VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Vegan Vs vegetarian Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-23-2008 07:17 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger View Post


See why that kind of language is a bad idea? Doesn't really achieve anything, and just keeps going round in circles.

Well I've always loved merry-go-rounds.
06-22-2008 12:26 PM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I think you're welcome to refer to them in that way I will just hold that using the word 'extermism' in that kind of context will be more empty rhetoric

Whilst I'll hold that referring to divergent opinions as "empty rhetoric" is vacuous extremism.



See why that kind of language is a bad idea? Doesn't really achieve anything, and just keeps going round in circles.
06-20-2008 08:46 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger View Post

I could refer to your opinions as "vacuous extremism", but I recognise that whilst I have the right to such an opinion, expressing it in such a fashion would be confrontational and unhelpful.

I think you're welcome to refer to them in that way I will just hold that using the word 'extermism' in that kind of context will be more empty rhetoric
06-20-2008 08:37 AM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I most certainly accept that we hold different opinions: I never said you have the same opinion as I do. One of my opinions is that our disagreement is not merely due to different values or "perspective", but due maybe to different semantics (your definition of 'absolute') and to you using what I see as empty rhetoric. I'm happy to agree to disagree about these opinions of mine.

"Empty rhetoric" is an extremely loaded turn of phrase, and quite provocative. I could refer to your opinions as "vacuous extremism", but I recognise that whilst I have the right to such an opinion, expressing it in such a fashion would be confrontational and unhelpful. It's not always about what you think - it's how you put those thoughts across. We'd already established that our opinions differed, and using the term "empty rhetoric" was unnecessary at that point.
06-19-2008 10:16 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger View Post

Which is still an absolutist position, IMHO.



I disagree. Many moral values are flexible, accepting that life is simply not that black and white. A moral value is not intrinsically inflexible and absolute.



Either way, I'm happy to accept that we hold differing opinions on the matter, and it would be nice if you could simply accept the same without needing to resort to insulting turns of phrase such as "empty rhetoric".

I most certainly accept that we hold different opinions: I never said you have the same opinion as I do. One of my opinions is that our disagreement is not merely due to different values or "perspective", but due maybe to different semantics (your definition of 'absolute') and to you using what I see as empty rhetoric. I'm happy to agree to disagree about these opinions of mine.
06-19-2008 07:44 AM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

1. I did not say "this form of behaviour is the way", I said "this form of behaviour is the way to conform to these moral values".

Which is still an absolutist position, IMHO.



Quote:
2. I think whenever anyone expresses a moral value with commitment and sincerity, he/she is saying that that particular value is a part of "the way" to live. To that extent, all moral values are "absolutist" and thus to call a moral view absolutist is redundant.

I disagree. Many moral values are flexible, accepting that life is simply not that black and white. A moral value is not intrinsically inflexible and absolute.



Either way, I'm happy to accept that we hold differing opinions on the matter, and it would be nice if you could simply accept the same without needing to resort to insulting turns of phrase such as "empty rhetoric".
06-19-2008 07:41 AM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

LB, your insistence that because someone refuses to "agree to disagree" means that they're being unfair/hostile/insulting, etc. is simply untrue. People don't *have* to agree.

I'm sorry, but you're misrepresenting my opinion. I have no problem with people disagreeing... it's the tone in which such opinions are expressed that's the important thing. If you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd have noted that I'd already implied that our difference was simply a matter of perspective... or in other words, agreed to differ:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger View Post

A matter of perspective, I suppose.

Rather than take the opportunity to simply accept a civil divergence of opinion, SS then followed up with an entirely unnecessary...



Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post

Or a matter of you using empty rhetoric.

Please don't hold me accountable for someone else's inability to agree to differ and then characterise it as my intolerance of other opinions. I'd already indicated that I was quite happy to accept that our different interpretations were simply down to differing world-views.
06-18-2008 06:38 PM
Fyvel
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatless View Post

Some things never change.



Hey meatless Welcome back
06-18-2008 05:58 PM
meatless Hi wolfie!
06-18-2008 04:54 PM
Wolfie meatless!
06-18-2008 03:31 PM
froggythefrog And virgins who have sex.
06-18-2008 08:37 AM
codemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxe View Post

I wouldn't be happy just being vegetarian.



To be honest I get a little annoyed at certain vegetarians I know who preach about not eating meat, but then are happy to stuff themselves with the poor animal's labour like (eggs and milk, etc), and its body parts (pate and liver, etc) and carry their purses in a dead animal skin and wear the skin of dead animal on their feet



There's vegetarians who eat liver?
06-18-2008 08:30 AM
meatless Some things never change.
06-17-2008 06:58 AM
Dogma
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinders7 View Post

I am flipping back and forth from being vegetarian to being vegan



I can't decide which is best.I know animals die if i eat eggs and diary,but also aware animals die to provde me veg, fruit etc Ie rabbits,deer,pigeon etc are culled to keep them from destroying crops and the compost, manure used is from animal by products.



I'd like opinions from vegans and vegetarians.



Other animals are hardly effected from organic gardens which don't expand much at this point in time.



As for dairy, the entire industry thrives on keeping the animals alive so that they may produce dairy products for us, I'm not saying they suffer any less, they just don't die as a direct result of laying eggs or giving milk.



I apologize for probably not helping in your pursuit of opinions, but I'm just providing additional information for you.
06-15-2008 09:26 AM
IamJen LB, your insistence that because someone refuses to "agree to disagree" means that they're being unfair/hostile/insulting, etc. is simply untrue. People don't *have* to agree. You may not like it, but dems the rules at Veggieboards (and yea, in much of life).



That said, I have little invested in this thread, so I'll make my escape.
06-15-2008 08:33 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger View Post

But to suggest that any ethical behavior is "the" way is clearly an absolute statement, and clearly moral in nature. A moral absolute. I'm not arguing against veganism, so I don't see why my statement should be expected to form an "argument against those views"?

1. I did not say "this form of behaviour is the way", I said "this form of behaviour is the way to conform to these moral values".

2. I think whenever anyone expresses a moral value with commitment and sincerity, he/she is saying that that particular value is a part of "the way" to live. To that extent, all moral values are "absolutist" and thus to call a moral view absolutist is redundant.
06-15-2008 05:46 AM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Yeah my point was just that labels like "black & white" or "absolutist" etc. do not really contribute much to discussion, because they're, well, just rhetoric. They are subjective impressions about someone's views, not actual arguments against those views.

But to suggest that any ethical behavior is "the" way is clearly an absolute statement, and clearly moral in nature. A moral absolute. I'm not arguing against veganism, so I don't see why my statement should be expected to form an "argument against those views"?
06-15-2008 05:43 AM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

Saying that someone is using "empty rhetoric" isn't being "obnoxious and insulting", just critical.

It is if you insist on pursuing the point when simply agreeing to differ would be sufficient. And given the nature of the discussion, "empty rhetoric" is extremely OTT, and therefore in context, obnoxious and insulting.
06-14-2008 09:29 PM
DNK I've yet to actually meet a "bragging non-vegan vegetarian". Are they that common?



Where does that stereotype come from? Is it just a case of a vocal minority or is it that I haven't been around enough to realize it's more significant than that? The second certain people find out I'm vegetarian, they get defensive and start acting like I'm one of those types automatically. It really comes out of the blue. What am I missing?
06-14-2008 05:31 PM
thalestral 8 years is I believe for those lucky enough to be rescued from slaughter. Most mothers are sent to slaughter at 5 years old, a large percentage of which are pregnant at the time.



http://www.vegansociety.com/animals/.../dairy_cow.php
06-14-2008 05:22 AM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulwalkersgirl View Post

What? Really?? Where'd you hear that?



Regarding reducing a cows lifespan from 24 to 8 years, I would think maybe the cows productive milking years begin to drop at that point so she's shipped to slaughter.
06-14-2008 05:00 AM
cinders7 Animal rights i'm assuming
06-14-2008 04:23 AM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Veganism isn't "the way", but it is the necessary condition for expressing AR in your life.



sorry for my ignorance, seven! what does AR stand for?
06-14-2008 04:16 AM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboMonkey View Post

Being pregnant constantly reduces a cow's lifespan from about 24 years to 8 years.



What? Really?? Where'd you hear that?
06-14-2008 03:01 AM
Diana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luxe View Post


To be honest I get a little annoyed at certain vegetarians I know who preach about not eating meat, but then are happy to stuff themselves with the poor animal's labour like (eggs and milk, etc), and its body parts (pate and liver, etc) and carry their purses in a dead animal skin and wear the skin of dead animal on their feet



Tell me about it....



I don't get a little bit annoyed. I have in fact little respect for these people at all. I prefer hanging out with omnivores.
06-13-2008 09:00 PM
Luxe I wouldn't be happy just being vegetarian.



To be honest I get a little annoyed at certain vegetarians I know who preach about not eating meat, but then are happy to stuff themselves with the poor animal's labour like (eggs and milk, etc), and its body parts (pate and liver, etc) and carry their purses in a dead animal skin and wear the skin of dead animal on their feet
06-13-2008 08:27 PM
Sevenseas Yeah my point was just that labels like "black & white" or "absolutist" etc. do not really contribute much to discussion, because they're, well, just rhetoric. They are subjective impressions about someone's views, not actual arguments against those views.
06-13-2008 12:44 PM
IamJen Saying that someone is using "empty rhetoric" isn't being "obnoxious and insulting", just critical.
06-13-2008 04:58 AM
Lentil Burger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Or a matter of you using empty rhetoric.

Personally, I'm quite happy to accept that we simply have different perspectives and opinions on this issue. It's a shame that you seem to feel it necessary to continue in your usual obnoxious and insulting vein, rather than simply agreeing to differ.
06-12-2008 05:58 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentil Burger View Post


Sounds it to me. A matter of perspective, I suppose.

Or a matter of you using empty rhetoric.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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