Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

Why is your age important?

Sorry. Bad writing.

I meant to say 20+ years of vegetarianism.

I'm 51.

Not that that's important.

 

[sgtbaker]

As a 20+ vegetarian I'm always amused by posts like yours and others who feel the need to [drool] over bacon or 'MMM' about the steak they'll have to eat for lunch just to piss us veg-heads off.

IMO, it's just immaturity ... indicating an inability to address an issue intellectually. It doesn't make you a worse person. But I do look forward to the day you folks improve your ability to debate.

I am sorry, I should have been more respectful to the rational and well worded OP.

 

[Lamuella]

As a 20+ vegetarian I'm always amused by posts like yours and others who feel the need to [drool] over bacon or 'MMM' about the steak they'll have to eat for lunch just to piss us veg-heads off.

IMO, it's just immaturity ... indicating an inability to address an issue intellectually. It doesn't make you a worse person. But I do look forward to the day you folks improve your ability to debate.

you're posting in a thread started by a vegan with the intention of insulting meat eaters and calling them fat and unhealthy. Are your accusations of immaturity going in both directions?

 

[BStrong]

Wasn't (Goodwins) a vegan?

Now that I've observed the white hats (vegans) dislocating their shoulders from patting themselves on the back, I'll go back to prepping the crab for tonights dinner.

 

[caniswalensis]

As a 20+ vegetarian I'm always amused by posts like yours and others who feel the need to [drool] over bacon or 'MMM' about the steak they'll have to eat for lunch just to piss us veg-heads off.

IMO, it's just immaturity ... indicating an inability to address an issue intellectually. It doesn't make you a worse person. But I do look forward to the day you folks improve your ability to debate.

Well said.

I have to agree with you, and I am a dyed in the wool carnavore myself. Except that I would not describe myself as 'amused' by it. If someone in my home taunted someone else like I see in this thread, I would ask them to make a choice: apologize or leave.

It is part of the culture around this place. People come here to argue, insult and bicker. I was pretty disapointed when I discovered that is how it is around here. You would think people who join a place devoted to critical thinking would be more interested in using logic & facts than insults. I guess the problem is that it is a free internet forum that any random ******* can join.

There is no doubting that the OP was insulting and written to be as provacative as possible. What I do not understand is why someone would read that OP an then turn around and exibit the exact same behavior.

What is the thought process?
It must be something like this:
That post is uncivil and insulting.
I don't aprove of that.
The poster must be a jerk.
I am going to express my disapproval of jerks by doing the exact same thing.
Now everyone knows how great I am!"

This is called letting others set your standards. People should do the right thing, even when those around them are not. I don't like being in a forum where the standards are set by someone who is willing to talk to/about people like the OP does. I have no use for it.

Regards, Canis

ETA: yes, I am fully aware that I myself am just some random *******.
ETA: Goodbye.

 

[sgtbaker]

Well said.

I have to agree with you, and I am a dyed in the wool carnavore myself. Except that I would not describe myself as 'amused' by it. If someone in my home taunted someone else like I see in this thread, I would ask them to make a choice: apologize or leave.

If your guests were that obnoxious, I probably would have been gone long before you offered me that choice.

It is part of the culture around this place. People come here to argue, insult and bicker. I was pretty disapointed when I discovered that is how it is around here. You would think people who join a place devoted to critical thinking would be more interested in using logic & facts than insults. I guess the problem is that it is a free internet forum that any random ******* can join.

People were probably thinking the same thing about the OP but then opted not to get all worked up about it and just post something silly.

There is no doubting that the OP was insulting and written to be as provacative as possible. What I do not understand is why someone would read that OP an then turn around and exibit the exact same behavior.

What is the thought process?
It must be something like this:
That post is uncivil and insulting.
I don't aprove of that.
The poster must be a jerk.
I am going to express my disapproval of jerks by doing the exact same thing.
Now everyone knows how great I am!"

Well, there you have it; all the answers to your own question. I am flattered though, attributing greatness to my lame attempt at humor.

This is called letting others set your standards. People should do the right thing, even when those around them are not. I don't like being in a forum where the standards are set by someone who is willing to talk to/about people like the OP does. I have no use for it.

That is correct, only if your first assumption is true. If we are not all, in fact, high fiving ourselves for the awesomeness of our responses to the OP's exceptionally long non sequitur, it all kind of falls apart. For me, it was defiance with a little bit of sarcastic humor. It was very similar to the response I gave the vegan that sat there and tried to gross me out about what the FDA allows in cheese, while I was eating my quesadillas, I made no attempt at hiding my enjoyment of those tasty quesadillas and certainly made no apology for eating them.

ETA: yes, I am fully aware that I myself am just some random *******.
ETA: Goodbye.

I hope that your goodbye is your exit to this thread and not the forum.

 

[RandFan]

... I do look forward to the day you folks improve your ability to debate.

Before we settle on who is and who isn't "you folks", I'd point you to the OP. Not that I can excuse any of the behavior but, I think the delineation of good guy vs bad guy uncalled for. We are all just people and our greatest mathematical brain trick is ad hoc rationalization. Throw in the ego and each of us think that our bowel movements are the sweetest smelling.

 

[citizenzen]

First off, I'm not trying to make this just about sgtbaker. I was trying to point out a trend, of which he was the most recent example. My comment was not meant to single out sgtbaker, and I apologize for putting him under the microscope in that way.

But secondly, regarding the OP, yes it was worded a way to antagonize meat-eaters. However, the OP presented a premise that could be debated on its logical merits (which I disagreed with earlier) and the OP provided sources that could be investigated and refuted.

The OP may have lacked style, but still had substance, where IMO the bacon! [drool] responses offer neither.

 

[sgtbaker]

First off, I'm not trying to make this just about sgtbaker. I was trying to point out a trend, of which he was the most recent example. My comment was not meant to single out sgtbaker, and I apologize for putting him under the microscope in that way.

*Her* but you are forgiven. Your wording was intentionally not singling me out so I don't feel under the microscope. No apology is necessary.

But secondly, regarding the OP, yes it was worded a way to antagonize meat-eaters. However, the OP presented a premise that could be debated on its logical merits (which I disagreed with earlier) and the OP provided sources that could be investigated and refuted.

The OP may have lacked style, but still had substance, where IMO the bacon! [drool] responses offer neither.

No, the thread title has nothing to do with the health of meat eating, the title is "Why Vegans Are Simply Better People." The poster then made a list of possible reasons why smokers smoke. He/she then chose, for no reason other than it suits his/her following statement, the worst possible reason that smokers smoke, to support his/her own assertion that non smokers are better people than smokers. Then moved on to the same ridiculous tactic to prove that vegans are better people. This goes far beyond a bad choice of words to make a good point.

 

[Furcifer]

The OP may have lacked style, but still had substance, where IMO the bacon! [drool] responses offer neither.

It's pretty common to see this type of jocularity on the forum. Start a thread about gun control and you'll see people talking about going to the shooting range. Start a thread about dogs, people will tell you about how great cats are. It's just meant to get some cheap laughs.

 

[Stout]

The OP may have lacked style, but still had substance, where IMO the bacon! [drool] responses offer neither.

Yea, but you have to admit, the snorting lines of bacon quip was funny. Really really funny.

 

[citizenzen]

It's pretty common to see this type of jocularity on the forum. It's just meant to get some cheap laughs.

Yea, but you have to admit, the snorting lines of bacon quip was funny. Really really funny.

I do give points for originality.

 

[Lamuella]

First off, I'm not trying to make this just about sgtbaker. I was trying to point out a trend, of which he was the most recent example. My comment was not meant to single out sgtbaker, and I apologize for putting him under the microscope in that way.

But secondly, regarding the OP, yes it was worded a way to antagonize meat-eaters. However, the OP presented a premise that could be debated on its logical merits (which I disagreed with earlier) and the OP provided sources that could be investigated and refuted.

The OP may have lacked style, but still had substance, where IMO the bacon! [drool] responses offer neither.

or to put it another way you're only condemning the immaturity of those you disagree with. OK.

 

[dafydd]

It's pretty common to see this type of jocularity on the forum. Start a thread about gun control and you'll see people talking about going to the shooting range. Start a thread about dogs, people will tell you about how great cats are. It's just meant to get some cheap laughs.

Laughing costs nothing and it's good for you. Po-faced vegans don't appear to do a lot of laughing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

........
But secondly, regarding the OP, yes it was worded a way to antagonize meat-eaters. However, the OP presented a premise that could be debated on its logical merits (which I disagreed with earlier) and the OP provided sources that could be investigated and refuted.
.............

Why should anyone bother, since the OP didn't even stick around to support their contentions?

 

[Stomatopoda]

Po-faced vegans don't appear to do a lot of laughing.

Probably because it squeezes the gas out.

 

[dafydd]

Why should anyone bother, since the OP didn't even stick around to support their contentions?

He's probably too weak to struggle to the keyboard. Does anyone remember the Sprouting movement in the 1970's? They lived on sprouting seeds and soya milk. The leader of the cult ended up in hospital with vitamin deficiency problems.

 

[RandFan]

The OP may have lacked style, but still had substance, where IMO the bacon! [drool] responses offer neither.

Perhaps, on the other hand they do offer comic relief. In a cynical world such as this one perhaps that is it's own substance.

I'm not defending the OP. Still, if you want a substantive discussion then take my advice, don't do that.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well.... I just hope they serve bacon in Hell.

 

[sgtbaker]

Well.... I just hope they serve bacon in Hell.

They do but it's tofu bacon.