"In-your-face Vegetarians" (My first rant!)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I never have, and neither has anyone I know. Your experiences aren't universal, ya know.

Seeing as he basically asserted that the 'in-your-face Vegetarians' do not exist (since he'd never seen one), perhaps you should direct your universality comment to Oswald.

How is that asserting they don't exist? I've never seen the northern lights, but I have it on good authority they exist. He was just asserting that they aren't as common as some people seem to imply. Your post was implying they were everywhere, rampaging throughout the academic world.

And yes, your reading comprehension is suspect. DD's intention was clear .

Not surprised you'd say that, since you also brought up the PETA bogeyman to tar vegetarians!

[PeteH]

I have no problem with what people choose to eat, and view both large scale agriculture and commercial meat raising as symptoms of the same problem. This arguement though:

"It is estimated that if everyone adopted a vegetarian diet, our current food production would be enough to sustain a population of 10 billion people"

I just have to ask, WHY?! Why would you possibly want to support 10 billion people? Picture your normal day, which may include sitting in rush hour traffic, waiting in line, going home to a small apartment, etc, and now picture all of those things with twice as many people.

A favorite quote:
"The arms race could only be ended in two ways. It could be ended by a catastrophe, a nuclear holocaust.
Or the participants could walk away from it.
The race between food and population is the same." - Daniel Quinn

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is that asserting they don't exist? I've never seen the northern lights, but I have it on good authority they exist. He was just asserting that they aren't as common as some people seem to imply.

And who implies they are all over the place? His post seems to say that since he has never met any they don't exist. I haven't seen him say that some vegetarians are anti-meat.

Your post was implying they were everywhere, rampaging throughout the academic world.

Just the students . I said I've met people that are anti-meat, he said he has met NO ONE that is that way. My post implies that some of them do exist, his implies they don't.

Not surprised you'd say that, since you also brought up the PETA bogeyman to tar vegetarians!

So you are saying PETA members aren't vegetarians?

So if someone said 'Rightists aren't racist' you wouldn't say 'What about the KKK'? Give me a break. If someone implies there aren't 'In you face Vegetarians', I'll point to PETA members in a flash.

edit: When asserting a negative without qualification you are asserting it for ALL cases. Contrarily, when asserting a positive, you are limitly asserting it.

[General Ludd]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

Now you're on shaky ground. Do you think arable farming is clean in comparison? The industry that produces the vegetarian food you consume is a horrific polluter.
Careless disposal of animal waste can upset the biological balance of rivers, but that's kid's stuff compared to careless disposal of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. Read some Carl Hiaasen and see what it's doing around the Everglades.

I'm generally against the use of pesticides and genetically modified crops, too. When I'm able to, I always buy certified organic produce.

Quite right. Modern arable farming is more efficient than modern meat farming when it comes to churning out calories per acre. However I challenge you to name an industry that is more devastating to the environment than moden arable farming. The only one I can think of is open-cast mining

I admittedly do not know what "modern arable farming" implies, or it's enviormental impacts, but I don't see how it could be much different then free-range cattle farming.

Good attitude, but are you going to do anything about it? Like protest for better wages for slaughterhouse workers, and buy meat from ethical slaughterhouses? Or was this section just a bit of a dry-****?

I've boycoted their products!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Haven't read it apart from first post and

go vegeterians. I still had chicken for lunch as there was nothing better in the cantine, but I am thinking on switching to fish and lamb only, as at least in my head these two are still having a "life" before being served up in the plate.

I am not sure about that lamb industry but at least fish still roam the oceans before they get caught. Cattle and birds - that can't be good the way they are treated, plus all the pollution etc...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
His post seems to say that since he has never met any they don't exist. I haven't seen him say that some vegetarians are anti-meat.

Where does he assert they don't exist? He never did.

Just the students . I said I've met people that are anti-meat, he said he has met NO ONE that is that way. My post implies that some of them do exist, his implies they don't.

Him saying he has met NO ONE that is that way isn't the same thing as him saying or even implying they don't exist. It's merely stating a fact--he hasn't ever seen that behavior. Me saying I've never met a Catholic Archbishop isn't the same as me saying they don't exist. See?

So you are saying PETA members aren't vegetarians?

Where did I even remotely say that? I was saying that PETA isn't representative of vegetarians as a whole. They aren't even representative of dogmatic vegetarians, since PETA membership is very small. That being said, no, most PETAs aren't vegetarians--they're vegans. PETA folks tend to dislike vegetarianism as well, since it still allows "exploitation" of animals.

So if someone said 'Rightists aren't racist' you wouldn't say 'What about the KKK'? Give me a break.

How on earth is that comparable to this? NOBODY SAID THERE WEREN'T DOGMATIC VEGETARIANS.

If someone said "I've never met a racist rightist," and I said, "What about KKK members?" That would be comparable. And it would be just as asinine a thing to say.

If someone implies there aren't 'In you face Vegetarians', I'll point to PETA members in a flash.

No one implied there weren't. However, Osweld was talking about the stereotype of any vegetarian as being dogmatic and preaching to meat-eaters. And he's perfectly right. Most vegetarians don't preach.

edit: When asserting a negative without qualification you are asserting it for ALL cases. Contrarily, when asserting a positive, you are limitly asserting it.

How is saying "I've never met a single X" asserting something for ALL cases? It's isn't. It's simply stating a fact of personal experience. No qualification of "But I'm sure they exist" is necessary, except for the hypersensitive.

[The Mad Monk]

A lot of fish is farmed now.

Not that they mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If someone said "I've never met a racist rightist," and I said, "What about KKK members?" That would be comparable.

A better comparision (which I should have wrote) is someone saying "What is all this stereotype about rightists being rascist? I've never met a racist rightist' (which implies they don't exist) and you stating 'What about the KKK'?

However, Osweld was talking about the stereotype of any vegetarian as being dogmatic and preaching to meat-eaters.

Do you vegetarians naturally believe in conspiracy theories? What is this stereotype of any vegetarian being dogmatic and preaching? It's always been common belief that most vegetarians aren't dogmatic. I don't know where you have been.

How is saying "I've never met a single X" asserting something for ALL cases? It's isn't. It's simply stating a fact of personal experience. No qualification of "But I'm sure they exist" is necessary, except for the hypersensitive.

If I say 'What is this stereotype about Republicans swearing? I've never met a Republican that sweared!". That naturally implies that they (swearing Republicans) don't exist.

Me saying I've never met a Catholic Archbishop isn't the same as me saying they don't exist.

If you say 'What is this stereotype about Catholic archbishops? I've never met a Catholic Archbishop' that is implying they don't exist. Even 'I've never met a Catholic Archbishop', in a positive assertion (ie, no one asked 'have you ever seen a Catholic Archbishop'), indicates doubt about the existance of Catholic Archbishops.

I was saying that PETA isn't representative of vegetarians as a whole.

No **** sherlock, and DD wasn't using PETA as being representative of all vegetarians. He was using it as a 'um... there are dogmatic vegetarians'. He got the same implication as I did from Oswald's comments.

That being said, no, most PETAs aren't vegetarians--they're vegans.

So people that ONLY eat chicken are not meat eaters because they only eat one type of meat? It's the same thing. Vegans are a class of vegetarians; they simply eat a specific part of the vegetarian diet.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Osweld

I've boycoted their products!

That was funny. Congratulations.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A better comparision (which I should have wrote) is someone saying "What is all this stereotype about rightists being rascist? I've never met a racist rightist' (which implies they don't exist) and you stating 'What about the KKK'?

Except that saying "What is all this stereotype about rightists being rascist? I've never met a racist rightist" isn't implying racist rightists don't exist, merely that they are not common.

Do you vegetarians naturally believe in conspiracy theories? What is this stereotype of any vegetarian being dogmatic and preaching? It's always been common belief that most vegetarians aren't dogmatic. I don't know where you have been.

I'm not a vegetarian, as I've stated. And while I know you have a fondness in all discussions for expressing disbelief for others not sharing your worldview, in this instance it is yours that I think is unusual. Even when I was an ardent meat-eater in college, I'd notice the flak vegetarians get. Nearly every time I tell someone I don't eat red meat or poultry, they get defensive and talk along the lines of "you can't convert me!" Merely stating my dietary preferences sparks a debate in which people make all sorts of assumptions as to why I eat what I eat, usually they are wrong.

If I say 'What is this stereotype about Republicans swearing? I've never met a Republican that sweared!". That naturally implies that they (swearing Republicans) don't exist.

It implies no such thing, unless one has a penchant for taking things to extremes and making assumptions. Et voila...

If you say 'What is this stereotype about Catholic archbishops? I've never met a Catholic Archbishop' that is implying they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. And this is kinda funny, because you made Catholic into an adjective not the way I intended, as I meant "Catholic Archbishop" as a single noun. At any rate, saying I've never met one is not implying they don't exist, merely that they aren't common enough for me to have seen them.

Even 'I've never met a Catholic Archbishop', in a positive assertion (ie, no one asked 'have you ever seen a Catholic Archbishop'), indicates doubt about the existance of Catholic Archbishops.

Only for people who like to take things to extremes and make assumptions. I've never met a Catholic Archbishop. It's a statement of fact, nothing more.

No **** sherlock, and DD wasn't using PETA as being representative of all vegetarians. He was using it as a 'um... there are dogmatic vegetarians'. He got the same implication as I did from Oswald's comments.

So he made the same asinine assumption? I'd agree with that. Doesn't change the fact that in no way did Osweld assert dogmatic vegetarians don't exist.

So people that ONLY eat chicken are not meat eaters because they only eat one type of meat? It's the same thing. Vegans are a class of vegetarians; they simply eat a specific part of the vegetarian diet.

This comes down to self-classification, and many dogmatic vegans like PETA folks would bristle at being called vegetarian. So it's valid, IMO, to make a distinction, in the same way as, for practical purposes, one should make a distinction between atheists and agnostics. When you get down to one-world classifications of people's ideologies, such nuances are important.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except that saying "What is all this stereotype about rightists being rascist? I've never met a racist rightist" isn't implying racist rightists don't exist, merely that they are not common.

No, it implies that racist rightists do not exist.

I've never met a Catholic Archbishop. It's a statement of fact, nothing more.

Only if it is in response to another statement. When you say it first, as an assertion, it implies that they do not exist or you are expressing doubt that they exist.

Even when I was an ardent meat-eater in college, I'd notice the flak vegetarians get. Nearly every time I tell someone I don't eat red meat or poultry, they get defensive and talk along the lines of "you can't convert me!" Merely stating my dietary preferences sparks a debate in which people make all sorts of assumptions as to why I eat what I eat, usually they are wrong.

I will quote: 'Your experiences aren't universal, ya know' .

[cavebear]

Vegetarians are pushy. I can't recall the last time some one cornered me and earnestly advised me that I should eat meat. Yet I've often found myself is the presence of people who are equally earnest that I should eat only veggies.

I find these people very annoying.

For the record, I should mentions that I *don't* eat much meat and that vegetables are my favorite food. I want a "snack" and I end up with a tossed salad. I munch on celery and carrot sticks and apples and necterines or grapes at my work desk. It's not like I spend my time gnawing on squirrels. I'm practically the poster child for the new Mayo Clinic food pyramid. (by preference, not discipline)

But, I find, as little meat as I usually eat, it it never little enough for the vegetarians. I know of no fanatics more sincere and obnoxious as vegetarians.

Fortunately, true vegetarians will probably die off from poor nutrition before they get too annoying...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, it implies that racist rightists do not exist.

In what fantasy world do you live in where this is the case? As I said, only someone with a penchant for jumping to extreme assumptions would say this.

I've never met a Catholic Archbishop. It's a statement of fact, nothing more.

Only if it is in response to another statement. When you say it first, as an assertion, it implies that they do not exist or you are expressing doubt that they exist.

I went into my roommate's room and asked him to give me his interpretation of what I meant when I said the following phrase:

"I have never met a Catholic Archbishop."

He responded, "Uh...that...you've...never met a Catholic Archbishop?"

To which I replied, "Did you for an instant think I was implying that Catholic Archbishops do not exist?"

To which he responded, "No! what am I, stupid?"

So there we have it. Even if I started a thread saying, "I have never seen a llama," no reasonable person would infer I was saying llamas don't exist.

If I was starting a thread saying, "I don't like the stereotype of gays as effeminate men. I've personally never met an effeminate gay man," no reasonable person would think I'm asserting effeminate gay men don't exist, merely that they are not common enough to justify the stereotype.

I will quote: 'Your experiences aren't universal, ya know' .

Heh, funny, except I was providing that as an example of why your experiences weren't universal, not to say my own were.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Write your roommate an email (with no smilies please): "I've always heard people complainging about "in-your-face vegetarians" who force their views on other people. But, in all my life, I have not met a single vegetarian who has tried to force their views on me." Then ask if he would reasonably conclude that that means that you are saying they don't exist.

Obviously since others intrepted it in the same way I did, it isn't as extreme to jump to that conclusion.

Oh, and with the Roman Catholic example, instead of just saying "I've never met a Roman Catholic", which your roommate would find as wierd and suspect of you of something ask someone else "I've always heard of people complaining about 'Catholic' Archbishops, but in all my life I've not met a single Catholic Archbishop!" Just listen to what the person retorts.

[Sava]

If you use Tylenol, any product that uses gelatin, hand lotion, any animal based fabric, then you are participating in the exploitation/death of animals. F*ck it... its too damn hard to be a damn tree hugging Vegan. If you don't like meat, fine, but you're a damn hypocrit if you say you don't eat meat because you are against the unethical treatment of animals. Life is short, if there is a God and he says I'm going to hell for eating animals, buying leather products, and wasting paper... then f*ck him... I don't want to be in his hippie heaven anyways.