vegan tells me I am an addict

[ThaHoward]

22 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

I think as long as humans have existed there have always been meat eaters and vegetarians and vegans, for various reasons, I think that for whatever reason you sustain yourself the way you do, we can't force other people to change per say, but we can give them our reasonings and inspire them to change without arguing and without compromising our beliefs. As a vegan who was a meat eater up until my 15th birthday, I can understand the belief that meat eating is natural, as we have always practiced it and believed it.....and you can always find some biased scientific study as well as unbiased scientific study to prove whatever point you're biased towards. 

 

I say that, all three diets are technically natural to humans, since we're omnivores, we can survive on solely vegetables (especially vegetables that have not been cleaned well for B12, but I digress) and a diet of meat and vegetables. Vegetarianism and veganism are mostly moral standpoints (or preferences), and it's easier to just respect each other for our differences, no matter how hard it is.

And I said I am not stupid for eating meat nor immoral. I have not made a single argument against being vegan or vegetarian. Tell me who respect the other side here.

[God of the Forest]

4 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

Your argument is still that humans only ate meat as they had fire. 

No, i never said that. All I said was we started eating eating meat AROUND the same time we discovered fire, the rest is your attempt to speak for me. My mention of fire was to provide an example of just how ancient it is to stuff one's pie hole with meat. You're putting words in my mouth

[The Dryad]

3 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

And I said I am not stupid for eating meat nor immoral. I have not made a single argument against being vegan or vegetarian. Tell me who respect the other side here.

I never said you were, nor did I attack you for eating meat, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[The Dryad]

2 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

No, i never said that. All I said was we started eating eating meat AROUND the same time we discovered fire, the rest id your attempt to speak for me. My mention of fire was to provide an example of just how ancient it is to stuff one's pie hole with meat. You're putting words in my mouth

It is true though, humans began to eat meat excessively when fire was discovered, but they did sun dry and cook it before then as well (probably). And ate it raw (gag).

[ThaHoward]

13 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

Just because you did not make up these cultural norms, does not mean that you do not have the responsibility for your actions, people do many evil things in the name of tradition and cultural norms, does it make it right?

I hardly see any evil in not eating dogs.

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

I hardly see any evil in not eating dogs.

That's the argument, because you're a by-product of these cultural norms created by society, you refuse to acknowledge that both cows and dogs have the same will to live, or you just don't care.

[ThaHoward]

7 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

No, i never said that. All I said was we started eating eating meat AROUND the same time we discovered fire, the rest is your attempt to speak for me. My mention of fire was to provide an example of just how ancient it is to stuff one's pie hole with meat. You're putting words in my mouth

But humans, or the ancestors, ate meat before they controlled fire. And 1 million year is a long time in human perspective. When you compare it to inventing fire, you  compare it to human inventions and create a link between fire and meat. But the fact is that humans did not start to eat meat around the same time which you claim are a fact. But yes tvat is true if humans started to drive cars and control fire at the same time, but I doubt you would say that even if the earth is 5 billion years. 

[ThaHoward]

2 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

That's the argument, because you're a by-product of these cultural norms created by society, you refuse to acknowledge that both cows and dogs have the same will to live, or you just don't care.

Have I said they don't? That is your conclusion. But interesting you know more of me than I do.

[ThaHoward]

15 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

I never said you were, nor did I attack you for eating meat, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I replied to a quote of yours where I quoted another user. So that is what I am talking of. 

[The Dryad]

Just now, ThaHoward said:

Have I said they don't? That is your conclusion. But interesting you know more of me than I do.

The fact that you eat meat is the proof I need. You acknowledge that there is a disparity between which animals people eat as compared to countries, and you acknowledge that you think that meat eating is "delicious and not immoral", therefore you see nothing wrong with the social norms around you.

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

I replied to a quote of yours where I quoted another user. So that is what I am talking of. 

Oh, the quote where I said nothing against meat eating in general? I still don't know what you're talking about.

[God of the Forest]

10 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

But humans, or the ancestors, ate meat before they controlled fire. And 1 million year is a long time in human perspective. When you compare it to inventing fire, you  compare it to human inventions and create a link between fire and meat. But the fact is that humans did not start to eat meat around the same time which you claim are a fact. But yes tvat is true if humans started to drive cars and control fire at the same time, but I doubt you would say that even if the earth is 5 billion years. 

I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AS I SAID MY POINT THAT I WAS MAKING USING HYPERBOLE WAS TO SAY THAT WE"VE BEEN EATING MEAT FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME!! NOW BACK THE FUCK OFF!

[ThaHoward]

3 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

Oh, the quote where I said nothing against meat eating in general? I still don't know what you're talking about.

I quoted a post where someone said people who eat meat are stupid. 

 

I made a reply where I said it don't make me stupid or immoral.

 

You then quoted me saying one need to respect others.

 

Since you replied to my reply I then asked who respect other opinions. Those who say group x are stupid and immoral or the one who have not critisized either side, only saying they are not stupid? Read the contex of the posts you reply to next time.

[The Dryad]

Just now, ThaHoward said:

I quoted a post where someone said people who eat meat are stupid. 

 

I made a reply where I said it don't make me stupid or immoral.

 

You then quoted me saying one need to respect others.

 

Since you replied to my reply I then asked who respect other opinions. Those who say group x are stupid and immoral or the one who have not critisized either side, only saying they are not stupid? Read the contex of the posts you reply to next time.

Actually, I was saying that we should respect each other, so I know the context of my own writing.

[ThaHoward]

3 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AS I SAID MY POINT THAT I WAS MAKING USING HYPERBOLE WAS TO SAY THAT WE"VE BEEN EATING MEAT FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME!! NOW BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Say it is a hyperbole next time and not a fact. Two different things, and I reply to where I want to thank you.

[ThaHoward]

Just now, The Dryad said:

Actually, I was saying that we should respect each other, so I know the context of my own writing.

And how is that relevant when I have not disrespected anyone? (Of course unless eating meat make me immoral).

[The Dryad]

Just now, ThaHoward said:

And how is that relevant when I have not disrespected anyone? (Of course unless eating meat make me immoral).

It was a generalization towards this subject, not meant towards you or the person you quoted; you were the one who got defensive.

[Zosia]

I'm just going to throw this out there to hopefully de-escalate this conversation since it seems to be getting out of hand: if it's any consolation, I don't think that that person you are talking about actually meant that they believed meat eaters to be stupid and immoral. I think that they were just pointing out the main comments on both sides to make fun of how people are just going 'round and 'round in a circle.

[God of the Forest]

Just now, ThaHoward said:

Say it is a hyperbole next time and not a fact. Two different things, and I reply to where I want to thank you.

    Well one tends to assume that my use of flexible terms like "pretty much" and "around" would mean that I'm not making statements in terms of absolutes, thats why I used those words to provide leeway to what it is I was saying so that people wouldnt assume things about what I was saying or put words in my mouth...I guess I'll have to just provide clarification for people who don't understand the english language next time

[Zosia]

5 hours ago, euco said:

Meat is delicious!

 

Meat is nutritious!

 

Meat is disgusting!

 

Eating meat regularly demonstrates that one is immoral and stupid!

 

Vegans cannot honestly deny that meat is delicious!

 

Meat-eaters cannot honestly deny that meat is disgusting and immoral!

 

Vegans and meat-eaters are both stupid at times, defending their assumptions and behavior!

 

Everyone has a free choice, so let people eat what they want!

 

If people choose to be stupid and immoral, one must accept it!

 

lol

 

You're talking about this comment, ThaHoward?

[ThaHoward]

4 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

It was a generalization towards this subject, not meant towards you or the person you quoted; you were the one who got defensive.

When you quote someone, especially every second with completely different topics, it is usually taken as you direct it at them. It is also confusing as it is difficult keeping track on whats being said.

[The Dryad]

Just now, ThaHoward said:

When you quote someone, especially every second, it is usually taken as you direct it at them.

When you quote someone, it can also be a continuation of conversation of the same subject as well.

[God of the Forest]

3 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

When you quote someone, especially every second, it is usually taken as you direct it at them.

  Not neccessarily, I often (not in this case but often) quote people to make a comment or addition to their statement and not direct it at them

[ThaHoward]

Try then 10 quotes at a time spanning from respecting others to serial killers to being part of evil. It kinda make it difficult to keep track on everything at once. And a quote is to make a statement to the specific post.

[God of the Forest]

1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

Try then 10 quotes at a time spanning from respecting others to serial killers to being part of evil. It kinda make it difficult to keep track on everything at once. And a quote is to make a statement to the specific post.

  Yeah to the post but not necessarily the person making it

[The Dryad]

Just now, ThaHoward said:

Try then 10 quotes at a time spanning from respecting others to serial killers to being part of evil. It kinda make it difficult to keep track on everything at once. And a quote is to make a statement to the specific post.

I was not attacking you, nor exactly attacking your ideals, but rather trying to explain to position of vegans, quotes are sometimes meant towards the commenter, but in this case there are many other commenters talking about a different subject, in this case it's a continuation of conversation.

[ThaHoward]

Maybe. But it is more difficult, as said, when they instead of making one post create a post every second where one post speak of evil norms, then serial killers and then that you have to respect others.

[God of the Forest]

2 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

I was not attacking you, nor exactly attacking your ideals, but rather trying to explain to position of vegans, quotes are sometimes meant towards the commenter, but in this case there are many other commenters talking about a different subject, in this case it's a continuation of conversation.

 lol if anyone was "attacked" in this thread it was me 

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

Maybe. But it is more difficult, as said, when they instead of making one post create a post every second where one post speak of evil norms, then serial killers and then that you have to respect others.

Those posts were created in relevance to the subject matter if the original post.

[The Dryad]

3 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

 lol if anyone was "attacked" in this thread it was me 

Lol I think you held your own pretty well though, good job fellow forest person