Originally Posted by Lentil Burger


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

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

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

Originally Posted by Lentil Burger

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.

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

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.

Originally Posted by Lentil Burger

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".

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Lentil Burger

A matter of perspective, I suppose.

Originally Posted by SS

Or a matter of you using empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by meatless

Some things never change.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by cinders7

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.

Originally Posted by Lentil Burger

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"?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by IamJen

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

Originally Posted by paulwalkersgirl

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

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

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

Originally Posted by RoboMonkey

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

Originally Posted by Luxe


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

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

Or a matter of you using empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Lentil Burger


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