Vegan Superiority complex

[squeekenator]

Way to twist words there buttercup.

An argument against eating meat twisted into an illegal act of forced sex, yep I see a similarity ..... oh wait...

Now does your comment make my argument look weak or does it make you look like a sick jackass for thinking it up.

Swings and roundabouts my friend.

See I aimed my post to be a bit light hearted and you twist it in your little perverse mind. Seek help, seek it soon.

Are the two comparable? No, not really, rape is far worse than killing animals. Was my example applying the exact same logic as yours to a different topic? Absolutely. The point of my post was that the argument you were using simply didn't work, and since you've not managed to come up with any rebuttal other than ad hominem I'll assume that you agree.

By the way, I mentioned rape because it's one of the few things that very nearly nobody supports and even fewer people will admit to supporting - I considered murder instead, but decided against it on a whim.

 

[surg3n]

I can see the justification when the rabbits are a pest, when they affect farmland and other

I think I'd rather have a yard full of bunnies, than a yard full of angry vegetarians. I can see how culling rabbits can be seen as cruel, especially if it's not done 'humanely', especially if it's done by just anyone. I'm not hating on you, I'm just saying that taking matters into your own hands is not a good idea, there are people who are trained to deal with 'pests', going on a cull to save your yard is really just retarded. I mean, what's so special about your yard?

Where I live there are a lot of wild rabbits, I'll see half a dozen on my 10 minute walk to work every day. There's nobody feeling the need to cull them, anyone who did do anything to them would be considered a cruel bastard. I'm not a vegetarian, the way I see it steak is delicious for a reason, salads don't fill us up for a reason, and going against our established diet is not good for us. You don't have to be a vegetarian to protest against animal cruelty.

Should try living in Aus (though i dont know were you live as you dont state it in your profile), it would be cruel NOT to cull them, considering the amount of native animals the rabbit destroys.

I can see the justification in that, but you would also use a gun that would kill the critters outright, no poncy air gun. What I don't agree with is someone protecting their back yard from a rabbit. I live in Scotland, really the only wildlife around here are deer, squirrel, fox and rabbit. Often farmers here will have to cull rabbits, but as I said - using a shotgun, not a toy.

 

[Rawne1980]

Are the two comparable? No, not really, rape is far worse than killing animals. Was my example applying the exact same logic as yours to a different topic? Absolutely. The point of my post was that the argument you were using simply didn't work, and since you've not managed to come up with any rebuttal other than ad hominem I'll assume that you agree.

By the way, I mentioned rape because it's one of the few things that very nearly nobody supports and even fewer people will admit to supporting - I considered murder instead, but decided against it on a whim.

Mainly because I wasn't aiming for an argument.

If I wanted to argue reasons for eating meat i'd use facts and figures on the proteins and health benefits on it NOT caveman beating, taste great reasons.

Using someones comments and then twisting them around into something else entirely doesn't invalidate what the person was saying it really does show that other people will twist things to their own ends.

I could argue that nearly any comment made since the dawn of time could be twisted into something else entirely but thats neither here nor there.

My comments could have been applied to anything however they were not so no matter what you twist them to say it wasn't what I implied therefore making your statement null and void.

Someone could say "I like computer games" which could be twisted to "I like making love to small furry woodland creatures". An entirely different comment based on your very logic. Neither is it what the first person implied nor is it relevant to the current debate.

 

[Nunny]

I can see the justification when the rabbits are a pest, when they affect farmland and other

I think I'd rather have a yard full of bunnies, than a yard full of angry vegetarians. I can see how culling rabbits can be seen as cruel, especially if it's not done 'humanely', especially if it's done by just anyone. I'm not hating on you, I'm just saying that taking matters into your own hands is not a good idea, there are people who are trained to deal with 'pests', going on a cull to save your yard is really just retarded. I mean, what's so special about your yard?

Where I live there are a lot of wild rabbits, I'll see half a dozen on my 10 minute walk to work every day. There's nobody feeling the need to cull them, anyone who did do anything to them would be considered a cruel bastard. I'm not a vegetarian, the way I see it steak is delicious for a reason, salads don't fill us up for a reason, and going against our established diet is not good for us. You don't have to be a vegetarian to protest against animal cruelty.

Should try living in Aus (though i dont know were you live as you dont state it in your profile), it would be cruel NOT to cull them, considering the amount of native animals the rabbit destroys.

I can see the justification in that, but you would also use a gun that would kill the critters outright, no poncy air gun. What I don't agree with is someone protecting their back yard from a rabbit. I live in Scotland, really the only wildlife around here are deer, squirrel, fox and rabbit. Often farmers here will have to cull rabbits, but as I said - using a shotgun, not a toy.

That i agree with, a crappy little air gun is is of no worth in the use of killing an animal as quickly as possible. I could do more damage with the wooden frame of my old Slug gun then the ammunition it fired.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Time out. When did humanity as a whole decide that eating an animal/meat is wrong?
Considering the majority of the world are animal/meat eaters that would put vegans in the minority.
And sadly morality and ethics aren't decided by the minority.
So I fail to see how one can claim that choosing to be a vegetarian is a very ethical and or moral choice. You are in fact going against the standard that says it is ok to eat meat.
In this case it is more the person carrying their own moral flag, and suffice it to say you cannot claim to be more ethical or moral for your own personal morals because those morals do not apply to those around you, and they never should.

Unfortunately not. Morality is subjective. Once a person has decided that doing X is wrong, they are going to extrapolate that people that do X are wrong, regardless of what everyone else thinks. The only way the majority can be said to decide what's right or wrong is if it uses it's numerical power to dominate the others into behaving like they agree.

 

[aba1]

Honestly I would probibly be a vegan if I could stand it. I hate vegi's the only ones I can stand are potatoes and corn so my diet has alot of meat in it I cant help it I love meat but I have to say I agree when people say killing animals is wrong and that cows and other farm animals live pritty terrible lives I really wish they would be taken care of better at the very least if were going to kill them.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Personally, I don't like it when people claim "to be better than everyone else" some stupid reason like this. Frankly, they give vegetarians a bad name.

They probably think they're superior because they don't "eat meat" or some other crap like that....

 

[Ampersand]

No i'm better then you because I choose not to kill animals. Deal with it.

Incidentally, you can get more then enough protein from a vegetarian diet, about half of the martial artist I train with are vegetarians and all of them are far stronger then most other fighters, never mind your average person.

 

[Rednog]

Time out. When did humanity as a whole decide that eating an animal/meat is wrong?
Considering the majority of the world are animal/meat eaters that would put vegans in the minority.
And sadly morality and ethics aren't decided by the minority.
So I fail to see how one can claim that choosing to be a vegetarian is a very ethical and or moral choice. You are in fact going against the standard that says it is ok to eat meat.
In this case it is more the person carrying their own moral flag, and suffice it to say you cannot claim to be more ethical or moral for your own personal morals because those morals do not apply to those around you, and they never should.

Unfortunately not. Morality is subjective. Once a person has decided that doing X is wrong, they are going to extrapolate that people that do X are wrong, regardless of what everyone else thinks. The only way the majority can be said to decide what's right or wrong is if it uses it's numerical power to dominate the others into behaving like they agree.

You can have your own moral code/ code of conduct. But in order to claim you are better than another person you refer to the morals and codes of conduct established by the society you inhabit. For example we have a code of conduct for doctors, by their code they have treat anyone regardless of their background. If a doctor suddenly says no I'm not going to treat this person because he is "X", let's say in this case a convict because his morals is one that once a person commits a crime they deserve no help. A supposed subjective morality just doesn't work, because who is to say who is right and who is wrong? A subjective morality is just justifying ones own actions and somewhat a selfish and ignorant stance to judge other people by. This is why we have a morality established by society.
I don't know if you have noticed or not, but this is kind of how the world works. The majority of people do decide what is considered right and what is considered wrong.
So yes, you can have your own opinions on what is right or wrong, but claiming that based on your own code of conduct that you or anyone is superior to another person is just silly because if the world worked like this then everyone would just hold themselves in a higher opinion than anyone else because who else can follow one's own morals than the person who created it?
The only way one can claim moral superiority or ethical conduct over another person is if you are comparing actions on mutually agreed morals/ethics. If not then any claims are absolutely invalid.

 

[Mr.Numbers]

Meat is murder, tender juicy delicious murder.

That is all.

You mean vegetarians and vegans actually managed to muster up enough energy to form an argument?

I personally love the whole "ahhh can't rape people it's wrong" argument.

We've been doing it since man picked up his first stick and took it to the face of a woman to get some.

And lets face it folks, if rape was so wrong it wouldn't feel so right.

If you're going to make an argument, at least pick one that isn't absolutely stupid and can't be used to justify pretty much any crime ever committed.

"This was originally about meat but I used my extremist hyperbole to replace it with an argument about rape because I am a sane and rational person."
Everything here in bold has been changed form the original post.

Wait, did you just compare survival instincts and preference to rape?

Rape, under no circumstances, ever, can be justified. Meat is self preservation and programmed into us to enjoy. It's cheaper and healthier than MOST vegetarian diets.

Rape psychologically destroys an individual.
Animals have no psche, rational or sentience.

Get over yourself.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler: snip0You can have your own moral code/ code of conduct. But in order to claim you are better than another person you refer to the morals and codes of conduct established by the society you inhabit. For example we have a code of conduct for doctors, by their code they have treat anyone regardless of their background. If a doctor suddenly says no I'm not going to treat this person because he is "X", let's say in this case a convict because his morals is one that once a person commits a crime they deserve no help. A supposed subjective morality just doesn't work, because who is to say who is right and who is wrong? A subjective morality is just justifying ones own actions and somewhat a selfish and ignorant stance to judge other people by. This is why we have a morality established by society. I don't know if you have noticed or not, but this is kind of how the world works. The majority of people do decide what is considered right and what is considered wrong. So yes, you can have your own opinions on what is right or wrong, but claiming that based on your own code of conduct that you or anyone is superior to another person is just silly because if the world worked like this then everyone would just hold themselves in a higher opinion than anyone else because who else can follow one's own morals than the person who created it? The [u

only[/u] way one can claim moral superiority or ethical conduct over another person is if you are comparing actions on mutually agreed morals/ethics. If not then any claims are absolutely invalid.

That's how society is supposed to work, yes, but unfortunately not the way it does.

Massive hordes of people - I'd go so far as to say the majority, but I have no hard stats for this - feel themselves morally superior to other people for reasons their society (at least nominally) doesn't agree with. Feeling yourself morally superior to other due to race/gender/sexuality/religion etc is hardly uncommon.

 

[Rawne1980]

You mean vegetarians and vegans actually managed to muster up enough energy to form an argument?

I personally love the whole "ahhh can't rape people it's wrong" argument.

We've been doing it since man picked up his first stick and took it to the face of a woman to get some.

And lets face it folks, if rape was so wrong it wouldn't feel so right.

If you're going to make an argument, at least pick one that isn't absolutely stupid and can't be used to justify pretty much any crime ever committed.

Wait, did you just compare survival instincts and preference to rape?

Rape, under no circumstances, ever, can be justified. Meat is self preservation and programmed into us to enjoy. It's cheaper and healthier than MOST vegetarian diets.

Rape psychologically destroys an individual.
Animals have no psche, rational or sentience.

Get over yourself.

For the record I didn't type the rape part that was squeekenator twisting a comment I made about meat.

Just had to say that before I get pounced on and beaten.

 

[Mr.Numbers]

For the record I didn't type the rape part that was squeekenator twisting a comment I made about meat.

Just had to say that before I get pounced on and beaten.

Oh sorry, should have done something about that. I'll edit it for you, sorry, I understand it's not you that mentioned rape.

 

[Mr. Google]

thing is it is a lesser choice to eat meat, try to stay with me this is not meant as an insult to any one.

Where I stopped taking you seriously because you did exactly as I said I hated. I still read it all and most of it I already knew. My best friend was vegan for 2 years until she went to France for school and blah blah blah and she's planning on going back to it and she's already told me all of that. But that doesn't make you better than me. She didn't have that complex which is why she is my friend you, do. Which is why we'll never get a long. And to add to the when i said "Just nuts" that was dumb on my part because I knew you can get protein from more than just nuts, my bad.

 

[Mr. Google]

OT: Nothing wrong with killing rabbits but you should learn to kill cleanly. Most vegans who give you shit for eating meat are either unaware or in denial about the number of animals that get ripped to pieces and rot down to produce their food. Sooner or later everything involves the death f an animal to produce so vegans shouldn't really be giving you too much grief over it.

Having said that you should have immediately followed up on that shot in the other thread. If you're going to kill animals you should do it cleanly, what you did is sheer sloppy practice.

It was more or less immediate. The second that it stopped jumping and moving and it was literally jumping 4 or 5 feet in the air, I shot it again. It was just hard to hear it whimpering so it took me an extra 5 seconds to pull the trigger. Im sorry if those 5 seconds made the bunny sad because they made me sad too.

 

[LondonBeer]

Because when people deny a biological imperative they feel like their above reality. So basically they are embracing a godlike posture so a godlike posture bleeds through.

 

[Zyntoxic]

thing is it is a lesser choice to eat meat, try to stay with me this is not meant as an insult to any one.

Where I stopped taking you seriously because you did exactly as I said I hated. I still read it all and most of it I already knew. My best friend was vegan for 2 years until she went to France for school and blah blah blah and she's planning on going back to it and she's already told me all of that. But that doesn't make you better than me. She didn't have that complex which is why she is my friend you, do. Which is why we'll never get a long. And to add to the when i said "Just nuts" that was dumb on my part because I knew you can get protein from more than just nuts, my bad.

as I stated, I have no belief that you are a lesser person than me, just of another opinion, you have chosen differently than me, and that is ok. but as with any opinion of cours I'd say from my perspective that mine is better, but not me, from an objective stance I can't say one person is better than another based on a difference in opinion.
what I would love to hear though is the reasoning behind a choice where you eat meat even though from what you say understand and know all of the negative consequenses?

really this is just a friendly question because I love seeing other peoples' perspectives
and I really respect the choice you have made by eating meat, while I don't believe in that choice my self, I believe that people have to make their own mind and opinions, and that it is useless for me to force my opinion upon others, because a forced upon opinion or cause is never as strong as your own.


BTW what I meant by "is a lesser choice" I don't mean it is a bad choice as much as an easier path that requires less of you, as ment in really not a bad or offencive way, I am truly sorry if I did offend you though.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

While it's certainly annoying to have someone claim the moral high ground for a completely subjective and arbitrary reason, it's hardly restricted to vegans/vegetarians. Anybody that wants to be smug will find a reason to do so, usually by gravitating towards a practice that they believe makes them superior to others; the result is supremely twattish people adopting vegan practices, as opposed to a normal person becoming vegan and adopting a twattish attitude as a result.

This is also very evident in religion, as well. Your average believer will usually just be a normal person that has accepted a certain explanation for life's big questions so they can focus on more productive things; they won't tell you that you're going to hell if they see you eating meat on Friday, or see you violating some other harmless tenet of their religion, because religion doesn't intrinsically transform people into twats. Now, the assholes you see picketing a soldier's funeral, or standing on a college campus shouting that all non-believers will burn in the flames of hell? They weren't nice, polite people before they heard a sermon that convinced them that the world must be purged of heretics... they were always twats, and when given an excuse to gush their twattiness all over the place (the right to religious expression, in this example), they took it and ran with it, twatting it up for all it was worth, using "their cause" as a shield against criticism for twattiness and tarnishing its reputation severely in the process.

Basically, your grievance seems to be with a particular excuse that some twats use to be openly twattish, as opposed to the twats themselves. A paradigm shift may be in order, here.