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

[Dis]

you could live in a shack in montana and not use commercial products.

Although getting the wood to build the shack is sure to disrupt woodpeckers and such.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Dissident
you could live in a shack in montana and not use commercial products.

Although getting the wood to build the shack is sure to disrupt woodpeckers and such.

You could always sneak into the suburbs at night and chop bits off of people's homes for firewood.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Osweld


You could always sneak into the suburbs at night and chop bits off of people's homes for firewood.

Most homes are built with chemically treated wood, and should not be burned.

Just thinking of the environment.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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.

I went to 3 different people at work today and casually struck up a conversation about vegetarians, and quoted the sentence from Osweld's first post practically word for word. Not a one of them assumed I was saying dogmatic vegetarians don't exist. Afterwords, I explained the argument. Every one of them (including our editing grammar Nazi) didn't think it was reasonable to assume he was saying they didn't exist. As I said, only someone with a penchant for jumping to extreme conclusions would say that, Mr. Extreme Conclusions.

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

Just because one other person jumped to that same extreme conclusion doesn't make it any less of an asinine statement, Mr. Extreme Conclusions

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.

Didn't I clarify before that I wasn't using "Catholic" as a qualifier, but using "Catholic Archibishop" as single noun? And you complain about my reading comprehension skills?!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Didn't I clarify before that I wasn't using "Catholic" as a qualifier, but using "Catholic Archibishop" as single noun?

But it can also be used as an adjective, so I choose to use it that way.

Not a one of them assumed I was saying dogmatic vegetarians don't exist. Afterwords, I explained the argument. Every one of them (including our editing grammar Nazi) didn't think it was reasonable to assume he was saying they didn't exist.

Frankly I think they are all wrong. It is reasonable to assume that it is being stated that they do not exist. If you were to say they were not common it would be proper to add the qualifier "While some exist," before 'in all my life...'.

Just because one other person jumped to that same extreme conclusion doesn't make it any less of an asinine statement

Because more than one person concluded the same thing, the statement was unclear and could reasonably be assumed to imply that those type of people do not exist.

After all, saying that you have never met the 'purported' person in all your life seems to reasonably imply that you have doubts that any of those people exist at all. For commonality, you'd have to qualify it.

[Japher]

Words of advice; never argue with Boris, he never loses.

---

Now, does that imply that Boris has never lost?

No.

It just means Boris likes to argue.

and what is with all the grammar nit-picking?

Because more than one person concluded the same thing, the statement was unclear and could reasonably be assumed to imply that those type of people do not exist.

Not that its grammar, but how can one reasonably assume anything? If one uses reason does that not mean that they used a series of deductions to come to the most likely conclusion? Yet when one assumes all they do is guess.

---

Anyway, being a vegetarian is weird and wrong.

I eat cows, ergo a farmer kills cows, ergo he raises more cows, ergo we end up with a lot of cows.

Do animal lovers not love cows? Do they not want more cows? What if we didn't eat cows, do you think the would be as prolifiv of a species? I think they would all be dead because they are stupid.

Ppl were meant to eat meat, and meat is good. Don't be weird and different and only eat vegetables and bean curd. I eat those thing too, as in also, why can't you?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But it can also be used as an adjective, so I choose to use it that way.

Further evidence you don't care what the intent of the author is, you'd rather just assume the intent. Especially since I've already stipulated several times what the intent was.

Frankly I think they are all wrong. It is reasonable to assume that it is being stated that they do not exist. If you were to say they were not common it would be proper to add the qualifier "While some exist," before 'in all my life...'.

Frankly, I don't put much stock in that, because from past experience I know you'll defend any position you've taken to the ends of rationality. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how your interpretation of Osweld's comments are more rational than the interpretation that he was merely stipulating such people weren't common enough for him to have met them, thus the stereotype was unjustified. You see, your interpretation relies on an extreme assumption about the statement and an insulting assumption that the author is stupid enough to assert such a thing. Mine relies on nothing more than taking what he said at face value and trusting he isn't lying to us for some reason.

And since I haven't met anyone who agrees with your interpretation, I'd say it was very much a minority opinion.*

Because more than one person concluded the same thing, the statement was unclear and could reasonably be assumed to imply that those type of people do not exist.

Not necessarily. Since only two people jumped to that conclusion, all it says is that two people made an asinine assumption about what he was saying. If droves of people said that was clearly his implication, then you might have a point. But only two did, and two people assuming something doesn't make it a valid assumption when so many more are not assuming it.

After all, saying that you have never met the 'purported' person in all your life seems to reasonably imply that you have doubts that any of those people exist at all. For commonality, you'd have to qualify it.

This is dumb. So every time I say I've never met some type of person, I have to qualify that they may exist? I've never met someone from Rwanda. So now whenever I attest to that fact, I have to provide a disclaimer that I believe Rwandans may exist?

I'm sorry, that's one of the dumbest things you've said. If you jumped to an unreasonable conclusion because of your penchant for going to extremes, that's not anyone else's fault but your own! Nobody should have to coddle you because of your illogical conclusions.

And I doubt we're going to get any further than this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*DISCLAIMER - This statement is not meant to imply that there isn't anyone who would agree with Imran's silly conclusion, merely that such folks are, in the author's experience, very uncommon. Thank you.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba


Most homes are built with chemically treated wood, and should not be burned.

Just thinking of the environment.

It may depend on where you live. Unless you are refering to the glues that hold plywood together, homes in the US do not use treated wood. I watched my house being built, and there was no pressure-treated wood used in the construction (and its not like I made any special demands. I've seen a fair number built over the years, and I've never seen any of that p-t wood used.

I can't speak for other countries or even many parts of the US, but my general understanding is that it is not permitted in residential structures here.

You are quite right though that p-t wood should never be burned; the smoke contains arsenic compounds that are dangerous when inhaled. It shouldn't even be used in situations where there will be skin contact or food products grown.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Japher
Do animal lovers not love cows? Do they not want more cows? What if we didn't eat cows, do you think the would be as prolifiv of a species? I think they would all be dead because they are stupid.

Cows are a result of human's cross-breeding animals to make one suitable for meat farming. They are not a natural species.



It's a freakin' ridiculous argument anyways.
Prolonging something's life with torture is not very desirable or humane.

[DinoDoc]

If we weren't meant to eat meat, it wouldn't want to be so tasty.