are vegans commie pinko meeps?

I'm a vegan. Thanks bud.

^ I thought the point was to prove him wrong :<

I also identify my politics with socialism and progressivism.

dr. hughg,

you are proof that meepgotry has little to do with what you eat.

freakbass: dr. hughg, you are proof that meepgotry has little to do with what you eat.

I have an uncle who was a vegetarian once.

We went to Jack In The Box once and he ordered a burger and started chowing down. I asked him, "Are'nt you a vegetarian?" He said "Oh yeah!" and kept eating.

That was that.:D

That's nice.

Then what happened?

vasudeva: Then what happened?

They went home and

<blink>PLAYED POKER ON INTERNETS!!!</blink>

Duh.

dinozoa: I also identify my politics with socialism and progressivism.

I am completely in shock after these revelations.

dinozoa: I'm a vegan. Thanks bud.

:|

dinozoa: I also identify my politics with socialism and progressivism.

Chum is supposed to smell just a little fishy.

i mean meeps in homos, not in cigarettes.

Making that distinction seems pretty meepgy to me, meepboy. I enjoy the melding of flavors with bacon and coffee.

Yes.

I ate a whole meepin' zoo on saturday, btw. DOWN WITH COMMUNISM! FIGHT THE RUSSKI'S, EAT PORK!

Now that I have time.

Veganism: Premised upon the notion that animals have rights; that those rights can be infringed upon; and those animals can be exploited.

As if.

The point of veganism is most assuredly an attempt by intellectually disingenuous, control-freak, emo-retards to assume some wishful moral superiority and tell everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast.

In that regard, they no different than pinko-commies, at least.

that's a narrow view IMO. I was vegan for years in college and it wasn't political or activist minded.. simply was the result of researching what massive amounts of animal fat can do to the body not to mention all the hormones and meep. The way they kill all the animals played a minor role but it was far from my main concern.

It was too meeping hard though. And I now believe that so long as there are meepload of veggies and fibery things in your diet you can basically eat whatever you want in moderation.

Not including stuff like massive sugar, soda, etc, of course. Badness. There is new research suggesting that Alzheimer's and other degenerative diseases might be insulin related. Some scientists' are already calling it "Type 3 Diabetes"

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001969/53/

freakbass: that's a narrow view IMO. I was vegan for years in college and it wasn't political or activist minded.. simply was the result of researching what massive amounts of animal fat can do to the body not to mention all the hormones and meep. The way they kill all the animals played a minor role but it was far from my main concern.

Right. As if all that research you allegedly did revealed that honey was full of massive amounts of animal fat, and hormones.

Nice try pinko.

freakbass: It was too meeping hard though.

It is not reassuring to me that the particular level of dumb required for veganism is "too meeping hard."

I would prefer it to be lethal.

freakbass: And I now believe that so long as there are meepload of veggies and fibery things in your diet you can basically eat whatever you want in moderation.

You must of discovered this after doing actual research, and then dumping the political aggenda.

Way to go!

Hotdog?

A close friend of our family has advanced cardiovascular disease and is on a very strict low fat VEGAN diet by doctors and nutritionists orders. I'm pretty sure they don't give a meep if he wears leather Nike's or has gelatin in his chewing gum.

there is a ton of research supporting this, like the work of Dr. Ornish

Anyway, when the anti-aging nano-bot system comes online, and your body gets passed over because of your advanced Arteriosclerosis, can I have your avatar? I'm hoping to change mine in 2090 or so..

thanx

freakbass: A close friend of our family has advanced cardiovascular disease and is on a very strict low fat VEGAN diet by doctors and nutritionists orders. I'm pretty sure they don't give a meep if he wears leather Nike's or has gelatin in his chewing gum.

Ok Fuktard. If your close family friend is chewing gum with animal derived gelatin, if he eats honey, drinks skim milk, eats jello, hasd a meeping bagel--if ANY ingredient of ANYTHING he stuffs into his fuking piehole is in ANY FUKING WAY derived from animal products.....HE IS NOT ON A VEGAN DIET!

Sass that, retard?

If your friend is, in fact not eating any animal products, in any form what-so-ever, but is wearing leather Nikes or holing up his pants with a leather belt, HE IS NOT A FUKING VEGAN!

Are you fuking clear on that now, meep?

All vegans are vegetarians by logical neccessity, but not all vegetarians (which most probably includes your friend and his fuking special diet) are vegan.

Can you follow that logic, you fuking imbecile?

freakbass: there is a ton of research supporting this, like the work of Dr. Ornish

Some of your massively meep research on some meep Dr. who, like your retarded self, cannot parse the difference between not being a carnivore, not eating meat, being vgetarian, and being vegan.

Way to go meep for brains!

freakbass: Anyway, when the anti-aging nano-bot system comes online, and your body gets passed over because of your advanced Arteriosclerosis, can I have your avatar? I'm hoping to change mine in 2090 or so.. thanx

Veganism is not just a set of dietary restrictions, it's a philosophy. We don't believe in cruelty to or exploitaion of animals.

I would like to point out loki, regarding your statement:

"Veganism: Premised upon the notion that animals have rights; that those rights can be infringed upon; and those animals can be exploited.

As if.

The point of veganism is most assuredly an attempt by intellectually disingenuous, control-freak, emo-retards to assume some wishful moral superiority and tell everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast.

In that regard, they no different than pinko-commies, at least."

In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)

I stand corrected.

(by Dinozoa)

Loki, you didn't answer the question about the avatar.

Can I have yours when your animal fat encrusted body gurgles out its last pathetic hateful breath? Or as Bill Hicks would say, as the last frail haeratbeat can be seen pumping through your translucent bacon-fat skin?

I have been reading your scattered and often purposely-offensive comments for a long time here and have concluded that your avatar is the coolest thing about you. It's really nice. Good work!

Also, I never said vegans will invent nano-health devices. I could care less!

Please let me know.

kthanx,

FB

dinozoa: Veganism is not just a set of dietary restrictions, it's a philosophy. We don't believe in cruelty to or exploitaion of animals. I would like to point out loki, regarding your statement:

LOki: "Veganism: Premised upon the notion that animals have rights; that those rights can be infringed upon; and those animals can be exploited. As if. The point of veganism is most assuredly an attempt by intellectually disingenuous, control-freak, emo-retards to assume some wishful moral superiority and tell everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast. In that regard, they no different than pinko-commies, at least."

In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)

Particularly my point regarding "tell[ing] everyone else what to do with every aspect of their lives--starting with what they eat for breakfast."

freakbass: I stand corrected. (by Dinozoa)

freakbass: Loki, you didn't answer the question about the avatar.

In the unlikely event that your underwear fails to conquer you, and you manage to break free of your wet toilet paper prison with your soy enfeebled muscles... no, you may not have my avatar--though it may be the coolest thing about me, it is certainly far too cool for you. :D

freakbass: I have been reading your scattered and often purposely-offensive comments for a long time here and have concluded that your avatar is the coolest thing about you. It's really nice. Good work!

Look ye well, friends and neighbors, for I believe this is what passes as the High Art of Insulting in limp mushy Freakbassville.

Actually, now that I bother typing this, I think it's been said before -- and by and to the same people.

dinozoa:In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)

Except that Abolitionists and Feminists were fighting for rights for PEOPLE. Not furry little animals who are, by human standards of intelligence, GROSSLY RETARDED.

Savvy?

Animals are not people, and should not be treated as such.

Uart:

dinozoa:In the past, people would say the same thing about abolitiionists or feminists (except for the eating breakfast part.)

Except that Abolitionists and Feminists were fighting for rights for PEOPLE. Not furry little animals who are, by human standards of intelligence, GROSSLY RETARDED.

Savvy?

Animals are not people, and should not be treated as such.

I want to meep you like an animal.

how are your rights infringed by my vegan philosophy?

don't get hysterical guys, this is small business.

because you paint a guilty picture of a hairy knuckled woodsman with an evil brow and devil horns eating doughy-eyed baby seals by the fistful to make yourself feel holier than thou and redeem yourself of completely unrelated sin. want to stop animal cruelty? too bad. now shaddup and eat your burger.

I have never seen dinozoa exhibit such behavior here. He seems to be pretty non-confrontational about his veganism and tolerant of those who choose to eat animal products. I didn't even know he was vegan until this thread.

all vegans aren't militant PETA members. Some choose to keep their beliefs to themselves and don't force them on anyone else.

lots of vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters alike do not choose this path though, and take it personally when someone has a different philosophy than they do about diet.

To these insecure meep bags who so desperately need to change others, I say: Why don't you just take your intolerance to the next level aready and become a fundamentalist Muslim? Convert people to your beliefs and lifestyle with the sword! meep all this pussyfooting around..

Loki, understand but I just shed a tear.. :(

guitarjon: I'm ok with hairy woodsmen eating dear or whatever.

I don't think it's inappropriate to criticize the vegan philosophy. I criticize a lot of philosophies. I think platonics sucks, for example.

However, I think your arguments that veganism is bad because vegans are self-righteous assholes is incorrect. It is not a criticism of the philosophy, just a criticism of people. There are plenty of people who share your beliefs who are self-righteous assholes. This doesn't mean you're incorrect in everything you say.

I think the only intellectual integrity to this argument is hidden behind a curtain of antagony between the philosophies of veganism and consumerism, which are necessarily opposite. I don't believe eating whatever you want to eat is a natural right. I believe goverments do and should have the authority to prevent the sale or consumption of dangerous foods or medicines or whatever. I think this may be immediately offensive to the libertarians among us, but I am pretty relaxed on what foods and medicines are considered dangerous. You can smoke all the crack you want, guys. Off the top of my head even, I can't think of any food or drug I know about that I'd want the govt to ban consumption of, because I think most adults can make the decision to put whatever they want into their bodies, but I think in theory a drug that turned people into murderous sociopaths would probably be worth banning the consumption of.

To summarize, as you criticize veganism as a philosophy, so do I criticize hedonism.

dinoza: how are your rights infringed by my vegan philosophy?

Precisely the same way that our rights are infringed upon by religion--meaning none. Yet the religious, in the pursuit of their emo-irrational ideology, threaten the rights of others consistently--just like vegans.

freakbass: I have never seen dinozoa exhibit such behavior here. He seems to be pretty non-confrontational about his veganism and tolerant of those who choose to eat animal products. I didn't even know he was vegan until this thread.

meep.

freakbass: all vegans aren't militant PETA members. Some choose to keep their beliefs to themselves and don't force them on anyone else. lots of vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters alike do not choose this path though, and take it personally when someone has a different philosophy than they do about diet.

Here's a couple of things that can be claimed by meat eaters that cannot be claimed by vegans: the foundational premise of eating meat is not political, therefore it's not an issue of forcing people to eat meat; meat eaters don't make their diet a moral imperative--meat eaters don't tell you it's morally wrong to not eat meat.

As it turns out freakbass, though it may be true that "all vegans aren't militant PETA members," it is neccessarliy true that all vegans are militant--that's the nature of any political philosophy that will make you do something "for your own good" against your own will.

freakbass: To these insecure meep bags who so desperately need to change others, I say: Why don't you just take your intolerance to the next level aready and become a fundamentalist Muslim? Convert people to your beliefs and lifestyle with the sword! meep all this pussyfooting around...

Well, what you may not be considering is that when these "insecure meep bags who so desperately need to change others" (GLEE!) manage to vote little bits of their political aggenda into laws, the precise achievment they have managed is to "convert people to [their] beliefs and lifestyle with the sword."

dinoza: However, I think your arguments that veganism is bad because vegans are self-righteous assholes is incorrect. It is not a criticism of the philosophy, just a criticism of people. There are plenty of people who share your beliefs who are self-righteous assholes. This doesn't mean you're incorrect in everything you say.

Ah, you make a point--guitar_jon should have said, "Veganism makes self-righteuos assholes." The reasons are base primarily upon the argument I have asserted.

(And just because I may be a self-righteuos meep, that doesn't make my argument wrong--as you have so nicely pointed out. ;))

Veganism is not wrong because the people who subscribe to it's farcical tenets are assholes--veganism is wrong because its tenets are farcical.

dinoza: I think the only intellectual integrity to this argument is hidden behind a curtain of antagony between the philosophies of veganism and consumerism, which are necessarily opposite.

Nope, and they're not.

Nice try.

dinoza: [strawman]I don't believe eating whatever you want to eat is a natural right.[/strawman]

No one here has claimed it was.

Nice try.

dinoza: I believe goverments do and should have the authority to prevent the sale or consumption of dangerous foods or medicines or whatever.blah, blah, blah to appease the wrath of libertarian blargy blarg while holding consistent to the authoritarian premise blah, blah, blah.

A nice "we know better than you what is good for you" argument for authoritarianism--it will support my argument that veganism is just a tool for a totalitarianism, like socialism, for instance.

dinoza: To summarize, [in despration that my position has no intellectual or moral foundation] as you criticize veganism as a philosophy, so do I criticize hedonism.

No one presented hedonism to counter veganism.

Nice try. :D

_{On 2006-11-26 at 08:46:29, LOki chose to holla @ p-nis}

Loki:

it is neccessarliy true that all vegans are militant

Haha -- wut? This has got to be the most absurd thing I've ever read from you. I think probably you just bleached your intellectual warbonnet and wanted to strut around showing it off by staking some absurd contrarian position, veering it off unaccountably into familiar anti-statism territory. Are you hiding a subtle connotation of "militant" that I don't know about? I just don't see how this

that's the nature of any political philosophy that will make you do something "for your own good" against your own will.

Here's a couple of things that can be claimed by meat eaters that cannot be claimed by vegans: the foundational premise of eating meat is not political, therefore it's not an issue of forcing people to eat meat; meat eaters don't make their diet a moral imperative--meat eaters don't tell you it's morally wrong to not eat meat.

Blatantly untrue. I've been around a lot of veggies, and I've seen on numerous occasions exactly this behaviour from omnivores towards them. In fact, I see it more often than any prosyletizing by veggies (though I don't claim this anecdotal personal observation to be generally true).

but they become dangerous when they insist their delusions are good for everybody else, and consider themselves morally sanctioned to force everybody to embrace their delusions for "the greater good."

They become dangerous when others are compelled to honor those sanctions; and I think we can all agree that the veggie movement has little political power, much less the fringe vegan subset of that group. But pragmatic considerations aside, what gives you the impression that vegans, as a group, have any goal of coercing others to follow their lifestyle? I'm sure individuals exist who would like to see it happen, through government regulations on food production, but that doesn't describe veganism. It's far-leftie socialist nuttiness that you're on against. Some of them probably also want to coerce you to use public transportation -- that doesn't make bus services coercive.

The fact that some groups want to take an argument based on reason and persuasion (however much you disagree with the premises), and run it forward with coercive tactics does not make the original argument invalid or wrong in any way. It is the linking step, the view that one ought to, or has the right to, force their views on others to "help" them, that is the issue. It doesn't matter what is advocated by someone with this view.

The heart of this seems to be your view that veganism is inherently a political philosophy, rather than a personal, (debatably) healthy lifestyle choice. I can't grok that. Even prosyletizing doesn't make it political. I see how some vegans promote coercive tactics through political action, but this does not a political philosophy make. Can you explain?

Pchimp: Loki:

what LOki said

Pchimp picks vegetarianism out of veganism and tells LOki how RONG he is.

Nice try.

Nice try

Brilliant comeback.

My understanding of the terms: Vegetarianism = not eating meat products. Veganism = not utilizing any product produced from animals. An extreme form of vegetarianism.

I ask you again to explain your understanding of what veganism is. Therein lies the basis for any disagreement, I think. My post above is not meant to apply only to vegetarianism, and I'm not convoluting the terms.

_{On 2006-11-26 at 15:15:28, Pchimp chose to holla @ p-nis}

Pchimp:

Nice try

Brilliant comeback.

Pchimp: My understanding of the terms: Vegetarianism = not eating meat products. Veganism = not utilizing any product produced from animals. An extreme form of vegetarianism.

What is the point of this distinction? Do you have any idea? Have you read any of the previous posts in this thread? Your understanding is seriously lacking--and lacking from your own lack of effort. You can clik your way to wikipedia as effortlessly as anybody, why don't you just start there.

Pchimp: I ask you again to explain your understanding of what veganism is. Therein lies the basis for any disagreement, I think. My post above is not meant to apply only to vegetarianism, and I'm not convoluting the terms.

veganism: "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Catch up or be culled from the herd.

Loki:

You attacked pchimp without attacking his arguments. This is par for the course with you, and is the number one fallacy in your debating style.

Regarding the statements I made that you dismissed as so many straw-men: I didn't know this discussion was only about responding to your ill-thought assertions.

Pchimp: I think probably you just bleached your intellectual warbonnet

Highlight of this thread.

For whatever it's worth (I myself place no value), the vegans I meet nowadays are more health-conscience and way less politically radical than the ones I met 20 years ago. More than a few I know here are hardcore conservatives, albeit ones with health concerns.

Loki: Catch up or be culled from the herd.

I think it's less that I'm falling behind and more that you're leaping ahead with unwarranted extrapolations.

What is the point of this distinction? Do you have any idea?

Of course I understand the distinction. It is precisely because I understand it that I don't agree with what you've been blathering on about.

Forgiving for a moment that there are, as ghost and others point out, many vegans who do not fit the monolithic mold you'd like to carve for them; how does the decision of a group to respect animal rights (which you justifiably deny exist) infringe on your rights? Does a Jew's insistence on keeping kosher interfere with your ability to get a cheap bratwurst?

Yes, you say that they might "manage to vote little bits of their political aggenda into laws" and "convert people to [their] beliefs and lifestyle with the sword", but can't you use this argument against any group that advocates something that you don't personally agree with? It's clearly the tactic they use that is coercive in this case, not the belief they are trying to push with that tactic.

You have repeatedly asserted that vegans are out to push their values on others with authoritarian tactics because the recognition of animal rights demands it, and that this drive to coercion is implicit in veganism; but I see no evidence of this. If it were not abundantly clear, this is the claim that I challenged above and which you casually brush aside. Your arguments on this thread can't help but remind me of the meep marriage debate, wherein the religious right similarly claims that respecting meep's right to marry infringes on the sanctity of heteromeepual marriages in some way via a hand-waving argument.

Presumedly your emphasis in the definition you've pulled is meant to imply that since vegans are opposed to animal exploitation, that this necessarily implies that they will necessarily act to coerce others to give animals the same "respect." I don't buy that interpretation at all. As I've stipulated, there are plenty of vegans and veggies who do wish to do so; but it's not implicit in the philosophy. Your definition describes a way of living wherein someone votes with their pocketbook, eschewing as many products that they think are immorally produced as they can. Nothing wrong with that -- the marketplace at work.

Advocates of any lifestyle choice can become militant and try to push their beliefs politically. I don't see why you single out veganism like this. I understand where you're going getting on the rights train to emancipation junction, but I don't agree that it 1) applies to all vegans and 2) implies the necessity of coersion.

pchimp and dinozoa are totally meeping :/