| Topic Review (Newest First) |
| 08-23-2007 03:04 PM | |
| lifesnotchess | My boyfriend eats meat, however he enjoys all vege friendly foods and goes out of his way to prepare them for me. He even make tofu jerky the other day! I guess it is a matter of respect. If this guy respects and honors your decisions that I think that is all that is important. Maybe its different for everyone though, I could see why it grosses you out. |
| 08-18-2007 01:06 PM | |
| GreenGal | I've been with my omni boyfriend for six years. I myself was omni until a little more than a month ago. So I'm a fairly new vegetarian but I've flirted with the idea of being one for years. My bf and I are in a long distance relationship so at the moment it doesn't matter. But he's supportive of my decision (because he doesn't eat meat much, either. He'll eat whatever.) Whether he'll turn veggie is his decision and his alone and I would never force him into it. As far as breaking up with him, I love him too much to let dietary differences get in the way. |
| 08-18-2007 11:20 AM | |
| Diana |
Quote:
Originally Posted by VixyVeggie
 Tell me, how do YOU react or handle situations when others AREN'T respectful to your choices...when you've been nothing but respectful of theirs??? I make a voodoo doll and stick pins in it. (Only kidding.) |
| 08-18-2007 11:12 AM | |
| NiceDream | teach dont preach |
| 08-11-2007 06:05 PM | |
| Bof |
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoguesFan
I don't preach my beliefs to anyone, and for the most part, no one has preached his beliefs to me. Why is 'preach' invariably used in a negative way? Unfortunately, it seems to have quite a range of meaning. I 'preach' quite a lot, using the first part of def. 2 (I hope!) preach -\tverb 1 Deliver a religious address to an assembled group of people. Publicly proclaim (a religious message). 2 Earnestly advocate (a principle): my parents always preached tolerance. (preach at) give moral advice to (someone) in a self-righteous way. |
| 08-11-2007 05:15 PM | |
| danakscully64 |
I handle these things with a gun or pitchfork  When people try to talk me out of my positive life choice, as much as I want to just shrug it off, I can't and have to say a few smart ass comments. I can't help myself. When people play the religion card, I say "Thou Shall Not Kill," is that REALLY that hard to interpret? Or... if God wanted us to eat meat, why does meat NATURALLY contain trans fat, unhealthy amounts of cholesterol, and lots of saturated fat? Not to mention the hormones and antibiotics humans add to the meat. Aren't we supposed to be taking care of ourselves? Plus, meat eating is linked to cancer, heart disease, and obesity. Check out this shirt <--- that shirt says it all! |
| 08-10-2007 12:05 PM | |
| PoguesFan |
Quote:
Originally Posted by VixyVeggie
example: not "preaching" your beliefs to others, understanding that they may be offended by you offering your opinions on matters of vegetarianism... but them still trying to somehow "prove" your beliefs wrong, or trying to start a debate with you over things... to me, it's a personal and therefor somewhat private matter - my beliefs and all - and therefor not up for debate. how do you handle situations like this??? I always figured that the whole "golden rule" thing would work - allow me to have my opinion, and I'll allow you to have yours.....but that so very rarely works. have you found this to be true, also? I don't preach my beliefs to anyone, and for the most part, no one has preached his beliefs to me. I have lived in harmony with the flesh-eaters. There is one exception to this however- my mother. She tries to use the Bible as proof that eating meat is "the right thing to do"- God gave us dominion over the animals, Jesus fished, etc. She doesn't try to ridicule me, but every month or so I have to deal with the same "you shouldn't be a vegan" crap from her. Since its only one person doing this to me, I find it easy to ignore it. I tell her that I disagree with her "proof", and she doesn't pursue it further. So I can't completely relate to your situation. I'd love to tell you to take the high road, to ignore their comments. The flesh-eaters aren't bad, they are just brainwashed by our pro-meat society. They probably feel threatened by your non-flesh-eating behavior. Maybe they are repressing guilt, and its easier to lash out at you. But I don't know if you can just ignore it. I don't know how much crap they are giving you. Even though we are vegan/vegetarian, we still aren't perfect-so I don't know how much you can take. I can tell you that there are others like you on this board- others that you can talk to about veganism or vegetarianism without fear of reprisal. I hope that provides you some comfort. |
| 08-10-2007 11:20 AM | |
| VixyVeggie |
example: not "preaching" your beliefs to others, understanding that they may be offended by you offering your opinions on matters of vegetarianism... but them still trying to somehow "prove" your beliefs wrong, or trying to start a debate with you over things... to me, it's a personal and therefor somewhat private matter - my beliefs and all - and therefor not up for debate. how do you handle situations like this??? I always figured that the whole "golden rule" thing would work - allow me to have my opinion, and I'll allow you to have yours.....but that so very rarely works. have you found this to be true, also? |
| 08-09-2007 09:55 PM | |
| PoguesFan |
Quote:
Originally Posted by VixyVeggie
Tell me, how do YOU react or handle situations when others AREN'T respectful to your choices...when you've been nothing but respectful of theirs??? Please elaborate. |
| 08-09-2007 10:20 AM | |
| VixyVeggie | Tell me, how do YOU react or handle situations when others AREN'T respectful to your choices...when you've been nothing but respectful of theirs??? |
| 08-03-2007 11:25 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
It almost seems like you're calling me names  Not at all. I use the term "you" in the non-specific sense. We all make idiots of ourselves if we make ill-founded assumptions. Quote:
You accept that your view about people's verbal behaviour is subjective? I think this corroborates further the idea that you don't really know what you mean when you type 'subjective'.
And I think this that comment further corroborates the fact that you're just looking for an argument. I know precisely what I mean when I type "subjective". If you can't discern that meaning, I don't have a lifetime to waste trying to enlighten you. |
| 08-03-2007 11:18 AM | |
| Sevenseas |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger
That doesn't prevent you making an idiot of yourself by making false assumptions. It almost seems like you're calling me names Quote:
No. I accept that my view's subjective and I wouldn't have wished to impose it upon her in any absolute sense.
You accept that your view about people's verbal behaviour is subjective? I think this corroborates further the idea that you don't really know what you mean when you type 'subjective'. |
| 08-03-2007 11:12 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Assumption is a necessary and natural part of life. That doesn't prevent you making an idiot of yourself by making false assumptions. Quote:
Have you told your dentist that you consider her profession to be a cruel one and that she is a cruel person?
 No. I accept that my view's subjective and I wouldn't have wished to impose it upon her in any absolute sense.
|
| 08-03-2007 10:45 AM | |
| Sevenseas |
Assumption is a necessary and natural part of life. Have you told your dentist that you consider her profession to be a cruel one and that she is a cruel person?
|
| 08-03-2007 10:44 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Making assumptions about people's beliefs, and sometimes even making well-founded assumptions, without people's explicit expression of those beliefs, is quite an ordinary and useful part of life, and requires no psychic powers. Assumption is the mother of all errors. Especially ill-founded assumptions, as in this instance. Quote:
But you may have spent too much time sitting in the chairs of sadistic dentists to have noticed this.
Fortunately my dentist is very sweet. The pain she causes me is entirely bearable.
|
| 08-03-2007 10:34 AM | |
| Sevenseas | Making assumptions about people's beliefs, and sometimes even making well-founded assumptions, without people's explicit expression of those beliefs, is quite an ordinary and useful part of life, and requires no psychic powers. But you may have spent too much time sitting in the chairs of sadistic dentists to have noticed this. |
| 08-03-2007 07:39 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Yeah you provided an explanation, although I don't think even you yourself believe it. I think you need to retune your psychic debating circuit, since I absolutely do believe my explanation, or I wouldn't waste my time giving it. Quote:
But this issue concerns people's understanding of language, and as your comments in another context about all dentists being cruel show, our disagreement about language is far too great to enable any meaningful communication.
I think we can at least agree on that point. |
| 08-03-2007 07:06 AM | |
| Sevenseas |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger
No double standards at all, as I've already explained. Yeah you provided an explanation, although I don't think even you yourself believe it. But this issue concerns people's understanding of language, and as your comments in another context about all dentists being cruel show, our disagreement about language is far too great to enable any meaningful communication. |
| 08-03-2007 06:55 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Well good that we agree with that characterization of having double standards. I would also characterize your comments as clearly disingenious, but I'm afraid you wouldn't agree with that  No double standards at all, as I've already explained. I assume you skipped that post. And I'd characterise your comments as obscufication and intellectual snobbery, but I'm afraid you wouldn't agree with that either.
|
| 08-03-2007 06:40 AM | |
| Sevenseas |
Well good that we agree with that characterization of having double standards. I would also characterize your comments as clearly disingenious, but I'm afraid you wouldn't agree with that
|
| 08-03-2007 05:26 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Ok, the words you use are clear and in no need of clarification but the words I use, are. Glad we agree. |
| 08-03-2007 05:22 AM | |
| Sevenseas | Ok, the words you use are clear and in no need of clarification but the words I use, are. |
| 08-03-2007 05:12 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Don't you see how unfair and inconsistent you are being? You requested that I define 'evil', despite this word being very common (and, unlike 'subjective', a part of very ordinary speech), pretty much labeling the discussion worthless before I do so. And yet, when I request you to define the words you are using -- more theoretical terms that are the subject of various metaethical theories -- I am being pedantic and going round in circles. Smoke and mirrors. The word "evil" may well be in common use, but I imagine most people would accept that it's simply shorthand for a bunch of disparate concepts (although that may well be different in the USA where you have a more christian society... I don't know). On the other hand, the words "subjective" and "absolute" are commonly used in debate and discussion with widely acknowledged and understood meanings. And I said we were going round in circles, not you.
|
| 08-03-2007 05:01 AM | |
| Sevenseas | Don't you see how unfair and inconsistent you are being? You requested that I define 'evil', despite this word being very common (and, unlike 'subjective', a part of very ordinary speech), pretty much labeling the discussion worthless before I do so. And yet, when I request you to define the words you are using -- more theoretical terms that are the subject of various metaethical theories -- I am being pedantic and going round in circles. |
| 08-03-2007 04:03 AM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Well, I guess then I am just more ignorant and simple-minded than your average person, since I don't have a very good idea of what those terms mean. Which is why I've asked you to say what you mean by them. No meaning I could possibly give would satisfy your pedantry, so I must regretfully decline. I can see us going round in circles again, and I've got better things to do with my time. |
| 08-02-2007 04:31 PM | |
| Sevenseas |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger
In my view, you have a very superior and arrogant attitude if you're suggesting that a familiarity with moral philosophy is a prerequisite for an understanding of such terms. "Subjective" and "absolute" are very easily understood concepts. Well, I guess then I am just more ignorant and simple-minded than your average person, since I don't have a very good idea of what those terms mean. Which is why I've asked you to say what you mean by them. Quote:
Nonsense. A term is defined according to an agreed meaning. If people agree upon a meaning for the purpose of a discussion, then the term has been sufficiently defined for the purpose at hand.
But presenting "someone who takes pleasure in the suffering of others" would not be presenting a meaning (to agree on), it would be presenting something possibly in its extension. |
| 08-02-2007 04:26 PM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
In my view, it bespeaks a profound ignorance of moral philosophy (of which terms like 'subjective' and 'absolute', when applied to ethical norms, are a part) to think that these kind of terms are easily understood and uncomplicated. In my view, you have a very superior and arrogant attitude if you're suggesting that a familiarity with moral philosophy is a prerequisite for an understanding of such terms. "Subjective" and "absolute" are very easily understood concepts. Quote:
No, that would not be defining its meaning, it would be pointing out something in the word's extension.
Nonsense. A term is defined according to an agreed meaning. If people agree upon a meaning for the purpose of a discussion, then the term has been sufficiently defined for the purpose at hand. |
| 08-02-2007 04:17 PM | |
| Sevenseas |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger
I can see we're just going round in circles again. These are extremely simple terms, and widely understood. I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with them. In my view, it bespeaks a profound ignorance of moral philosophy (of which terms like 'subjective' and 'absolute', when applied to ethical norms, are a part) to think that these kind of terms are easily understood and uncomplicated. Quote:
Why not? You could define "horrible moral character" as "someone who takes pleasure in the suffering of others", for example.
No, that would not be defining its meaning, it would be pointing out something in the word's extension. |
| 08-02-2007 03:59 PM | |
| Lentil Burger |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
'Absolute' is just as vague and unclear as 'subjective' and as much in need of definition/clarification. I can see we're just going round in circles again. These are extremely simple terms, and widely understood. I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with them. Quote:
An evil person is a person with a horrible moral character. But what "a horrible moral character" is cannot be defined any further
Why not? You could define "horrible moral character" as "someone who takes pleasure in the suffering of others", for example. |
| 08-02-2007 02:26 PM | |
| Sevenseas |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger
"Not absolute". "Different things to different people". 'Absolute' is just as vague and unclear as 'subjective' and as much in need of definition/clarification. As to "different things to different people", if you mean that different people have different moral views, then anyone who believes in an objective moral reality can agree with that descriptive point. Quote:
So you're talking about "evil" as an external force rather than a simple adjective?
No, I'm making a distinction between the meaning (provided by a definition) of a word and its extension. Quote:
I can't say whether I agree or not since I'm still not clear what you mean by "evil".
An evil person is a person with a horrible moral character. But what "a horrible moral character" is cannot be defined any further, I think the idea of a horrible moral character is a basic notion. An evil action is simply an immoral action that I feel particularly strongly about, but like I said earlier, other expressions may be better than 'evil' for that purpose. |
| This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |
| Posting Rules | |