how strange it feels to quote pwnemon for emphasis
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
meat is murder
- Thread starter mattj
- Start date
- Status
how strange it feels to quote pwnemon for emphasis
There's a difference between constructive criticism and a put-down. That's all I'm saying. What you've described is constructive because the other person's just saying their views in a matter-of-fact manner. You're not going to make someone quit smoking or go on a stricter diet by essentially treating them like they suck. Yet that's unfortunately the teaching method embraced by just about everyone. It's kind of sad.
Well, the whole manner in which Lee used fish in his posts is a pretty heavy implication of what meat could mean in certain contexts. Different purposes might call for different definitions of a word. And vegetarians still tend to eat fish for a reason...
Thanks for hurting Myzozoa's point about how vegetarian's would eat meat if animals were treated better.
I already said that I get my beef in bulk from a personal friend. He raises cattle himself and sells beef to people in his community. I've been to his farm, it is on the up and up. He mostly makes his living off of renting housing.
You cannot make a reasonable argument against this point, so hurt it as much as you want, it's practically a tautology.
Did a vegetarian not just straight up flame me for the crime of making an effort to ensure that I get my meat from the right sources?
Can't say he represents every vegetarian. But if I'm concerned about the meat industry's practices, I can straight up call them right now and tell them I get my food from someone else.
Can't say he represents every vegetarian. But if I'm concerned about the meat industry's practices, I can straight up call them right now and tell them I get my food from someone else.
If you're a vegetarian for dietary reasons, you probably see meat-eating as similar to: smoking. It's a bad decision but it's only really hurting one person, so "just let them live their lives." This is how I treat actual smokers, or heavy people, or skinny people who drink a lot of Mountain Dew or whatever. I eat a lot of candy, whatevs.
If you're a vegetarian for moral reasons, you might see meat-eating as more comparable to: smoking, but also sometimes blowing the smoke into children's faces. It's easy to see how you'd probably feel justified in yelling at such people, or publicly shaming them or whatever. Maybe it would be more 'effective' to be really really nice and politely 'educate' them and stuff, sure. But if I really do morally reject the idea of eating animals or blowing smoke into children's faces, then it seems strange and unfair for someone to expect me to be calm and cordial about it while watching someone support it. I'm extremely morally opposed to it, remember?
What I am not saying here is that I, personally, verbally shame and destroy people who eat meat because of my ethical beliefs. (I only tend to do that to people who defend themselves with terrible condescending fallacious statements like "vegetarians are anti-science.") What I am saying is that, if someone does verbally shame and destroy people who eat meat, it is not really a reflection of their "bad choice in persuasive technique." It is only a reflection of them being really pissed off about something they really, honestly think is totally unacceptable, and you kind of shouldn't expect anything different.
It would sort of be like if someone came into the room and said something horribly sexist, and then I got up and screamed about how unacceptable that is and how much I hate them or something. Maybe that wouldn't be a very constructive way for me to educate them on gender issues. Okay. But it would be even less constructive, by a long shot, if some third party suddenly started undermining me based on nothing but my tone. Don't you think that would be strange, to criticize a message not for its content, but purely, 100% for the emotional output of its messenger? Isn't that the very definition of a "personal attack"?
Put me down as pro-"yelling at people for supporting things you are totally morally opposed to." I don't encourage it, but I do welcome it-- believe it or not, it's possible to participate in useful discourse while being offended and angry! Sarcasm and theatrics are fair game too.
If you're a vegetarian for moral reasons, you might see meat-eating as more comparable to: smoking, but also sometimes blowing the smoke into children's faces. It's easy to see how you'd probably feel justified in yelling at such people, or publicly shaming them or whatever. Maybe it would be more 'effective' to be really really nice and politely 'educate' them and stuff, sure. But if I really do morally reject the idea of eating animals or blowing smoke into children's faces, then it seems strange and unfair for someone to expect me to be calm and cordial about it while watching someone support it. I'm extremely morally opposed to it, remember?
What I am not saying here is that I, personally, verbally shame and destroy people who eat meat because of my ethical beliefs. (I only tend to do that to people who defend themselves with terrible condescending fallacious statements like "vegetarians are anti-science.") What I am saying is that, if someone does verbally shame and destroy people who eat meat, it is not really a reflection of their "bad choice in persuasive technique." It is only a reflection of them being really pissed off about something they really, honestly think is totally unacceptable, and you kind of shouldn't expect anything different.
It would sort of be like if someone came into the room and said something horribly sexist, and then I got up and screamed about how unacceptable that is and how much I hate them or something. Maybe that wouldn't be a very constructive way for me to educate them on gender issues. Okay. But it would be even less constructive, by a long shot, if some third party suddenly started undermining me based on nothing but my tone. Don't you think that would be strange, to criticize a message not for its content, but purely, 100% for the emotional output of its messenger? Isn't that the very definition of a "personal attack"?
Put me down as pro-"yelling at people for supporting things you are totally morally opposed to." I don't encourage it, but I do welcome it-- believe it or not, it's possible to participate in useful discourse while being offended and angry! Sarcasm and theatrics are fair game too.
No vonFiedler, they just said fuck you to "cruelty free". Perhaps, and this is speculation here, he could be a person who eats meat and is saying "fuck you" for your holier than thou attitude about how he eats meat that isn't cruelty free. Perhaps you're right and he is flaming you for trying to assert that any meat is cruelty free. Perhaps he's saying it because the words "cruelty free" are a trigger word for his PTSD about the removal of his big toenail because of a rather nasty fungal infection, which the Doctors said would be "cruelty free".
In other words, stop assigning intent. Last I checked you aren't in everyone's brains, and do not know precisely what they mean 100% of the time.
In other words, stop assigning intent. Last I checked you aren't in everyone's brains, and do not know precisely what they mean 100% of the time.
re: "vegetarians would eat meat if animals were treated better."
If by "treated better" you merely mean "treated better, but still killed for our benefit," then no, I'd have to disagree. I would personally only start eating meat again if it were derived from something other than living animals (possibly barring some weird technicality that I can't think of. Like "what if we found a way to make all animals be born without any brain function whatsoever," yeah okay whatever not going there).
edit: yeah even I don't know what the fuck is going on with this shit von, lol <3
If by "treated better" you merely mean "treated better, but still killed for our benefit," then no, I'd have to disagree. I would personally only start eating meat again if it were derived from something other than living animals (possibly barring some weird technicality that I can't think of. Like "what if we found a way to make all animals be born without any brain function whatsoever," yeah okay whatever not going there).
edit: yeah even I don't know what the fuck is going on with this shit von, lol <3
LOL no he didn't, no one flamed you despite your horrible logic. Some would argue about what is cruel, personally I'm glad you source your meat ethically, but he may think that even that is cruel. But it isn't flaming. Some vegetarians don't think it's worth the effort to source their meat, or it may be more expensive than what they want to pay.
Valk I know that you personally feel that we butt heads more often than not, but think about the situation you are replying to.
"Fuck you."
Well shit. I guess I'm not in his brain. I guess I can't perfectly extrapolate what a person means by only two words, except that they are a personal attack. Have we skipped over that little connotation of the words "fuck you"? I've been pro-meat this whole time and I don't feel like playing devil's advocate, but let's say he is responding to the idea that I've been "high and mighty" when I'm just trying to put things into perspective for the people on the other side who care about the welfare of animals. Is that a better reason to insult me?
I'm not running to the mods or anything about it but c'mon guys.
The thing about boycotting meat, or any product, is you've got to have some grounds on which you can negotiate. Kristoph clearly disagrees about vegetarians eating meat if animals were treated better. But what is the end goal there? What you want from the meat companies is for them to go out of business, and they aren't gonna do that. Since you like comparing meat to all sorts of atrocities, let's say this is like the Mexican drug war. The cartels don't want government control, and the government can't arrest/kill all cartel members. There is no victory condition and no middle ground for both parties to find a truce. I personally want more meat companies to live up to the standards that Temple Grandin advocates for, but I'm one man and it's easy for the companies to write my opinion off by lumping me in with the vegetarian movement.
Eating meat is ok and not eating meat is ok too. We are humans so we can chose for ourselves what we want and what we don't want to eat. Of 'course if you don't eat meat you won't have necessary ingredients for your organization, so you would have to take food supplements and stuff, but this is your decision.
I just don't believe any vegeterian or vegan that says he doesn't like the taste of meat. There are tons of kinds of meat, such as pork, chicken, beef, and many others, and they are very different in their taste. The chance of a people not liking any of the common kinds of meat at all is unreal. ''I don't like the idea of eating meat'' is different than ''I don't like to eat meat because of its taste''.
I just don't believe any vegeterian or vegan that says he doesn't like the taste of meat. There are tons of kinds of meat, such as pork, chicken, beef, and many others, and they are very different in their taste. The chance of a people not liking any of the common kinds of meat at all is unreal. ''I don't like the idea of eating meat'' is different than ''I don't like to eat meat because of its taste''.
I am merely pointing out that you shouldn't try insinuating that a random as fuck personal attack was anything more than that. Ignore it, and address actually thought out responses, and especially don't use the personal attack as fuel for anything else you're going to say, because it's blatantly unclear why he said what he did.
As for us butting heads, I don't really give a shit here. Yes, I'm a vegetarian, but I honestly don't think it's a big deal you eat meat. I disagree with you advocating people to eat meat... if that's what you're doing at all. I actually am not certain what your point has been so far so I've stayed out.
As for us butting heads, I don't really give a shit here. Yes, I'm a vegetarian, but I honestly don't think it's a big deal you eat meat. I disagree with you advocating people to eat meat... if that's what you're doing at all. I actually am not certain what your point has been so far so I've stayed out.
What? Food supplements? Like what? Maybe hardcore vegans, but regular vegetarians have to change like 1 or two things to go from a normal diet to a meat-less diet without problems. I mean, when i made the change(recently) i just stopped eating chicken every day and thats it. I literally didn't even change my diet, other than not eating chicken anymore.
Maybe vegans... I drink about a gallon of milk every two days, so if i went full vegan i would have to make some serious changes.
I think you're a fucking idiot because of your personal beliefs.
And I thought we already had a healthy lifestyle topic?
healthy lifestyle is more geared to a combination of hygiene+diet+exercise+general health, whereas this thread is very specifically about the ethics of eating meat, and correspondingly the physical fitness thread is very specifically about mostly weightlifting/running
and yeah, just because you believe sarcasm and theatrics can be viable argumentative techniques (and i actually don't entirely disagree with you if i'm seeing your point correctly, though you've overcomplicated things massively b/c you like to go on and on about argumentative strategies and fallacies) doesn't they're not fucking annoying when normal people are trying to have a civilized discourse. take a hint, or several
and yeah, just because you believe sarcasm and theatrics can be viable argumentative techniques (and i actually don't entirely disagree with you if i'm seeing your point correctly, though you've overcomplicated things massively b/c you like to go on and on about argumentative strategies and fallacies) doesn't they're not fucking annoying when normal people are trying to have a civilized discourse. take a hint, or several
While sarcasm and "theatrics" (condescension, angry outbursts, ad hominem, strawman, etc.) may be glossed over in an irl debate, i can guarantee you it is not because they are considered "fair game" but rather because people realize that it's hard to separate your emotions from your logic concerning a topic you care strongly about. Perhaps they know you and can contextualize these theatrics with your personality, or perhaps they are just understanding people; who knows. However, on the internet, there is a delay in which you can stop to think before posting, and thus you do have the time to separate the emotions from the argument, and so there is a higher standard for civility when arguing over a forum. You can't expect everything that works in real life to work on the internet, just as you can't expect everything that works here to work in real life. If you can't refrain from using your "sarcasm and theatrics," then don't argue that we should lower our standards - stop posting until you can meet them.
Not going to bother quoting a large post that has already been quoted multiple times...
Well, so far, it seems to me that useful discourse grinded to a halt as soon as this petty exchange between Kristoph/von/valk/myzozoa/idek started. And yes, I don't see this as anything but petty. Any of us would probably offend the beliefs of many different belief systems, but I'm not about to welcome that evangelist knocking on my door for the sake of "useful discourse". I do not feel that I have to give a damn about what anyone else believes (at least as far as gauging the validity of an argument goes) if I do not agree with it, unless it follows from some deeper idea that I do agree with. I ultimately don't see the difference between "yelling at people for supporting things you are totally morally opposed to" and straight-up forcing your beliefs on others and basically claiming some kind of moral superiority. That I find especially silly when most people here probably eat candy AND don't contribute to social causes.
I just think that there's a difference between "I believe in not eating meat for my personal moral reasons" and "I believe in not eating meat for my personal moral reasons, you fucking moron". It's a stark contrast in intent and I don't feel a need to entertain the latter. The latter is the kind of attitude that makes threads terrible and incites moderator action.
And yes, I think we're all now aware that this thread has gone horribly off-topic, so if someone would like to talk some more about health benefits or whatever else (the moral discussion is dead in the water imo), feel free.
Well, so far, it seems to me that useful discourse grinded to a halt as soon as this petty exchange between Kristoph/von/valk/myzozoa/idek started. And yes, I don't see this as anything but petty. Any of us would probably offend the beliefs of many different belief systems, but I'm not about to welcome that evangelist knocking on my door for the sake of "useful discourse". I do not feel that I have to give a damn about what anyone else believes (at least as far as gauging the validity of an argument goes) if I do not agree with it, unless it follows from some deeper idea that I do agree with. I ultimately don't see the difference between "yelling at people for supporting things you are totally morally opposed to" and straight-up forcing your beliefs on others and basically claiming some kind of moral superiority. That I find especially silly when most people here probably eat candy AND don't contribute to social causes.
I just think that there's a difference between "I believe in not eating meat for my personal moral reasons" and "I believe in not eating meat for my personal moral reasons, you fucking moron". It's a stark contrast in intent and I don't feel a need to entertain the latter. The latter is the kind of attitude that makes threads terrible and incites moderator action.
And yes, I think we're all now aware that this thread has gone horribly off-topic, so if someone would like to talk some more about health benefits or whatever else (the moral discussion is dead in the water imo), feel free.
Why is edible pig/cow/chicken flesh meat, but edible fish flesh not? I haven't gotten a straight answer on this.
From a solely nutritional standpoint, I guess I could see a difference because of their makeup and what nutrition they have inside of them. But even then, as I've said, not all fish are that white, flaky type of flesh. These gar that I catch all the time have flesh that is solid, tough, and pink, exactly like a pork tenderloin. Bowfin, and a lot of other species are the same way. Some trout have steaks that aren't at all like most fish. Are some fish meat, while others are not?
And then, I don't understand the catholic, or vegetarian justification.
Can anyone explain this?
From a solely nutritional standpoint, I guess I could see a difference because of their makeup and what nutrition they have inside of them. But even then, as I've said, not all fish are that white, flaky type of flesh. These gar that I catch all the time have flesh that is solid, tough, and pink, exactly like a pork tenderloin. Bowfin, and a lot of other species are the same way. Some trout have steaks that aren't at all like most fish. Are some fish meat, while others are not?
And then, I don't understand the catholic, or vegetarian justification.
Can anyone explain this?
If vegeterians can get all the ingredients they needs without supplements then my bad. My point is that what anyone eats is his choice and there is nothing wrong with not eating meat, not eating vegetables, or whatever else... I personally find reasonings such as ''humans are supposed to meat because this is how nature made them'' or ''i don't want to eat those poor animals'' silly, but i still respect them.
There is no vegetarian justification; a 'vegetarian' does not eat fish. If somebody does eat fish yet claims to be a vegetarian then they are simply misinformed. Should someone choose only to abstain from 'meat' (in the sense that I, and the rest of the western world, have been using it) yet does eat fish then he or she is a pestecarian. That article has a section on rationale but it adds nothing that I haven't already explained - the justification for being a pescetarian lies in the health benefits.
I don't know if you're looking to delve into naming conventions and why fish is so rarely referred to as meat - my guess is for convenience in narrowing down a field that would be enormous otherwise and the fact that fishmongers and butchers have been very separate professions since their inception - but I'm afraid I don't share your curiosity in that regard. Call a fish a giraffe for all I care, I still know what I'm eating.
I don't know if you're looking to delve into naming conventions and why fish is so rarely referred to as meat - my guess is for convenience in narrowing down a field that would be enormous otherwise and the fact that fishmongers and butchers have been very separate professions since their inception - but I'm afraid I don't share your curiosity in that regard. Call a fish a giraffe for all I care, I still know what I'm eating.
Ive always wondered if Jewish people have ever tried christmas just once to see what it was like and I really think its in the same vein as what lee just said with fish
has any jewish person tried christmas? if so, what did you think of it? what about ham?
has any jewish person tried christmas? if so, what did you think of it? what about ham?
Vegan diets make great use of kale. Kale is such a fucking powerhouse of a vegetable that it really should be incorporated into everyone's diet but whatevsssss.
EDIT:
I really need to incorporate fish into my diet for Omega 3's, what's the best fish taste-wise and nutrition-wise?
dude salmon
Tilapia (sp?) can be good too and mahi-mahi and all this other stuff with the right seasoning but if you don't like salmon you're probably the spawn of satan and it goes well with so many things
- Status