spin

spin:
---------------
It is a normal practice for people who want to avoid things to depict their "opponents" in non-representative ways in attempts not to deal with substantive matters.
---------------

Jeff:
---------------
People may indeed do this, but I don't think that Bonduca is guilty of that here.
---------------

I was speaking generically at that time, but note the following bonduca post terminology:

---------------
consistently bad-tempered and peevish... tantrums and insults
---------------

Jeff:
---------------
I personally have no opinion on your vegetarianism.
---------------

I was asking, if you are an eater of animals, for your ethical or moral analysis behind your decision to eat them. I was not asking for an opinion on my vegetarianism.

Jeff:
---------------
You could eat rocks for all I care. Yet, having read your posts, I too felt they were frequently unkind and seemed more intended to batter people into submission than to convince them logically.
---------------

Do you reach a person who is talking about their desire to go and eat a steak in this discussion using simply logic? That is a waste of time, though I would consider within the limits I have operated to have been both reasoned and logical.

Jeff:
---------------
Maybe that's not your intention, but it is how some people are receiving it.
---------------

I know. I can live with it. If someone chooses to act in a more "humane" way, I'll be happy.

spin

bonduca:
----------------
Spin, people will not stop eating meat simply because you are rude to them.
----------------

You may consider attempting to represent what is happening with regard to the unnecessary killing and eating of other animals rude. I don't. It may conflict with their received ideas, but that is their problem. You refuse to acknowledge the content in my posts, by pointing to the trappings which "upset" you. Why not take a little time to catch up?

bonduca:
----------------
If anything, they will become resistant to your argument. What have you accomplished in sixteen pages?
----------------

What have you?

bonduca
----------------
Has anyone been converted? Does anyone even appear to take you seriously?
----------------

I don't expect *you* to. But then you may prove my expectations wrong.

bonduca

I did indeed refer to you as peevish and ill-tempered, and indulging in tantrums. Spin, you may not even be aware of it, but you have been extremely unpleasant toward other posters in this thread. Alienating people will likely make them unsympathetic to your argument.

bonduca

No, I consider personal attacks and insults rude. It does little to further your cause.

Spin, people dislike being attacked and insulted. They are less likely to listen to you when in defensive mode. You may find you are expending a great deal of energy in expounding upon beliefs that no one is receptive to, simply because they feel you have attacked them. How is that helpful?

I am aware of these arguments, I have many vegetarian friends. These trappings DO upset me. They are pointless and rude. They make it impossible for me to have a rational discussion with you.

But I am not attempting to convert anyone. I am as I was before, only my opinion of you is, sadly, less complimentary than before.


Has anyone on this thread been converted by reading your posts? Many people have been offended, but negative attention will not accomplish your objective. Will it? I ask you, Spin, who has been converted by reading this thread?

Your concern for the feelings of other animals does you credit, but you will not impress anyone by attacking them and being rude to them, however passionately you may feel about your cause.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

x-member

Not only am I not converted or even any degree more sympathetic, and not only is my opinion of Spin about the same as my opinion of athelets foot, but I actually have a growing contempt towards animals now.

Jon

spin

bonduca:
----------------
I did indeed refer to you as peevish and ill-tempered, and indulging in tantrums.
----------------

You were simply wrong, content-wise.

bonduca:
----------------
Spin, you may not even be aware of it, but you have been extremely unpleasant toward other posters in this thread.
----------------

You don't expect me to exert myself to be pleasant to people who deliberately set out to be disgusting in their efforts to seen as amusing.

bonduca:
----------------
Alienating people will likely make them unsympathetic to your argument.
----------------

I am civil to people who are civil. You can understand this. I think you are attempting to be civil at the moment.

SallySmith

I'd like to comment on the whole "bad behavior" issue. I haven't gone back and examined each and every one of spin and punkersluta's posts, but my general feeling is that the animal-eaters are far more venomous than the vegetarians in this thread. I think if you went back and actually tallied insults, you'd find that the vegetarians were called more names and cussed at a lot more than the animal-eaters. I had a similar experience when I was one of the major proponents of vegetarianism in a past thread.

My first post on the Sec Web was on a thread called Atheist Vegetarians?. I thought I behaved quite well. I was arguing that meat-eating was unethical under two different sets of circumstances. I got called an ass and a fundie. People were pretty rude. I never responded in kind but that didn't seem to stop anyone.

My point: I think animal-eaters get overly defensive in this argument. I said in the Atheist Vegetarians? thread (and pissed people off) that I think it's because there is a level of guilt people feel about eating animals. I've softened my position somewhat in that I do think that is probably true for many people, but I also realize that people don't like being told that they're unethical/immoral. Whatever the reason, I also think that animal-eaters will resort to a multitude of ridiculous arguments to support their position. Please remember that I personally don't think an argument can be made to not eat animals, period. But arguing that plants are or may be conscious? Do you really think that would happen on a thread unrelated to vegetarianism?

Koyaanisqatsi

Let's play compare and contrast shall we?

Compared with:

You are a hypocritical, sanctimonious fundaterian and can, as always, piss up a rope.

I am not "talking rubbish" at all and have repeated over and over and over again that there is absolutely no qualitative difference to me between eating a pig and eating a plant since they are both morally equal life-forms in my eyes.

You asked, I answered.

I'm sorry if your rabid fanatacism to your cause has blinded you so, but again, if your response to someone honestly telling you what their moral stance is toward this issue is "you're just saying that, I know what you really think," you can--again--piss up a rope.

Hiding behind a false, hypocritical piousness only serves to demonstrate how "wrong" your cause is, so continue to do so at the peril of your apparent mission.

You feel it is comparatively, morally "wrong" to eat meat, but have no similar compunction about eating plants. I disagree, for several reasons, but you have lied about your desire to honestly investigate those reasons, preferring instead to be a mind reader. It's good work if you can get it, but only shows you up for the proselytizer you evidently are.

SallySmith

Puh-leeze. If this is even true (which I doubt), it's highly irrational to blame animals for the (perceived) bad behavior of a vegetarian.

edited 'cause I forgot to put the word "bad" in there

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: SallySmith ]</p>

x-member

I feel no guilt in eating animals. I do feel contempt towards people who attempt to convert or force their beliefs on me. As such, I see proselytizing vegans such as Spin and Punkerslut in the same light as I see fudie xians. Therein, I would venture, lies the "hostility"

Jon