Bacon Lovers Meet Tiny Piglets For The First Time - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 118Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 10-15-2015, 11:44 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
I know it can be. But legality is irrelevant to morality. You know what I mean by it, that's the point. If you're going to get hung up on that I suppose you could pretend I said "criminal apathy" or "dangerous negligence", whatever I really shouldn't have to paraphrase my obvious meaning.
Sure, I knew what you meant. I just dislike unnecessary hyperbole; I tend to tune out when people start using it.

For example, I find it objectionable both when veg*ns say "meat is murder" and when anti-choice people say "abortion is murder." Murder is a killing which is against the law, so the term doesn't apply in either case.

When someone has a good argument, s/he doesn't need to use unnecessary hyperbole.
Beautiful Joe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 10-15-2015, 01:39 PM
JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 125
Murder can be used loosely to mean a killing. Therefore, to say meat is murder is no hyperbole, it is a tangible truth. Have you ever heard the scream of a cow as it's neck is slit open?

Or the screams of a pig?
Or the screams of any animal being slaughtered?

Animals are conscious, sentient beings.
They have feelings.
They have thoughts.
They have desires.
They live and breathe just as humans do.

To kill one is tantamount to murder.
Necter is offline  
#63 Old 10-15-2015, 02:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necter View Post
Murder can be used loosely to mean a killing. Therefore, to say meat is murder is no hyperbole, it is a tangible truth. Have you ever heard the scream of a cow as it's neck is slit open?

Or the screams of a pig?
Or the screams of any animal being slaughtered?

Animals are conscious, sentient beings.
They have feelings.
They have thoughts.
They have desires.
They live and breathe just as humans do.

To kill one is tantamount to murder.
I suspect I may have been veg*n for longer than you've been alive, so, yes, I'm well aware that nonhuman animals are conscious, sentient beings, and I also think that killing them for the use of humans is an atrocity.

That doesn't alter the fact that the word "murder" has a very definite meaning. Likewise, the fact that the word "murder" has a very definite meaning doesn't make the killing of nonhumans for our purposes any less terrible than it is.
Beautiful Joe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#64 Old 10-15-2015, 05:08 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
no whey jose and cris gabi like this.
Yay! We can be friends again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate Huntress
Why do it? (LedBoots, Naturebound and Lil' Tofu like this.)
UH-OH. Well, we're pretty far off topic as it is anyway, so quite simply: practicality. Though honestly my personal disgust inhibits me from comfortably eating meat anyway. I don't remember what little of it I've had tastes like and I don't wish to be reminded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
Sure, I knew what you meant. I just dislike unnecessary hyperbole;
Most people seem pretty criminal to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
For example, I find it objectionable both when veg*ns say "meat is murder" and when anti-choice people say "abortion is murder." Murder is a killing which is against the law, so the term doesn't apply in either case.
I get that. I seriously doubt bringing it up gets you very far though. "Meat is Murder" is just one of those memorable slogans. Both keywords start with "Ms", it has an even number of syllables, it's really just a lovely little statement, even if it is completely untrue in common vernacular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
When someone has a good argument, s/he doesn't need to use unnecessary hyperbole.
*sigh* Very well, what would you recommend I use to describe my position?
Dogma is offline  
#65 Old 10-15-2015, 09:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
*sigh* Very well, what would you recommend I use to describe my position?
You're pretty inventive. I'm sure you can come up with something.
Beautiful Joe is offline  
#66 Old 10-16-2015, 01:59 AM
the ever sleepy
 
Sadrielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 95
I hope you don't mind, but I broke down your response to the relevant points of your rebuttal and to the discussion that took place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi View Post
I was expecting I would talk to vegans/vegetarians, that understand 'vegan/vegetarian' language. Not to people who simply don't eat meat for 'health reasons', or because they inherited it from their childhood, but never thought of it, what it actually means, as a philosophy...
You can expect that, but it's not a realistic expectation. A large part of any movement involves awareness, which is precisely what vegans and vegetarians strive for through use of documentaries, youtube celebrities, popularized blogs, and forums such as these that serve as information hubs and a source for community. The consequence of awareness is attracting a large pool of people, all of which who will not have the same end goals and ideals in mind, nor will they have the same level understanding, frequency, or enlightenment. And when you speak on a public forum, you are speaking to all of us, to those who are vegan for philosophical reasons and to those who only eat a vegan diet, but who take an active interest in participating in philosophical discussions. You could actively attempt to ostracize those of us who are only on a vegan based diet, but it would hurt your long term goal. As a second option, you could humor our interest, encourage our education to possibly contribute to your long term goal--but this is, of course, a personal decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi View Post
...Someone was saying about her husband being a meat-eater, and felt offended of my term insulting meat-eaters in general. I just wonder, how can a woman live a happy life with someone doesn't share her lifestyle... ...But maybe if you are in doubt with your own beliefs about that, then may be able to make this kind of compromises.
I simply cannot.
I wonder why you think it's appropriate to comment on and question the private relationship between two individuals who you will never know in person. Dropping unsubtle remarks about your doubts in her life decisions is no way constructive to the discussion. Lifestyle differences are never easy to work around, but there will always be similarities in other regards that make up profoundly for said differences. Veganism is not the be all and end all to individuality. Religion is not the be all end all to individuality. Culture, ethics, race, species--in their separate categories, they are not the be all end all to individuality. And I could go further into the fundamentals of what a loving relationship is about and the balancing act between individual choices, preferences and lifestyles, but that would be a tedious and pointless endeavor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi View Post
But..., I've never considered we deserve a prize, or a praise, for being less or not harmful to animals and to the environment...
No, you just feel they deserve criticism about their dietary choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi View Post
...In fact, we wouldn't be here today if were not those bold enough to break into habitudes and ordinariness.
Not those who replaced the dog meat in hot dogs... ...were those who brought the changing to vegetarianism, or those who later brought veganism... ...it was a great mind who said, if only ten percent of the entire humans would do something, anything, to contribute, as more than just simply tax payers, to contribute with their minds, not their muscles, we would be able in a time of decades to harness at least another planet/moon in our solar system...
Avoiding a homemade veggie based burger patty (beans and oatmeal, more or less) will do nothing to break habitude and ordinariness. All it will do is create one less dinner option. You're putting an excessive amount of sentimentality and idyllic symbolism in food shapes.

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.

Last edited by Sadrielle; 10-16-2015 at 02:04 AM.
Sadrielle is offline  
#67 Old 10-16-2015, 02:40 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Thank you, @Sadrielle . Well said.
Naturebound likes this.
no whey jose is offline  
#68 Old 10-16-2015, 03:04 AM
androgyne | vegan
 
cris gabi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle View Post
I hope you don't mind, but I broke down your response to the relevant points of your rebuttal and to the discussion that took place.
I thought we were already over this topic. Why bring it back like a brand new found bullet, for to make some war noise again, because it became too silent. I will not take your challenge anyway. If you [or anyone else] can't understand what I do really mean, after all my walls of text explaining as detailed as I could, and as friendly as I could, thought I've been punched in the face since I even opened my mouth to spell only, my ideas. I never forced no one to do anything, I just friendly made a statement of my philosophy, and I only got into defensive after I was punched even more.

I am many, but I am not a victim, I know when I deserve and how much I deserve. I even apologized several times, for more than I supposed to do it, in general terms and not only, about the fact that I disturbed the inner peace of anyone with my topic, and I even took it back, stating that I can understand and accept friendly and freely, that we will never get along about this ideas. But the critiques continued.

Sorry, but I refuse to take any of your words above into consideration, they are off topic, at least in what it concerns me personally. This discussion had its categorical end [in my perspective] not very long ago, a few posts above, when I retracted the very first post that disturbed seemingly, so much, a lot of people here. Okay, I took it back. Why you still continue it?...
And that "Well said"... what it suppose to mean?... Some victory?... ) Hello, there's no war in here. Is just... limits in thinking, lack of open minds, if you ask me, of course. Because for me it simple means you people really have a problem, and not with/because of me, while I know my limits, and my thoughts, but with yourselves. You are probably uncertain with the things I state, and they wake up monsters. Well, I've been there, and maybe in other things I still go there. It's called revealing. And it takes time, and stages. And of course, denial.

I hope we will maybe meet in other discussions, maybe more productive, and in better terms, if possible, or maybe not, but with this thing, I am already tired. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Yay! We can be friends again!(???)
You're just kidding, right?... I hope so.

Last edited by cris gabi; 10-16-2015 at 03:16 AM.
cris gabi is offline  
#69 Old 10-16-2015, 03:43 AM
the ever sleepy
 
Sadrielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 95
Simply put I had something left to say, therefore I said it. Ad hominem and strawmen fallacies ran rampant through this thread, and still do.

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Sadrielle is offline  
#70 Old 10-16-2015, 05:45 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
You're pretty inventive. I'm sure you can come up with something.
*snort* HMMM...

Wicked Disregard?

Nefarious Inattention?

Malefactorous Heedlessness?

*throws up hands* Surely, Criminal Negligence suffices? I mean, keeping chickens in battery cages wasn't legally "abuse" until it was legally "abuse". Or is it, now? **** if I know.

For the record, I get annoyed when people refer to veganism/vegetarianism as a lifestyle. It's not a friggen' lifestyle. I just don't DO certain things that other people do. I strongly dislike peppers for instance. Just because I don't buy peppers doesn't make that a LIFESTYLE choice. I should be allowed to be reasonably upset when someone serves me stuffed peppers and not eat them without that being labeled a lifestyle. Despite this peeve, I've haven't mentioned it until now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I hope you don't mind, but I broke down your response to the relevant points of your rebuttal and to the discussion that took place.
If Cris minded, I'd be "criminal" number one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I wonder why you think it's appropriate to comment on and question the private relationship between two individuals who you will never know in person.
They brought it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Dropping unsubtle remarks about your doubts in her life decisions is no way constructive to the discussion.
It wasn't the only thing she was saying. Anytime we argue the merits of veganism (which we do A LOT) we're questioning each other's moral templates. Subtlety would only subvert the discussion and subversion isn't constructive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Lifestyle differences are never easy to work around, but there will always be similarities in other regards that make up profoundly for said differences. Veganism is not the be all and end all to individuality.
W-*COUGH*-W-what!? I... I'm totally on Cris's side again on this one. Uhhh... Aha! I think it's time to bring in the holocaust analogy again!:

Tammy: "So... Susaaan... how'd you meet your new mystery man, and what is he like?"

Susan: "Well Tammy... if you must know, we both met at a cafe, we both ordered the exact same coffee, right down to the caramel topping, and then there were no more open tables so we shared a table!"

Tammy: "Mmmm... almost sounds like it was meant to be!"

Susan: "Oh, hush up! Anyway, we get to talking and I find out he has dogs!"

Tammy: "You love dogs!"

Susan: "I do! And then I found out that he spends every Saturday bicycling around the lake!"

Tammy: "You love bicycling around the lake!"

Susan: "I know! And then I found out that he's a NAZI!"

Tammy: "You love-! Wait- what?"

Susan: "I know, I know, minor blemish, so we just don't do go to Jewish restaurants anymore, but guess what else!?"

Tammy: "What?"

Susan: "He likes Reservoir Dogs!"

Tammy: *GASP* "You LOVE Reservoir Dogs!"

Susan: *SQUEE* "I know! I know! I'm going to see him again tonight!"

Tammy: "So when are you going to... you know..." *nudge* "...bump uglies?"

Susan: "UGH! Tam, you know I'm a woman with STANDARDS."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
And I could go further into the fundamentals of what a loving relationship is about and the balancing act between individual choices, preferences and lifestyles, but that would be a tedious and pointless endeavor.
No no, please tell me, I would love to hear exactly what qualities I would have to have in order to be a Scientologist and still dateable.


In all seriousness with rhetoric aside; if EATING THE FLESH OF THE INNOCENT isn't a dealbreaker, what is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
No, you just feel they deserve criticism about their dietary choices.
As you do for that undercut. Cris's right, neither vegetarians nor vegans deserve praise for doing something they should have always been doing.

That's like if one day the Electoral College is nuked, every United States insular territory becomes a state, their inhabitants become citizens, DC is given full voting rights and the government publicly discloses that "No, we were never a democratic nation, we've actually been a republic this whole time".

I'm not patting anyone's back and telling them "good job", it always should have ****ing been that way!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
I thought we were already over this topic. Why bring it back like a brand new found bullet, for to make some war noise again,
*laughs*

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
If you [or anyone else] can't understand what I do really mean, after all my walls of text explaining as detailed as I could, and as friendly as I could, thought I've been punched in the face since I even opened my mouth to spell only, my ideas.
Cool yer britches, Cris.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
I even took it back, stating that I can understand and accept friendly and freely, that we will never get along about this ideas. But the critiques continued.
We're just talkin', Cris. Anything to do with morality is a heavy topic, so if you think of conversation like a pool of water that we're all throwing rocks into, remember that anything to do with this stuff pretty much requires boulders. It won't do to get ruffled when the water starts flyin'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
Sorry, but I refuse to take any of your words above into consideration, they are off topic,
*SIGHHHHHH* Dude, it's hard enough to defend your own arguments without you just freaking out and shooting yourself in the foot. Sadrielle's and No Whey Jose's arguments have been mostly reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
You are probably uncertain with the things I state, and they wake up monsters. Well, I've been there, and maybe in other things I still go there. It's called revealing. And it takes time, and stages. And of course, denial.
Cris, less defensive, more offensive. And by offensive I don't mean more of what you're doing, cause I'll be honest it's not helping. Arguments are a lot like fights, you don't win them by curling up into the fetal position and calling them bullies. Put up your dukes! Try to figure out where their argument's coming from and articulate an answer tailored specifically to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
You're just kidding, right?... I hope so.
Pff... fine then, you're not allowed in my fort anymore. *leaves cris gabi's fort*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Simply put I had something left to say, therefore I said it. Ad hominem and strawmen fallacies ran rampant through this thread, and still do.
A NEW CHALLENGER COMES!

Sadrielle VS. Dogma

FIGHT!
Dogma is offline  
#71 Old 10-16-2015, 10:13 AM
the ever sleepy
 
Sadrielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post

A NEW CHALLENGER COMES!

Sadrielle VS. Dogma

FIGHT!
CUE MUSIC!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
It wasn't the only thing she was saying. Anytime we argue the merits of veganism (which we do A LOT) we're questioning each other's moral templates. Subtlety would only subvert the discussion and subversion isn't constructive.
Subtlety wasn't the issue with what I was referencing, and I hope you understand that. Cris gabi was trying to take a cheap shot at No Whey Jose and call into question whether or not No Whey Jose was as "twue" of a vegan as herself by casting insinuations through use of indirect musings on No Whey Jose's relationship. This was done in a comment directed toward me, and had absolutely no point in being so. Furthermore, it has no relevance to the question of whether or not it's ethical for a vegan to eat a veggie burger, UNLESS Cris Gabi was trying point out that only "untwue" vegans could stoop that low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
For the record, I get annoyed when people refer to veganism/vegetarianism as a lifestyle. It's not a friggen' lifestyle. I just don't DO certain things that other people do. I strongly dislike peppers for instance. Just because I don't buy peppers doesn't make that a LIFESTYLE choice. I should be allowed to be reasonably upset when someone serves me stuffed peppers and not eat them without that being labeled a lifestyle. Despite this peeve, I've haven't mentioned it until now.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lifestyle

The word lifestyle encompasses many elements and is a useful, shorthand term without having to list the above definitions out. Veganism can be as grandiose as a personal ethical decision or nothing more than a dietary change. Whether you like it or not, your habit of "not doing certain things" defines your lifestyle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
W-*COUGH*-W-what!? I... I'm totally on Cris's side again on this one. Uhhh... Aha! I think it's time to bring in the holocaust analogy again!... ...No no, please tell me, I would love to hear exactly what qualities I would have to have in order to be a Scientologist and still dateable... ...In all seriousness with rhetoric aside; if EATING THE FLESH OF THE INNOCENT isn't a dealbreaker, what is?
Presupposing the perspective of your own objectivity to analyze the behaviors of others is not a valid argument. Neither is the begging the question fallacy, nor your historian fallacy. Your sins toward reasonable argument are piling up, Dogma.

(but I will admit the picture at the end of that analogy gave me a snort-chuckle)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
As you do for that undercut. Cris's right, neither vegetarians nor vegans deserve praise for doing something they should have always been doing.
No one ever purported they did. The entire discussion was spurred solely by Cris's criticism on food shapes that vegans consume their veggies in. I'm not sure if you can call my remark an undercut when it's exactly what Cris has been saying since post one in this thread. My original comment was to question why Cris felt it was necessary to mock vegans that eat veggie bugers, not to ask why she hasn't sent them a package of cookies yet.

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.

Last edited by Sadrielle; 10-16-2015 at 11:01 AM.
Sadrielle is offline  
#72 Old 10-16-2015, 02:00 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Cris, nobody is bullying you. We're having a discussion on a public forum. You can't justifiably state your opinion and then get upset when others respond with their own.

Dogma, I'm not sure that I can explain to you what makes interpersonal relationships meaningful or what bonds two people together despite differing opinions and philosophies. Either you have experienced unconditional love or you haven't.
Shallot and Beautiful Joe like this.
no whey jose is offline  
#73 Old 10-16-2015, 08:29 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
CUE MUSIC!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Subtlety wasn't the issue with what I was referencing, and I hope you understand that. Cris gabi was trying to take a cheap shot at No Whey Jose and call into question whether or not No Whey Jose was as "twue" of a vegan as herself by casting insinuations through use of indirect musings on No Whey Jose's relationship. This was done in a comment directed toward me, and had absolutely no point in being so.
Well, let's take a look at that quote, shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cris gabi
...Someone was saying about her husband being a meat-eater, and felt offended of my term insulting meat-eaters in general. I just wonder, how can a woman live a happy life with someone doesn't share her lifestyle...
She's was just defending her position, explaining how she doesn't understand how someone can breach that disconnect, however the end of the sentence in bold enlightens me to part of your response earlier. You're right, there're far more mundane "lifestyles" like bicycling around the lake that you don't need to share with someone to share your life with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Furthermore, it has no relevance to the question of whether or not it's ethical for a vegan to eat a veggie burger, UNLESS Cris Gabi was trying point out that only "untwue" vegans could stoop that low.
That I agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
The word lifestyle encompasses many elements and is a useful, shorthand term without having to list the above definitions out.
From my experience it's usually used as a loaded to term to describe an overt approach to life. Calling homosexuality a lifestyle was and still is a thing and it's no better there either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Veganism can be as grandiose as a personal ethical decision or nothing more than a dietary change.
Man, I've been arguing that point for WEEKS now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Whether you like it or not, your habit of "not doing certain things" defines your lifestyle.
You know, I'd be perfectly comfortable using the word "lifestyle" to simply describe the style of my life, but a lot of people use it as a tool to make blanket statements about people. Saying veganism is my lifestyle suggests that veganism is the only style of my life.

I totally get where you're coming from, I'm just bracing for that inevitable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Presupposing the perspective of your own objectivity to analyze the behaviors of others is not a valid argument.
Cripes, you're going to have to explain that one to me because I'm sitting here interpreting "lifestyle" in two different ways and that sentence right there just went right over my head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Neither is the begging the question fallacy,
"If EATING THE FLESH OF THE INNOCENT isn't a dealbreaker, what is?" isn't a fallacy, it's a legitimate question. You would agree that there are certain lines people won't cross, right? Some people don't date blondes, some people don't date foreigners, I for instance, *GASP* don't date at all.

But you'd agree that if you asked somebody straight up "Would you have sex with this rapist?", they'd probably say no. Likewise if you asked somebody, "Would you marry this drunk gambling addict?", they'd probably say no. And similarly if you asked somebody, "Would you spend the rest of your life trading jokes with this yahoo with the rainbow haired avatar?", you'd probably say no.

So my question isn't a forgone conclusion like begging the question necessitates: If we're okay with our significant others eating innocent creatures, where are we drawing the line?

Admittedly, my question is partly rhetorical, because whether you draw the line at murderers or gingers, that line is arbitrary and biased. That we okay non-humans to be eaten assumes speciesism because I'm pretty damn certain we'd be upset if our significant others turned out to be cannibals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
nor your historian fallacy.
You'll have to point out specifically what you're referring to here. If you're somehow referring to my assumption that No Whey Jose isn't okay with cannibals... you got me there. It was unfair of me to assume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Your sins toward reasonable argument are piling up, Dogma.
You'd best explain how then, Sadrielle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
No one ever purported they did.
*ERRR!!!* Wrong! Instant replay, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naturebound
If it means he eats fewer animals and contributes less toward the animal farming industry, I am all for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva
I'm happy when people change in their beliefs in whatever way they can.
I'll be honest, this wasn't a major point of this discussion, but in general, you hear it A LOT around here (and much more blatantly than that).

Is it super relevant to the discussion...? Kind of... not really? The crux of the current argument is the value judgment leveled at non-vegans. A lot of people are comfortable with just being vegetarian which is how the RSPCA got brought up. It's no crucial point, but it is inextricably tied to vegan treatment of non-vegetarians too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
The entire discussion was spurred solely by Cris's criticism on food shapes that vegans consume their veggies in.
I think Cris has agreed we're over that by now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I'm not sure if you can call my remark an undercut when it's exactly what Cris has been saying since post one in this thread. My original comment was to question why Cris felt it was necessary to mock vegans that eat veggie bugers, not to ask why she hasn't sent them a package of cookies yet.
Again, it's not all Cris was saying, unless you believe every point I agreed with her on is evidence of my own relentless shaming as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
No, you just feel they deserve criticism about their dietary choices.
They DO. But what Cris was saying was absence of a bad thing is not necessarily a good thing, which I think we should all totally agree with.

But the real topic at hand is the one Cris and Jose clashed over regarding how far vegans should extend their association with non-vegans. Do we stop at friends? Family? All or nothing? Is that practical? Is that ethical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Dogma, I'm not sure that I can explain to you what makes interpersonal relationships meaningful or what bonds two people together despite differing opinions and philosophies. Either you have experienced unconditional love or you haven't.
Surely we can all agree that the concept of unconditional devotion/obedience/infatuation/love/anything is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to handwave.

For example, what if your loved one turned out to be THE THING!?


You'd still love 'em, right? They'd just be two, or three, or four more men to love. And a dog somewhere in there.

UNCONDITIONAL.

Last edited by Dogma; 10-16-2015 at 08:34 PM.
Dogma is offline  
#74 Old 10-17-2015, 12:38 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 18
Oh my god, I love the facial reactions when they bring out the piglet!
Sadrielle likes this.
AppleandMango is offline  
#75 Old 10-17-2015, 01:45 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Surely we can all agree that the concept of unconditional devotion/obedience/infatuation/love/anything is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to handwave.

For example, what if your loved one turned out to be THE THING!?


You'd still love 'em, right? They'd just be two, or three, or four more men to love. And a dog somewhere in there.

UNCONDITIONAL.
I'm not sure what that thing is, exactly (what is it?) but unconditional love means loving an individual unconditionally. It doesn't mean respecting every decision that individual makes, agreeing with him on every (or even any) point, enabling his vices or condoning his indiscretions.
no whey jose is offline  
#76 Old 10-17-2015, 05:56 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I'm not sure what that thing is, exactly (what is it?)
It's the thing! More specifically John Carpenter's The Thing, a movie in which an alien is discovered inhabiting a seemingly normal dog in the arctic just before it goes on a killing spree by absorbing and assuming the form of archaeologists who for all intents and purposes are perfectly normal people until you touch something hot to their blood and then they eat you.

BUT... perhaps that's too loose of an analogy. Oh! Oh! I know! I know a better movie reference! THE STUFF!


In Larry Cohen's The Stuff, an strange white substance is discovered pooling up from deep beneath the earth and locals discover that it tastes surprisingly good, even addictive! It's marketed as The Stuff and sold as a healthier and tastier alternative to ice cream. The main character is a young boy whose family begins buying the stuff and they eat and they eat and they eat until it's ALL THEY EAT and they become super bizarre walking advertisements for The Stuff who want nothing more than for their little boy to JUST TAKE A BITE.

And the twist is... IT EATS YOU!


Enough of the super fun movie trivia though, back on topic: Unconditional... does that include being possessed by a prehistoric yogurt commercial? Caaause... I'll be honest, I wouldn't hesitate to kill my family at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
It doesn't mean respecting every decision that individual makes, agreeing with him on every (or even any) point, enabling his vices or condoning his indiscretions.
Some decisions are bigger than others, Jose. If your spouse decides they really like neon pickle green underwear, I should hope that's a difference in opinion you can both get over. On the other hand I'm hazard to echo Cris Gabi here when I say this is not a similarly trivial matter.

Unconditional love asserts that it exists without condition and therefor under no circumstances will it cease. I've known my parents my entire life, through thick and thin, through joyful memories and the worst years of my life. But alas, after years of desperately trying to reconcile our differences, to be treated as an equal, they've made it clear they want no part of me unless I bend to them and their crooked way of thinking. And that is simply unacceptable.

If there was any sort of love, it was most certainly conditional, and I honestly do not believe unconditional love exists, because if your spouse rolls over in bed, stabs you in the gut with a kitchen knife and says, "I've always hated you and your stupid fu*king vegan sh*t. I only married you for the money.", I'm pretty sure you just found yourself a condition.

If not, then I think you might be a weeee bit obsessed.
Dogma is offline  
#77 Old 10-17-2015, 07:02 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
Unconditional love does exist. Some people feel it for their children (and no one scoffs at that, except perhaps you, Dogma), and some people feel it for their companion animals. There's nothing that I can imagine my companion animals doing that would make me stop loving them. If I can feel that for them, I can't discount that someone may have the ability to feel similarly about a spouse, SO, etc.

You've really been on a trip of belittling others recently, Dogma. I have to echo Leedsveg's concern of whether you're all right.
no whey jose likes this.
Beautiful Joe is offline  
#78 Old 10-17-2015, 07:25 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
Unconditional love does exist. Some people feel it for their children (and no one scoffs at that, except perhaps you, Dogma),
I am an Satan Incarnate after all. It's kinda my job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful Joe
and some people feel it for their companion animals. There's nothing that I can imagine my companion animals doing that would make me stop loving them. If I can feel that for them, I can't discount that someone may have the ability to feel similarly about a spouse, SO, etc.

You've really been on a trip of belittling others recently, Dogma. I have to echo Leedsveg's concern of whether you're all right.
*looks down shamefully* Want some popcorn?
Dogma is offline  
#79 Old 10-17-2015, 11:35 AM
the ever sleepy
 
Sadrielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 95
Dogma, you have an ever exceeding love for breaking up quotes. I think this is your debate strategy, you're trying to break quotes into so many little widdle bits that I won't want to use proper citations in my reply! Well let me TELL YOU SOMETHING, mister: it worked. So you're going to have to go back and figure out any sort of references I attempt to make to your previous reply.

Having look backed through the entirety of this thread, I do feel I misread the tone cris gabi meant to imply at certain points. That English is not her native language exacerbated this. I think so many people addressing her comment in disagreement set the mood sour from the get go with her, since perhaps she lacked the intuition native English speakers have when reading text online in determining what tone a specific set of text was written in. I can fully accept that at points, she was trying to explain her position as best she could. My only beef (get it?) with the way cris gabi conducted herself was in the passive aggressive remarks and the way she addressed people who weren't living up to her standards. I.e., making snide comments about how much denial we were in for not agreeing with her enlightenment, the whole elitist vibe with questioning No Whey Jose's level of veganism since clearly she's compromised her beliefs. It's weird. It's rude.

I accept that words can carry certain connotative meanings to individuals. If that's what you associate with the word lifestyle, I understand your dislike of its use. But I'm an old cat lady maid, set in her ways! Nyeeeeh! Get off my lawn!

The fallacies: 1.) you're assuming everyone possesses the same mindset as you do, and should see certain behaviors in the same light, as demonstrated through your examples and amount of incredulity you use when framing your biased arguments. You can explain your perspective in a characteristic light, but to question how other people can't is a personal rhetoric and not an arguable front. 2.) the entirety of your hitler analogy was a historian fallacy. nazi's don't exist today as they did in WWII, and if they do, they're typically bigotted redneck white racist supremacists that like to talk about 'eradication' of lesser individuals, but have never actually done anything other than meet up with their local skinhead club. back WWII, to be able to date a nazi you'd probably need to be of Germanic origin, and it would have been more than acceptable, and perhaps even desirable to be a nazi wife/girlfriend. 3.) no, maybe it's not a begging the question fallacy. perhaps more correctly, it's a complex question fallacy. my bad.

Quote:
But you'd agree that if you asked somebody straight up "Would you have sex with this rapist?", they'd probably say no. Likewise if you asked somebody, "Would you marry this drunk gambling addict?", they'd probably say no. And similarly if you asked somebody, "Would you spend the rest of your life trading jokes with this yahoo with the rainbow haired avatar?", you'd probably say no.
Okay, I give in. I'll line something up in a quote.

You're lining up qualities that are universally agreed on as bad with eating meat. Only 2% of the world agrees that eating meat is a disagreeable quality. I imagine there's a larger percentage of people who will find the above qualities off putting. In your head, you can equate these disagreeable qualities all you like, but not all vegans do. (although, trading jokes with a rainbow haired yahoo doesn't sound too bad). It's an argument that you can get away with on a vegan forum, but it's not argument that would hold up elsewhere, because there's an even more vast variety of opinions, mindsets and beliefs as opposed to the dichotomy of this forum, where it will probably be vegetarian/plant based dieters vs. the raw foodists and the vegans.

You have a very pessimistic view on love, it seems, so there's little point in arguing the unconditional love front with you. If you don't believe in it, if it doesn't work out for you in your life, that's okay! Individuality is a wonderful thing, and it's perfectly acceptable to want your lifetime mate to have the same goals and ideals as yourself. I perhaps can understand that even better, because in the Mormon religion, it's a thing. Mormons typically don't marry other Mormons, they they severely discourage dating non-Mormons precisely for this reason. They have a saying, "Match your yoke evenly," which is an old timey metaphor; when pulling a wagon, its better to have to oxen of equal strength in size so that burdens can be equally matched. There's another saying, one that's in line with your Hitler analogy, "Like with like."

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Sadrielle is offline  
#80 Old 10-17-2015, 12:16 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Dogma, your hypothetical situations are unrealistic. I know my husband, know his character. If I thought there was a chance that he would stab me in my sleep, I wouldn't have married him. We trust each other.

As Sadrielle pointed out, it's inaccurate to compare meat)eating to behaviours like rape and murder which are universally regarded as unethical. Viewing certain animals as food is conmon, normal. This doesn't make it right, but it does remove the element of maliciousness and purposeful wrongdoing inherent in the acts of rape, murder, and cannibalism. If we all lived in a world where rape was normal, where parents taught their children to rape and where group rape was widely considered a fun bonding activity, then it would be more difficult to justifiably condemn an individual for rape than it is in our current climate where rape is widely regarded as wrong. The act itself is unethical regardless of context, but context is important when considering where to place blame. Meat eaters are not evil, dangerous people out to cause suffering and death. They are average people who are merely doing what they were raised to do. It is rare for someone to question the morality of those aspects of his life which are so routine as to be almost unconscious.

I'm genuinely sorry that your parents abandoned you. It's no wonder you don't believe in love after that kind of treatment.
Beautiful Joe likes this.
no whey jose is offline  
#81 Old 10-17-2015, 07:12 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Dogma, you have an ever exceeding love for breaking up quotes.
Actually it's SUPER tedious, but it's the best way of addressing numerous individual points in a long post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I think this is your debate strategy, you're trying to break quotes into so many little widdle bits that I won't want to use proper citations in my reply!
As a matter of fact it's not. Frankly, I'd prefer it if you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Well let me TELL YOU SOMETHING, mister: it worked. So you're going to have to go back and figure out any sort of references I attempt to make to your previous reply.
EEEEGEGGGGGHGHHHHHH... I hope you explain your accusations well enough then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Having look backed through the entirety of this thread, I do feel I misread the tone cris gabi meant to imply at certain points. That English is not her native language exacerbated this. I think so many people addressing her comment in disagreement set the mood sour from the get go with her, since perhaps she lacked the intuition native English speakers have when reading text online in determining what tone a specific set of text was written in.
For what it's worth, I think Cris has a fine grasp of passive aggression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I can fully accept that at points, she was trying to explain her position as best she could. My only beef (get it?) with the way cris gabi conducted herself was in the passive aggressive remarks
*snort*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
and the way she addressed people who weren't living up to her standards. I.e., making snide comments about how much denial we were in for not agreeing with her enlightenment, the whole elitist vibe with questioning No Whey Jose's level of veganism since clearly she's compromised her beliefs. It's weird. It's rude.
While I didn't feel any elitist vibe from it, I will agree that it was unnecessarily rude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I accept that words can carry certain connotative meanings to individuals. If that's what you associate with the word lifestyle, I understand your dislike of its use. But I'm an old cat lady maid, set in her ways! Nyeeeeh! Get off my lawn!
But Old Saddy, I was only petting Mr. Ploofy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
The fallacies: 1.) you're assuming everyone possesses the same mindset as you do,
No, I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
and should see certain behaviors in the same light,
Well, that's true I DO hope other people can get over neon pickle green underwear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
as demonstrated through your examples and amount of incredulity you use when framing your biased arguments.
It's not fair to call them biased if I'm already predisposed to a position from which I'm arguing. That's any debate ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
You can explain your perspective in a characteristic light, but to question how other people can't is a personal rhetoric and not an arguable front.
OOOOHHHH... I GETCHYA NOW... No, yeah you're right. Though, if you remember, I said before that I wasn't trying to tell anybody they're wrong, I was merely explaining why, from my perspective, disassociation wasn't "silly".

So yeah, you can believe in unconditional love all you want... I can't really DISPROVE it... but you know I can't really disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
2.) the entirety of your hitler analogy was a historian fallacy. nazi's don't exist today as they did in WWII,
Oh THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN. Well come on, the message is exactly the same if I edit it out to any obvious parallel:

Neo-Nazi
Skinhead
White Supremacist
Guy with severe allergy to Matzo Ball Soup

You know what I MEANT, you're not seriously getting hung up there are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
and if they do, they're typically bigotted redneck white racist supremacists
Hey, there you go, pretend I said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
that like to talk about 'eradication' of lesser individuals,
Like a certain racist forum I hesitate to mention again. Man, they were UPSET about Obama HOOOWEEE!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
but have never actually done anything other than meet up with their local skinhead club. back WWII, to be able to date a nazi you'd probably need to be of Germanic origin,
Which hypothetically wasn't that hard if you bordered them during WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
and it would have been more than acceptable, and perhaps even desirable to be a nazi wife/girlfriend.
Those SS uniforms are still very fashionable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
3.) no, maybe it's not a begging the question fallacy. perhaps more correctly, it's a complex question fallacy. my bad.
True, it's a complex question, but not fallacious. The answer is implied, but no answer I could have been given would have been strictly wrong, it merely would have informed further questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Okay, I give in. I'll line something up in a quote.

You're lining up qualities that are universally agreed on as bad
I wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
with eating meat. Only 2% of the world agrees that eating meat is a disagreeable quality.
But I'm not addressing 98% of the world, I'm posing this question to the 2%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I imagine there's a larger percentage of people who will find the above qualities off putting. In your head, you can equate these disagreeable qualities all you like, but not all vegans do. (although, trading jokes with a rainbow haired yahoo doesn't sound too bad).
OH, it's horrible, sometimes she just won't SHUT UP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
It's an argument that you can get away with on a vegan forum, but it's not argument that would hold up elsewhere,
I'm aware of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
because there's an even more vast variety of opinions, mindsets and beliefs as opposed to the dichotomy of this forum, where it will probably be vegetarian/plant based dieters vs. the raw foodists and the vegans.
Personally I think it's more ethical vs. unethical, because you don't have to be ethical to be vegan or even a raw foodist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
You have a very pessimistic view on love,
Forgive me if I don't look favorably on a buzzword that rocks a staggering 21 different definitions. Love is almost meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
it seems, so there's little point in arguing the unconditional love front with you. If you don't believe in it, if it doesn't work out for you in your life, that's okay! Individuality is a wonderful thing, and it's perfectly acceptable to want your lifetime mate to have the same goals and ideals as yourself. I perhaps can understand that even better, because in the Mormon religion, it's a thing.
What's a thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Mormons typically don't marry other Mormons, they they severely discourage dating non-Mormons precisely for this reason.
o_O What? Mormons don't marry other Mormons and they're discouraged from dating non-Mormons? Does that mean you have to date a Mormon and then marry a non-Mormon? That's weird.

But then marriage is weird, and I have much more pessimistic view on marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
They have a saying, "Match your yoke evenly," which is an old timey metaphor; when pulling a wagon, its better to have to oxen of equal strength in size so that burdens can be equally matched.
To be spoken alongside such classically offensive phrases as "the cat is out of the bag" or "beating a dead horse".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
There's another saying, one that's in line with your Hitler analogy, "Like with like."
Oooohhh... sick burn!

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Dogma, your hypothetical situations are unrealistic. I know my husband, know his character. If I thought there was a chance that he would stab me in my sleep, I wouldn't have married him. We trust each other.
And I'm sure you have just as much unconditional love for each other as... every single married person who killed their spouse.

I was watching Investigation Discovery not a couple days ago and actual marriages ending in bloody murder is pretty much that whole channel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
As Sadrielle pointed out, it's inaccurate to compare meat)eating to behaviours like rape and murder which are universally regarded as unethical. Viewing certain animals as food is conmon, normal. This doesn't make it right, but it does remove the element of maliciousness and purposeful wrongdoing inherent in the acts of rape, murder, and cannibalism.
Ohhhh... so it's maliciousness and purposeful wrongdoing that makes it unacceptable. Well what about the meat-eaters who KNOW they're doing something wrong and do it anyway? I imagine your husband is well aware.

Better yet, why ignore all the things modern day society's comfortable with, but is still really really WRONG?

Haven't we seen a million and one fictional stories about the horrible things humans society could hypothetically find socially acceptable?


We don't even need to go into fiction to find them, nor do I need to reference rape, murder, or cannibalism to establish people can still do horrible things even within the realm of social acceptance, law, and any personal limit of malicious intent.

It's legally and socially acceptable for me to go out, buy a shotgun, and shoot a few deer for sport. I don't have to have anything personally against those deer to do it, I could just delude myself into believing that they're actually overpopulated and I'm doing them a favor.

It was brought up before that disassociation from this point forward was one thing, but disassociating from people you're already around is another. Even 'unethical' as you said.

In what reality is it more ethical to preserve any one of our relationships than it is to help preserve the lives of hundreds of billions of innocent animals every year by taking an extreme stance against meat-eating? It must be extreme, because these are extreme circumstances.

I get it, you're almost certainly not going to make any progress in the saving animals department by breaking up with anyone, I never said that.

But I really do wish you would respond to what I think is the most important point I've made:

"Imagine if, one day, the livestock could talk and speak to us with an intelligence on par with our own. Imagine if they laid bare their grievances, their despair, their unforgettable atrocities at the hands of non-vegans. Imagine if you told them you LOVE these people. How would you react if you were in their situation? What would you make of the vegan who "respects" the very people who've been contentedly EATING YOU?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
If we all lived in a world where rape was normal, where parents taught their children to rape and where group rape was widely considered a fun bonding activity, then it would be more difficult to justifiably condemn an individual for rape than it is in our current climate where rape is widely regarded as wrong.
I'm inclined to repeat what I said before:

"Meat-eaters and rapists share a pretty major similarity: both selfishly engage in the invasive, traumatic, and often lethal exploitation of others without their consent."

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
The act itself is unethical regardless of context, but context is important when considering where to place blame. Meat eaters are not evil, dangerous people out to cause suffering and death.
Neither was Burke, and nobody misses him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
They are average people who are merely doing what they were raised to do.
That's my whole point, Jose. Anyone and anything could be considered average. Even rape, murder, and cannibalism! Just because society deems it acceptable, doesn't mean it is. Which is why you and I are vegan. Why you draw the line at yourself is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
It is rare for someone to question the morality of those aspects of his life which are so routine as to be almost unconscious.
I agree, and therefor I feel 'question everything' is pretty good motto to keep in your back pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
I'm genuinely sorry that your parents abandoned you. It's no wonder you don't believe in love after that kind of treatment.
Pbfth...

*thinks*

I suppose it's a special kind of hell when your parent hugs you and tearfully says how much they love you, and will always love you, and you can only feign an emotional response because years and years and years of experience has told you this won't last a week.

Whatever. It's not like I've never felt anything for anybody. I just recognize that there are always unforgivable lines people can cross. And as much as I wish they didn't, sometimes they do.

Now excuse me, I suddenly feel compelled to stab a clown. It's not that I have anything against him personally or I even like stabbing clowns, it's just that clowns are scary.

Last edited by Dogma; 10-17-2015 at 07:21 PM.
Dogma is offline  
#82 Old 10-17-2015, 08:07 PM
the ever sleepy
 
Sadrielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
You know what I MEANT, you're not seriously getting hung up there are you?
Nope! I was nitpicking. Incidentally, I made one or two fallacies myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Those SS uniforms are still very fashionable.
I'm not entirely sure I should admit this in any sort of public forum, but when you brought up the, "If someone had x and y bad qualities, would you date them? Probably not," questions, I thought about how I'd probably date a Nazi just because of the SS uniforms.



I'm not a good person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
o_O What? Mormons don't marry other Mormons and they're discouraged from dating non-Mormons? Does that mean you have to date a Mormon and then marry a non-Mormon? That's weird.
Mormons are considered cult-like for a few reasons. The marriage thing is one of them. We're not as bad as Scientologists are, but in general, devout Mormons tend to have Mormon friends/relationships after the high school years and acquaintances with everyone else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Oooohhh... sick burn!
Ahaha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
But I really do wish you would respond to what I think is the most important point I've made:

"Imagine if, one day, the livestock could talk and speak to us with an intelligence on par with our own. Imagine if they laid bare their grievances, their despair, their unforgettable atrocities at the hands of non-vegans. Imagine if you told them you LOVE these people. How would you react if you were in their situation? What would you make of the vegan who "respects" the very people who've been contentedly EATING YOU?"
I can't respond to this honestly without getting boo'd off this forum. I think the Earthlings documentary hit a very good note with the idea of speciesism. At this present moment I regard animals in a different way than I regard humans to a point of objectification. It may change one day, it's something I want to change, but that's where I'm at in this moment. My relationship with my husband is more important to me than the relationship with an animal that I can't communicate very well with. In short, I probably wouldn't be friends with this animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Pbfth...

*thinks*

I suppose it's a special kind of hell when your parent hugs you and tearfully says how much they love you, and will always love you, and you can only feign an emotional response because years and years and years of experience has told you this won't last a week.

Whatever. It's not like I've never felt anything for anybody. I just recognize that there are always unforgivable lines people can cross. And as much as I wish they didn't, sometimes they do.

Now excuse me, I suddenly feel compelled to stab a clown. It's not that I have anything against him personally or I even like stabbing clowns, it's just that clowns are scary.
There are many unforgivable lines, and betrayal is most certainly one of them.



I don't know your present situation, but I absolutely adore your vibrant tongue in cheek way of writing. You're wonderfully bright, and you have such amusing analogies. All the internet hugs!

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.

Last edited by Sadrielle; 10-17-2015 at 08:09 PM.
Sadrielle is offline  
#83 Old 10-17-2015, 08:44 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
And I'm sure you have just as much unconditional love for each other as... every single married person who killed their spouse.

I was watching Investigation Discovery not a couple days ago and actual marriages ending in bloody murder is pretty much that whole channel.
Making generalizations about marriage based on ID's lineup is like making generalizations about cats based on My Cat From Hell. The vast majority, in both cases, aren't nearly so colourful.


Quote:
Ohhhh... so it's maliciousness and purposeful wrongdoing that makes it unacceptable.
No, it's malicious intent which determines appropriate placement of blame and punishment-- in this case, the punishment of removing people who love you from your life. You cannot fairly judge someone so harshly for eating meat in a society where eating meat is the norm. It is fallacious to ignore context entirely when our morality is largely shaped by environment.

Quote:
Well what about the meat-eaters who KNOW they're doing something wrong and do it anyway?
They don't. Have you ever discussed this issue with a meat eater? Meat is such a benign substance to most people that the concept of its being unethical seems utterly ludicrous. Fallacies about meat are so deeply ingrained that meat eaters invariably respond with the same justifications over and over with no understanding of the reality of the situation, which is why cliches like "canines tho" and "plants tho" exist. It takes radical critical thinking to snap most people out of that mind set, which is completely understandable when you consider what it really means to reject the acceptability of eating meat: those cute chicken nuggets you loved to eat as a toddler were bits of tortured corpse and everything you were ever taught about it was a lie. That's kind of a huge mental block to overcome. Eating meat and engaging in socially unacceptable unethical behaviours are not comparable for this reason.

Quote:
Better yet, why ignore all the things modern day society's comfortable with, but is still really really WRONG?
Who's ignoring it? Not only do I recognize the moral unacceptability of using animals as food, I actively encourage others to do the same. I don't draw the line at myself, as you put it. I fail to see how divorcing my husband or cutting my mother from my life would in any way benefit animals. On the contrary, my involvement in their lives has resulted in their consuming far fewer animals than they would have done otherwise. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, associating with non-vegans does more good than harm. Leaving my family over veganism would only serve to reinforce stereotypes of veganism as a fanatic cult rather than revealing it for the reasonable, logical ethical philosophy that it is.

Quote:
In what reality is it more ethical to preserve any one of our relationships than it is to help preserve the lives of hundreds of billions of innocent animals every year by taking an extreme stance against meat-eating?
You're creating a false dichotomy. Dissolving our relationships DOESN'T preserve the lives of animals in any way. It isn't a choice between preserving one or the other. Abandoning your loved ones helps no one, least of all the animals. If you choose to disassociate from your family and friends, you do so for yourself-- which is obviously your prerogative, although if your leaving causes suffering (as it certainly would in my case), I would maintain that such a choice is unethical.

Quote:
I get it, you're almost certainly not going to make any progress in the saving animals department by breaking up with anyone, I never said that.
By framing this as a choice between maintaining interpersonal relationships or saving animal lives, you have.

Quote:
But I really do wish you would respond to what I think is the most important point I've made:

"Imagine if, one day, the livestock could talk and speak to us with an intelligence on par with our own. Imagine if they laid bare their grievances, their despair, their unforgettable atrocities at the hands of non-vegans. Imagine if you told them you LOVE these people. How would you react if you were in their situation? What would you make of the vegan who "respects" the very people who've been contentedly EATING YOU?"
I haven't responded because I don't see the relevance of this hypothetical scenario to the topic at hand. How would I react to being told that the people who unwittingly participated in my suffering are themselves complex individuals with families who love them? If I understood anything about life, it should come as no surprise that the people I hate or fear are loved by others. Had I been the victim of such atrocities as farmed animals face, I would probably be too angry to view non-vegans as anything but monsters. That would be a perfectly justified emotional response, but that doesn't make it true. There are no monsters, really. The people who do whatever things you find morally repugnant are just as capable of possessing admirable qualities as anyone else.

Again, loving someone does not mean respecting his every choice.

Quote:
That's my whole point, Jose. Anyone and anything could be considered average. Even rape, murder, and cannibalism! Just because society deems it acceptable, doesn't mean it is.
It isn't. I've never maintained that it is.

Quote:
Which is why you and I are vegan. Why you draw the line at yourself is beyond me.
I don't. I encourage everyone around me to go vegan, with varying degrees of success.

Quote:
I agree, and therefor I feel 'question everything' is pretty good motto to keep in your back pocket.
Most certainly.

Quote:
I suppose it's a special kind of hell when your parent hugs you and tearfully says how much they love you, and will always love you, and you can only feign an emotional response because years and years and years of experience has told you this won't last a week.
That's heart-breaking. I'm sorry.

Quote:
I just recognize that there are always unforgivable lines people can cross. And as much as I wish they didn't, sometimes they do.
Boundaries are important, as is self-preservation. While I don't personally view meat eating as an unforgivable offense, that's obviously a matter of individual opinion. My argument is that it is not a moral obligation of all vegans to cut ties with non-vegans. It isn't a question of dedication to the cause of preserving animal lives.
no whey jose is offline  
#84 Old 10-22-2015, 07:00 PM
Newbie
 
busyvegetarians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 23
I saw the video, one guy said : "I can't image a world without bacon" that's a really silly argument. First not every country eat bacon, and second this comment show, eat-meating is just a matter of custom, so anyone can become vegetarian.
busyvegetarians is offline  
#85 Old 10-24-2015, 11:47 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,228
Pardon my absence, I was busy pulling a banhammer out of my [expletive removed.] Where were we?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I'm not entirely sure I should admit this in any sort of public forum, but when you brought up the, "If someone had x and y bad qualities, would you date them? Probably not," questions, I thought about how I'd probably date a Nazi just because of the SS uniforms.

I'm not a good person.
See? They’re snazzy aren’t they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
Mormons are considered cult-like for a few reasons.
You don’t say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
We're not as bad as Scientologists are,
*snort* I’ll be honest, Sadrielle, if my first defense of anything is “well, at least we’re not Scientologists”, I would have to take a hard look at my life choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I can't respond to this honestly without getting boo'd off this forum.
I just got BANNED off this forum for responding honestly. Spit it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
I think the Earthlings documentary hit a very good note with the idea of speciesism. At this present moment I regard animals in a different way than I regard humans to a point of objectification. It may change one day, it's something I want to change, but that's where I'm at in this moment.
Humans are animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
My relationship with my husband is more important to me than the relationship with an animal that I can't communicate very well with. In short, I probably wouldn't be friends with this animal.
I’m not saying you have to be friends, I’m just saying that in that circumstance, I hope you’re prepared to tell that animal to it’s face that it’s first come, first serve, and that if it wanted your favor, it should have learned English and married you first. Sucks to be them, but hey, it’s not your fault that they were born destined for the slaughterhouse, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrielle
There are many unforgivable lines, and betrayal is most certainly one of them.

I don't know your present situation, but I absolutely adore your vibrant tongue in cheek way of writing. You're wonderfully bright, and you have such amusing analogies. All the internet hugs!
I appreciate the huggles, but I am upset that you chose Ponyo to represent them.

Clearly the emotionally superior Hayao Miyazaki movie is Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.


Huggles!


Huggles!


Huggles!


HUGGLES!

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Making generalizations about marriage based on ID's lineup is like making generalizations about cats based on My Cat From Hell. The vast majority, in both cases, aren't nearly so colourful.
The point wasn’t that that’s what most marriages are like, the point was simply that it happens. I could have pointed at divorce rates is I really wanted to. I’m sure most of those people thought their love was forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
No, it's malicious intent which determines appropriate placement of blame and punishment-- in this case, the punishment of removing people who love you from your life. You cannot fairly judge someone so harshly for eating meat in a society where eating meat is the norm. It is fallacious to ignore context entirely when our morality is largely shaped by environment.
You are entirely correct, except for this part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
it’s malicious intent which determines appropriate placement of blame and punishment
You right to say that it is fallacious to ignore context and intent when it comes to laying blame, but it is EQUALLY fallacious to ignore consequences as well.

This is the distinction between utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism ignores intent in favor of consequences which is wrong, as you said, but virtue ethics, as you demonstrate here, ignores consequences in favor of intent which is also wrong.

We cannot simply ignore the crimes committed by those who don’t know any better, especially when THEY DO know better, because the consequences are literally so extreme as to be life and death.

When laying down blame and punishment, it’s important to weigh equally our understanding of the issue and it’s consequences as well as the perpetrator and their reasons for committing the crime.

Consider Exhibit A: Jack Bauer.


Under Utilitarianism: Jack is justified in nuking an entire city if doing so would spare another city with a population of one person more than the city being nuked.

Under Virtue Ethics: Jack is justified in nuking an entire city if doing so would spare one person he really cares about.

Because both of these moral templates are reprehensible in their extremes and Jack is frequently forced into extreme scenarios, he is made a likable character because he pushes the boundaries of what’s ethical for ethical reasons and with rare exceptions he refuses to cross lines which would obfuscate or contradict his goals.

For example: To prevent an assassination against an innocent person he might kidnap an innocent person. But he wouldn’t assassinate them, because trading a life for a life callously devalues both those lives.

You don’t have to be a saint to understand that the consequences of what you’re doing and the reasons you have for doing it both matter.


This is what feeds my perspective of the situation:

Is my relationship really so valuable that I would look the other way if they did something wrong?

I would say no. Especially knowing that my significant other’s habits would enable the destruction of other animals’ relationships, which are by no demonstrable means more precious than mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
They don't. Have you ever discussed this issue with a meat eater?
Yes, I have, and some of them say they like torturing animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Meat is such a benign substance to most people that the concept of its being unethical seems utterly ludicrous.
This.. IS the Bacon Lovers Meet Tiny Piglet thread, right? Not a single [expletive removed] argument was made in favor of the piglets in that video and yet they almost all started to feel bad as soon as they SAW the pig.

They KNOW bacon comes from pigs! They KNOW it’s wrong to butcher them! If they were seriously blind to that reality, we wouldn’t be having this conversation!

The “they don’t know any better” argument is uniformly weak because what few people wouldn’t flinch at being handed a live piglet don’t deserve any VEGAN APOLOGISTS. Cripes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Fallacies about meat are so deeply ingrained that meat eaters invariably respond with the same justifications over and over with no understanding of the reality of the situation, which is why cliches like "canines tho" and "plants tho" exist. It takes radical critical thinking to snap most people out of that mind set, which is completely understandable when you consider what it really means to reject the acceptability of eating meat: those cute chicken nuggets you loved to eat as a toddler were bits of tortured corpse and everything you were ever taught about it was a lie. That's kind of a huge mental block to overcome.
It is, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know any better. You and I have seen countless stories on this very site by now that illustrate a vivid picture of friends, families, and co-workers who acknowledge, even emotionally at times, that it’s a terrible terrible thing, but don’t want to be reminded of it or shown that what they’re doing is unethical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Eating meat and engaging in socially unacceptable unethical behaviours are not comparable for this reason.
Social unacceptability wasn’t part of the point, the point is YOU wouldn’t find it acceptable. You might as well say it’s unfair to compare eating meat to rape because meat usually requires tableware.

*throws up hands* Got me there!

The only way I’d be mistaken here is if you only found rape and murder unethical BECAUSE it was socially unacceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
I fail to see how divorcing my husband or cutting my mother from my life would in any way benefit animals.
Once again, I must emphasize: I wasn’t suggesting it would.

This whole conversation arc began as a defense of my and Cris’s disassociation from non-vegans. I’m doing my best to explain why, but you’re consistently taking it like a criticism. It’s not, however it does raise the curious question as to why you’re taking it in such a way. Mayhaps could it be that you’re seeing it my way? At least in part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
On the contrary, my involvement in their lives has resulted in their consuming far fewer animals than they would have done otherwise. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective,
Ahh... I don’t think there’s a need to comment on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
associating with non-vegans does more good than harm. Leaving my family over veganism would only serve to reinforce stereotypes of veganism as a fanatic cult rather than revealing it for the reasonable, logical ethical philosophy that it is.
Once again I totally agree... to a point. Veganism as a fanatic cult is a pretty limp accusation even by today’s standards, so there’s definitely potential merit in example by disassociation: It’s one thing to never to meet a vegan, it’s another thing to meet one and then learn that they can’t look at you without being reminded of the lives you help end every time you sit down to dinner. That’s not nothing.

Also “reasonable, logical, and ethical” starts to blur the closer you sit to the problem, as I’m sure you can understand.

PETA buying stock in Tyson COULD have been selflessly motivated, but that doesn’t change the fact that they now profit off of the death of animals. Any positive message or change they were trying to implement is now followed by hypocritical backwash.

Likewise, it’s more difficult to condemn the torment inflicted on non-humans when you’re best buds with someone who enables that torment.

It’s a conflict of interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
You’re creating a false dichotomy. Dissolving our relationships DOESN'T preserve the lives of animals in any way. It isn't a choice between preserving one or the other.
I’m actually NOT creating a false dichotomy because I explicitly worded my sentence in a way so as to AVOID creating a false dichotomy:

“In what reality is it more ethical to preserve any one of our relationships than it is to help preserve the lives of hundreds of billions of innocent animals every year by taking an extreme stance against meat-eating?”

I’m not saying you have to do one or the other, nor am I saying (for the umpeenth time, I really thought this was self-explanatory) that dissolving relationships saves lives.

I’m questioning the ethics that rationalize friendliness with people who exercise considerably less concern than you do for those they negatively affect just because you already know them.

Again, to me I feel the stakes are much much higher than that. The way you talk, I would think I was trying to tell you to dump your husband because they have a mundane bad habit like littering.

N-nooo...

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
If you choose to disassociate from your family and friends, you do so for yourself-- which is obviously your prerogative, although if your leaving causes suffering (as it certainly would in my case), I would maintain that such a choice is unethical.
In what way is it for myself if I feel the relationship is a moral conflict of interest? The gravity of the harm inflicted on those I do not know is countless times more significant than the positive relationship I might otherwise have.

I’ll admit I tend towards statements that ring like false dichotomies, but the distinction is probably clearer to me because of my perspective: Who I call my friends is up to me. And I would be lying if I called someone a friend if I didn’t respect them. It’s not unethical to part ways with someone because you’ve lost respect for them.

This is the angle from which I present the rape, murder, and jaywalking parallels. If a friend of yours becomes involved in something you are deadset against like jaywalking, then you’re friggen’ nuts. But if a friend of yours becomes involved in something you’re deadset against like rape, then I don’t see any reason I would be in the wrong to pack up and leave.

The fuzzy part is when we have a pre-established relationship and one of us decides we should elevate our moral standards. Ethically, I think it would be wrong to bail outright since, not two seconds ago and for however long, you were as equally ignorant as your friend, so it would be unfair not to give them the opportunity to share your point of view.

At this point you maintain that were suffering to result, a separation would be unethical.

Honestly, I think there’s plenty of suffering that would be perfectly ethical to inflict on others, but that’s neither here nor there. If I discovered my friend was so horrible as to *GASP!* jaywalk, or *GASP!* rip Youtube videos, or *GASP!* post about vegan stuff in the vegetarian forum, I THINK I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET OVER THAT. *ahem*

But when it comes to meat-eating, I have no desire to apologize for their behavior. Not when their behavior is a product of self-delusion and unquestioning habit and the consequences are brutal deaths in exchange for temporary mild comfort.

I have no respect for meat-eaters. I may like the person otherwise, I may even “LOVE” aspects of them, but that quality is a daily reminder to me that they’re comfortable ending countless lives if it means protecting their own, and in most cases, you know they’re not even doing it for that...

It’s pure selfishness with an extraordinarily bloody ripple effect. This is why when you say rape or murder is going too far, but typical meat-eating isn’t, I’m inclined to say you’re speciesist or putting undue value on societal acceptance.

Even if it’s neither of those things, I suppose I just can’t accept a relationship of mine ever becoming one of “unconditional love”.

Frankly, the more we talk about it, the more I think back to the idea of infatuation and crushes, which are popularly considered separate from true love (what the f*ck is the difference!?) and that I’ve definitely experienced.

Infatuation is STRANGE thing. When I dealt with it, it absorbed my idle thoughts CONSTANTLY and my mind became all about the “who” and “how”, but always ignored the “why”.

Inevitably these relationships reached an impasse where the object of my affections became the subject and I began to puzzle ever so confusedly over “WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?”.

It seemed so obvious, only in retrospect, that we had little to nothing in common, so I was left to wonder over the bizarre events and resolved to be more aware of myself in the future.

It hasn’t happened since, and it’s been many years since then. I’ve even experienced multiple occasions where other people saw something special in me, but if I saw anything special in them it was always vastly overshadowed by the sobering fact that they didn’t blink at the idea of eating corpses.

I wish my vigilant personality was self-insulating, but it’s not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
I haven't responded because I don't see the relevance of this hypothetical scenario to the topic at hand. How would I react to being told that the people who unwittingly participated in my suffering are themselves complex individuals with families who love them? If I understood anything about life, it should come as no surprise that the people I hate or fear are loved by others. Had I been the victim of such atrocities as farmed animals face, I would probably be too angry to view non-vegans as anything but monsters. That would be a perfectly justified emotional response, but that doesn't make it true. There are no monsters, really. The people who do whatever things you find morally repugnant are just as capable of possessing admirable qualities as anyone else.
As much as I dislike your initial angle, I admit that was a very intelligent response. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
Again, loving someone does not mean respecting his every choice.
Some choices weigh heavier than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
It isn't. I've never maintained that it is.
Nor have I ever insinuated that you do, I’m merely saying that it could be. What is socially acceptable one year could be considered barbaric a hundred prior or later.

There was a time when no one balked at slavery, you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
I don't. I encourage everyone around me to go vegan, with varying degrees of success.
I suppose “draw the line at yourself” was insufficiently specific to make a firm point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
While I don't personally view meat eating as an unforgivable offense, that's obviously a matter of individual opinion.
That seems to be how it all comes down this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
My argument is that it is not a moral obligation of all vegans to cut ties with non-vegans.
*laugh* Well, argument won, I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose
It isn't a question of dedication to the cause of preserving animal lives.
I think a misinterpretation of what I said and a bit of Cris Gabi got mixed up somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by busyvegetarians
I saw the video, one guy said : "I can't image a world without bacon" that's a really silly argument. First not every country eat bacon, and second this comment show, eat-meating is just a matter of custom, so anyone can become vegetarian.
Everyone IS a vegetarian until they’re not.

Last edited by Capstan; 10-25-2015 at 02:39 AM.
Dogma is offline  
#86 Old 10-25-2015, 12:42 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
I think a misinterpretation of what I said and a bit of Cris Gabi got mixed up somewhere.
This, pretty much. My posts have been largely in response to Cris' accusation that I must not believe in veganism fully if my husband eats meat. I mistakenly thought that you were agreeing with this position rather than simply explaining your own personal reasons for cutting ties with omnis. In retrospect, I shouldn't have said that the act of cutting ties was "silly." That was unfair. I can understand why someone might find it difficult to engage with a person who participates in that kind of behaviour. You've done a fine job of explaining it yourself. I can't fault that. As long as it's not touted as a metric by which to ascertain one's dedication to veganism, I don't see how I'm qualified to have an opinion.

Did PETA actually buy stock in Tyson? Is that true?
no whey jose is offline  
#87 Old 10-30-2015, 11:58 AM
the ever sleepy
 
Sadrielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogma View Post
Pardon my absence, I was busy pulling a banhammer out of my [expletive removed.] Where were we?
I'm glad you're back.

Pardon my sins, but I never liked Nausicaa. It was the one Studio Ghibli film I've seen thus far (and I've made a point to see a good majority of them) that didn't fill me with the same sort of childlike wonder that the other films can get out of me.

Incidentally, reading through the entirety of your reply back to No Whey Jose made the Moulin Rouge, "All you need is love!" ear worm number start clambering through my head.

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Sadrielle is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off