this thread suggested that our moral senses will be improved in time. That’s another trope of vegan condescension. You’re deferring to some fictionalized and self-serving account of the future in order to justify your frankly obnoxious comportment in the present. If you were a vegan because you love animals, I think that would be a much more prominent feature in your discussions of veganism. As it stands, the discussions are always moral/ethical/nutritional.
You're saying that the OP mentioned speciesism alongside sexism and racism simply because they belong to the category of "discrimination." You even say that it was as innocent as saying "red, purple, and yellow" are all colors.
I never said it was innocent, I said that red is a colour, like blue, but besides the fact that they're both colours they have nothing in common.
More specious arguing. You don’t think that colors have anything in common beyond the fact that they’re colors? You don’t think that in practice and in theory we tend to treat them somewhat interchangeably?
For instance, I associate both red and blue and yellow with paint. If I think about paint, I am likely to imagine that paint in any of these colors. This reminds me of one time that I went to Lowes and brought along a throw-pillow to use in their color-matching machine at the store. As it turns out, they can’t load fabric into the machine because the texture of the fabric and the shadows that it produces ultimately produce a color different from the one produced by the naked eye. It won’t look like a match on the wall.
As you can clearly see from my personal experience, the associations between those colors are much broader and more meaningful than the bare fact that they both belong to the category “color.” I don’t understand how you fail to realize this, but I chalk it up to poor reading comprehension and also maybe you didn’t read my post and/or respond to it line by line.
In the same way that colors can be associated with one another in ways other than simply being examples of colors, the –isms in question here can be associated with one another in many other ways than simply being examples of discrimination. IN FACT, that was the whole goddamn point of the OP.
Saying that specie-cism is a form of discrimination doesn't imply it's equally reprehensible as other subgroups of discrimination, like sexism and racism. As such, Chef's claims that OP implies meat-eaters are nazi's, racists and sexists, is fallicious.
Fallicious is not a word. Poor spelling is yet another testament to your ineptitude when it comes to reading, as our repertoire of correct spellings are formed in our younger years (along with our pools of acceptable syntax), primarily from our reading. Obviously you didn’t read a lot when you were a child. Obviously you didn’t read my post either.
I have already thoroughly debunked the notion that OP brought up speciesism as a mere example of discrimination. But you probably didn’t read that either so allow me to continue.
OP definitely implied that meat-eaters are in some way equivalent to sexists and racists. The sexist/racist sentence serves as what we in the business call a “topic sentence,” the sentence that tells the reader what the paragraph is about. The that follows concerns the need to employ compassion and mutual understanding in abolishing such abusive, hierarchical relationships as have been evidenced by sexism and racism in the past. The explicit suggestion is that we need to defer to those same higher feelings to overcome the—perfectly analogous—abusive hierarchy of mankind denying rights to animalkind.
What you have to remember here is that no one is talking about your opinion on the –isms. We’re talking about the OPs. Only someone with seriously lacking reading comprehension skills would suggest that Chef’s assessment of the OP was, as it were, fallacious.
When I say your head is red, it doesn't imply your head is yellow, green and orange too.
OP could've been more delicate, but it doesn't take anything away from his point.
Vegans, cannibals, and crackwhore cocksuckers. They all put things into their mouths that a great deal of normal human beings would not. Mind you all I am doing is categorizing those three terms by the barest, most straightforward definition of what they do. The fact that I say vegans are a lot like cocksuckers should not be construed on your end as having made any untoward suggestions about your lifestyle.
I am merely discussing set theory—even though I never introduced my discussion as such. I hope you can see that it was an innocent comparison and that you and your cocksucker-like friends would be silly to take any offense to it.
Do you actually believe that? You don't think that, just perhaps, comparing speciesism to sexism and racism in any capacity is a loaded comparison? You don't think that comparison has an agenda?
What you and I think is irrelevant since it doesn't disprove OP's claims.He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you disprove that?
Yes, as a matter of fact I can. I can read the rest of the paragraph where he calls on us to exercise compassion to choose what is “good” over what is “bad.” Only a person committed to winning an argument at all costs would choose such a rarefied interpretation of the paragraph. You’re essentially saying that the second half is a non-sequitur to the first, which it isn’t. It follows. And EVERY LAST PERSON IN THIS THREAD EXCEPT FOR YOU has picked up on the fact that it’s one paragraph and no a bipartite double conversation about discrimination-category words on the one hand and the need for empathy in life choices on the other. The paragraph is about choosing “good” which there equals nondiscrimination over “evil” which there equals speciesism, sexism, and racism.
I don’t see how you’re not picking up on this. Perhaps you lack the proper socio-linguistic context to understand Tony, seeing as he is an American and you are a European. It’s a recognized phenomenon in literary and linguistic circles that the readers context in many ways predetermines his or her ability to interpret a text. I now hypothesize that you’re a much poorer (demonstrably poorer, as you have demonstrated so many times in this thread) reader of the OP than we are because you’re simply far less familiar with American-style paragraph organization. Sounds good to me. But the point is we know what’s going on in that paragraph but you don’t
I think that the OP finds those three -isms to be equally immoral. I think he wants his fellow TLers to agree with him in that assessment. I think that his posts in this thread clearly evidence that evangelistic fervor. I also think that him opening his please-convert thread with the old sexism-racism-speciesism triad was passive aggressive at best, and I think it's perfectly understandable that it rubbed a large portion of his audience the wrong way. I don't know see where the confusion about his motives is.
I think that he, I think he wants, I think that his posts, I also think that, I think. But it's not the "What do you think OP's intentions are?"-thread. It's the "specie-cism and veganism" thread. Reply to what he has to say about specie-cism and veganism, not what you think his agenda is. Even if he was implying that eating meat is immoral, if you don't think it is, why don't you explain him why it isn't?
I don’t want to be all solipsistic about this discussion, but all we have are our thoughts about the world and not the world itself. Your evasion here of my point is a cheap one, and one that could be invoked in any conversation about anything anywhere and at any time.
Also, the whole fucking conversation we’re having concerns the fact that everyone has picked up on the fact that OP has an agenda in introducing the –isms in the way that he did.
Your posts, in fact, have been there to defend that very question. Your posts are defending OP on the grounds that his OP has no agenda other than a simple, illustrative comparison. Therefore your posts are concerning what “you think his agenda is.” It seems like talking about what old Tony intended is all well and good if you’re the one doing the talking, but it’s not well and good if anyone else is. That’s a pretty selfish way to argue.
I chalk up that argumentative strategy in you to poor reading comprehension skills. Your lack of skill in that area probably predisposes you to avoid reading as much as possible, which in turn predisposes you to not having encountered many good, quality, written arguments, which in turn predisposes you to the tendency, manifested here, of arguing with a marked lack of self-awareness, integrity, and effectiveness.
So my question to you now is would you rather have your cake or would you rather eat it. I consider it self-evident and also a wise saying that one cannot both have their cake and eat it as well.
That's my theory, at least. Like I said, though, your meat-eaters-want-to-be-offended theory is pretty good, too. Maybe it has to do with the protein and/or hormonal payload of their dietary regimen. Who knows?
Your theory completely revolves around your opinion and it doesn't relate to the merits and/ or demerits of veganism. I have argued that it's practically impossible to non-offensively discuss veganism when 95% of replying posters eat meat.
The reason why my theory doesn’t relate at all to the merits of veganism is because it is not a theory of the merits of veganism. My theory was on why meat-eaters tend to be angry at instances of vegan rhetoric.
Personally, I find you entire post irrelevant and stupid and wrong. In fact, I find your ENTIRE POST HISTORY on this whole site irrelevant/stupid/wrong. Do you know why I do this? Because nowhere do you ever take into account what is the real discussion here, which is an argument about the merits or demerits [sic] of self-sharpening knives—which this whole site is about.
You may find it unfair that I have discounted your opinion because it does not relate to something you obviously never attempted to relate it to. You’ll find that I don’t care. All I was looking for was a way to discount your opinion, and I found it. Life is not fair. Discuss.
How would you suggest one to make a thread about the benefits of veganism over eating meat without rubbing meat-eaters the wrong way?
I wouldn’t. Vegan rhetoric is invariably shot-through with condescension. It’s a bad scene, and there’s no way to pleasantly represent it.
Now, Saechiis. I expect a full on, point-by-point rebuttal of my argument (because this is a fruitful way to argue).
Also make sure that it's all within that quote and properly color-coded, or I will think you're not living up the amount of effort I am putting into this thread.
Thank you.
|
On February 13 2011 08:14 Impervious wrote:
Ok, want some info about veganism?
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet
# 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem
# 59% are plagued with food cravings
# A whopping 67% report scattered thinking.
# 46% feel they are looking older than they should.
# 54% feel run down, chronically tired.
# 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
If you're going to cite statistics then actually link to them, don't copy them here and expect us to believe you. And just so you know, the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians Of Canada have found that a properly planned vegan diet is fine in all stages of life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028
Also I can find at least one vegan over the age of 100.
+ Show Spoiler +
It's amazing what a quick google search will throw up.
|
On February 13 2011 08:22 Chef wrote:While I'm happy you keep telling me how witty I am, I'm not sure why you keep saying this argument has nothing to do with the OP. You were the one who brought the OP up in the first place, and that was what I responded to. If you didn't want to talk about the OP anymore, seeing how he DID bring up a point you know you can't defend anymore, why wouldn't you just concede it? Show nested quote +I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it. While you make think you're being diligent by going thru an entire post like that, it's actually pretty insulting and bad internet etiquette. That's why someone else told you to stop doing that. I didn't not respond to it because that would be too difficult, but because that's a really inane and tedious way to argue.
+1. QFT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
