or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Death or This God-awful threak?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Death or This God-awful threak? - Page 15

post #211 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I think we need a group hug and then a tofu burger. No bun for me, as I'm out to save the carbs.

how can you discriminate that way you are willing to exploi the suffering of soy beans, but do not wish to harm wheat you are being rported to the plant´s right groupd as i write this.
post #212 of 345
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I think we need a group hug and then a tofu burger. No bun for me, as I'm out to save the carbs.
I had tofu yesterday for lunch. Tofu with delicious dolphins.
post #213 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
If everyone converts to vegetarianism (as people like Nosu propose), the mass production necessary to feed everyone will create environmental problems as well.

I've never proposed that the entire population should become vegetarian. We've been over this several times.
post #214 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I think we need a group hug and then a tofu burger. No bun for me, as I'm out to save the carbs.

But if you don't eat the baked potato you're disqualified!
post #215 of 345
Plants are people too!
post #216 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophe View Post
I was once at a reading by Isaac Bashevis Singer, who was a vegetarian. Asked about his vegetarianism, he replied, "I have never heard a carrot scream."

Whether carrots scream in a way inaudible to human ears, I do not know.
Mandrake roots were known to scream. Not a sound you wanted to hear as it was generally said to be fatal.
post #217 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitAkira View Post
Plants are people too!
Wow good one, haven't seen that another 20 times.
post #218 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I have no idea why you quoted me here. In no way, shape, or form does this link refute my comment. Please do not say it was not meant to, as then quoting me was a complete non sequitur.

Pio, I encourage you to take a step back for a minute. I'm going to tell you that in no way was the quote meant to refute your position, although this is likely going to cause your ad hominem generator to go into overdrive. It was meant simply to provide evidence to address the arguments you and Samus were having, since neither of you saw fit to argue from the authority of any more than your saintly opinions. If you bothered to read the article, which I doubt you did, at least in much detail, you'll notice that it addressed the very issue you brought up, namely the use of non-arable land for non-plant sources of food.

I'll even do you the solid of quoting the relevant section:

Quote:
But Eshel hastens to add"”and The Lantern wholeheartedly agrees"”that your vegan acquaintance isn't necessarily some environmental saint. That's because direct carbon dioxide emissions are only part of the story when it comes to food's eco-impact. You also have to look at the issue of land use"”specifically how much and what sort of land is required to sustain an agricultural enterprise. In a region with poor-to-mediocre soil, for example, it may be more efficient to operate a well-managed egg farm than to try growing vegetables that can't flourish under such conditions. And animals are handy at consuming low-quality grain that isn't necessarily fit for human consumption.

How handy! It actually supports, at least in part, your argument. You can thank me later.
post #219 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
Pio, I encourage you to take a step back for a minute. I'm going to tell you that in no way was the quote meant to refute your position, although this is likely going to cause your ad hominem generator to go into overdrive. It was meant simply to provide evidence to address the arguments you and Samus were having, since neither of you saw fit to argue from the authority of any more than your saintly opinions. If you bothered to read the article, which I doubt you did, at least in much detail, you'll notice that it addressed the very issue you brought up, namely the use of non-arable land for non-plant sources of food. I'll even do you the solid of quoting the relevant section: How handy! It actually supports, at least in part, your argument. You can thank me later.
I read the article but did not bother to post the quote above. You need to step back. Read this post, addressed in part to me, and think of why it clearly appears you are attempting a refutation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
OK, gents, I know it's inconvenient to let facts get in the way, but Slate examined this very question: http://www.slate.com/id/2176420
Why would these facts be "inconvenient" and "in the way" unless they countered my post? This makes zero sense. And to the thought my post was merely my "saintly opinion"? Is it beyond the realm of possibility I already possessed the knowledge to make that post with confidence in the position? That I could provide support if someone was so silly as to put forth non-arable land is NOT used for grazing? I like how you are twittering about ad homs yet toss in phrases like "saintly opinion." You are easily the most amusing poster this week.
post #220 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Why would these facts be "inconvenient" and "in the way" unless they countered my post? This makes zero sense.

Let me make it obvious for you:

(1) I addressed both you and Samus.
(2) You were having an argument, each expressing opposing viewpoints.
(3) Neither of you cited evidence (or presented any authority) to back up your claims.
(4) I posted a link to an article that backed up some of his claims, and some of yours.

At this point, if it's not painfully clear that I intended only to provide the evidence so sorely lacking in your exchange, there's not much more that I can do. You'd do a lot better trying to come to some common ground with folks instead of viewing every interaction as an opportunity to hone your adversarial bonafides.

And the use of the terms "inconvenient" and "in the way" is more a commentary on the way argumentation is done in these precincts, where opinion is largely bantered about as fact. But even if I was tarring only you and Samus with those epithets, you'll notice that I applied it to you both--hardly a searing refutation of your position.
post #221 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
Let me make it obvious for you:

(1) I addressed both you and Samus.
(2) You were having an argument, each expressing opposing viewpoints.
(3) Neither of you cited evidence (or presented any authority) to back up your claims.
(4) I posted a link to an article that backed up some of his claims, and some of yours.

At this point, if it's not painfully clear that I intended only to provide the evidence so sorely lacking in your exchange, there's not much more that I can do. You'd do a lot better trying to come to some common ground with folks instead of viewing every interaction as an opportunity to hone your adversarial bonafides.

And the use of the terms "inconvenient" and "in the way" is more a commentary on the way argumentation is done in these precincts, where opinion is largely bantered about as fact. But even if I was tarring only you and Samus with those epithets, you'll notice that I applied it to you both--hardly a searing refutation of your position.

Let me make things obvious for you.

If you had actually read carefully, you'd see that Samus and I did not express opposing viewpoints. The two statements could obviously co-exist in reality and are not in opposition to each other, as "arable land" and "non-arable land" are two completely different sub-types of "land."

Also, from the above, you seem to be taking the stance that all claims must immediately be backed up by citations? I do not see you living up to this standard, why do you feel so strongly others must and that you have provided some dazzling source of new information in this case?

I like how you consistently do not apply the standards you want in others to yourself (the best was using a curse word when bemoaning about "civil discourse") and fail to see your own foibles. It does make for amusing interchanges though.
post #222 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Let me make things obvious for you.

If you had actually read carefully, you'd see that Samus and I did not express opposing viewpoints. The two statements could obviously co-exist in reality and are not in opposition to each other, as "arable land" and "non-arable land" are two completely different sub-types of "land."

OK, fine. For the sake of harmony I'll concede that you were expressing complementary views. But that does nothing to suggest I was trying to refute your argument. If I believed that you were arguing (and from the tenor of this thread, that's not hard to believe), my appeal to authority smacks only of trying to add some small factual clarity to the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Also, from the above, you seem to be taking the stance that all claims must immediately be backed up by citations? I do not see you living up to this standard, why do you feel so strongly others must and that you have provided some dazzling source of new information in this case?

Oh heavens no, no one's under any such obligation. I just think it would make for better arguments and a diminished reliance on the ad hominem.

I should point out that I'm so rarely involved in anything on the CE forum, where most argumentation occurs, and when I do, it's usually just to make a silly comment that's in no way involved in the actual line of argument. The only time I was actively involved in a serious discussion was several years ago, when Manton and I tussled over the Iraq War. And let me tell you, that argument was heavily cited. It was lost in the Great Forum Crash, but ask some older members about it. They might remember. It was a doozy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I like how you consistently do not apply the standards you want in others to yourself (the best was using a curse word when bemoaning about "civil discourse") and fail to see your own foibles. It does make for amusing interchanges though.

It's just my opinion, but I think conflating one of the most mild of swear words (and its use in the most mild of contexts) with words that insult an entire class of people is a tad disingenuous. There are degrees of civility (a standard I'd be more than willing to admit I don't, with all my human foibles, always live up to), but I hope you'd agree that two are of a completely different class.

I know you think otherwise, but I want to assure you again that I wasn't trying to pick a fight. My only intention was to clarify the issue at hand, which is why I was so bewildered by your reply. Was I a bit snarky about it? Sure. But the snark factor here goes to 11, and I'm often no less immune to it than the next member. Some of us genuinely are trying to find common ground. We may sometimes be awkward in how we go about it. I hope you'll accept that and agree with me to move on.
post #223 of 345
I am 60% vegetarian, 40% carnivore.

I didn't know which to choose in poll, but I might keel over if I had to go 100% vegan.
post #224 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage Gent View Post
Some of us genuinely are trying to find common ground. We may sometimes be awkward in how we go about it. I hope you'll accept that and agree with me to move on.

Indeed, let us move on. While I am admittedly fast to define the opposition I also am fast, and repeated in my attempts, to find common ground. All too often the common ground is rejected, in lieu of the differences, and I'm the first to admit when the common ground is rejected I will then relentlessly pursue argument when the parley flag is ignored.
post #225 of 345
Serious question, is kopi luwak vegan?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Death or This God-awful threak?