| usual suspect |
For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
how they interact with normal people.
The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
"principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
anti-"decorating," etc.).
Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
(Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
for her.
As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
*had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
****ed up he really thinks she is.
The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
with the Cajun family.
|
|
|
| S. Maizlich |
Karen Winter took another ****:
> [...]
**** OFF, Karen. You are peddling the same
discredited, responsibility-shirking bull**** you
always did.
|
|
|
| Beach Runner |
usual suspect wrote:
> For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
> because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
> would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
> vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
> how they interact with normal people.
>
> The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
> to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
> household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
> street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
> "principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
> their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
> spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
>
> The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
> things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
> within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
> so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
> fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
> avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
> bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
> things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
> were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
> and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
> anti-"decorating," etc.).
>
> Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
> necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
> assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
> meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
> condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
> didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
> from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>
> During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
> hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
> all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
> experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
> (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
> for her.
>
> As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
> vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
> rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
> week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
> she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
> stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
> exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
>
> Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
> the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
> up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
> normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
> brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
> maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
> *had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
> ****ed up he really thinks she is.
>
> The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
> to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
> about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
> telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
> as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>
> I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
> entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
> especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
> therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
> interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
> cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
> with the Cajun family.
A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted. Obviously the producers sought
extremists to make the sure more interesting.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
usual suspect wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Animals on concrete.
>>> It has benefits.
>> Only to the producer.
> Also to the livestock.
No.
> Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and
> disinfect and provide a more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.
They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including
crippling, if animals are kept on them continually. People
who are concerned about the animals' welfare can keep animals,
such as companion horses, dogs, or animals in university husbandry
programs, on bedding on top of hard surfaces. See Bernard
Rollin's book on farm animal welfare. Raking out the bedding
adds an additional step, but then the flooring can be disinfected
(as with Nolvasan or bleach) and clean bedding put in. The animals
are then comfortable as well as clean, and the crippling foot
problems eliminated.
>>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.
>> Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.
> They're not overcrowded.
They are.
> It would still be necessary for sanitation and
> hygiene.
No. Many keepers of companion animals and small-scale
farmers demonstrate it is not, by using bedding for their
animals.
>>> 2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
>>> environmentally-friendly.
>> Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
>> kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
>> which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.
> It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or
> one-thousand birds have been raised on it.
After the manure has been removed with the dirty bedding.
It only becomes a problem when very large amounts of manure
are produced.
>> Traditional farms
> The images I linked to ARE traditional farms.
Nope. I looked at them. They are not. Take a look
at some of the pictures in James Herriot's books
on life in rural Yorkshire to see what traditional farms
looked like as recently as the 1940's.
> You have romantic, idyllic
> notions that may prevail in communities with lots of New Age-y airheads
> (SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far from reality.
>> used animal waste as fertilizer for their
>> crops.
> That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.
I.e., where traditional farms still exist.
>> It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
>> farms create massive environmental pollution.
> Not universally,
usually
> and not to the scale of environmental degradation which
> has already occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering
> erosion).
Ipse dixit. Who says agribusiness monocropping is ecologically
sound either?
You frequently accuse vegans of being unethical by claiming
they are simply not as bad as others. Here you have used the
same argument: factory farming is O.K. because it is not as bad
as agribusiness monocropping. That does not make it *good* or
ethical. It is also not demonstrated to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information
> You mean DISinformation.
No, information. They work within the system to correct
abuses in animal production industries, such as by
passing "downer" laws, and they rescue abused "food"
animals.
Send them a donation for one of their rescued turkeys for
Thanksgiving or Christmas. I do. www.adoptaturkey.org
I'll help sponsor Pumpkin this year. I also donate
to the poultry at Kindred Spirits Sanctuary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> They cannot even breed by themselves,
>> because their breasts are too big.
> Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
> white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
> penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to their
> breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) would
> have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if they
> reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long before
> they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 weeks;
> they become sexually mature in a year.
My point exactly. You support my argument that the turkeys
have been deliberately crippled and deformed for human
convenience. No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
such as reproduction. No animal should be slaughtered before
even reaching maturity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> those two farmers slaughtered all their
>>> sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?
>> "Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
>> find that a convincing argument.
> Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider any
> unintended consequences of their specious positions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any action can have unintended consequences. If they were
unintended, by definition they would not have been obvious
before the action was taken. The point is that the slaughter
of the animals was also neither necessary nor in keeping with
the purpose of the law. It was a mean-spirited and cruel
action which harmed the pigs *unnecessarily* and for no benefit
to the producers (unless they sold the slaughtered pigs, which
they would have done anyway.) It is a shabby excuse for a
thoroughly unethical act on the part of the *producers* which
was no fault of the law or those opposed to confinement farming.
> The amendment in
> question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The amendment's
> consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results,
Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig
production starting up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Dutch |
"Beach Runner" <bob@nospam.com> wrote
> A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one behavior.
> How prejudicial and bigoted.
The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.
> Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
> interesting.
The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and eating mostly
meat.
The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts, fruit,
vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most of their food from the
local woods. The issue of cds never came up, but I am quite sure that once
the hidden collateral cost in animal death and suffering was tallied up, the
hunter family would fare quite well by comparison.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
Karen Winter belched:
>
> No. Many keepers of companion animals
Pets. They're called pets, Karen. Drop the PC
newspeak, and call them by their proper name: pets.
|
|
|
| Scented Nectar |
"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:E7cef.19830$th3.4226@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
> because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
> would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
> vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
> how they interact with normal people.
>
> The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
> to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
> household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
> street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
> "principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
> their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
> spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
>
> The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
> things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
> within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
> so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
> fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
> avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
> bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
> things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
> were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
> and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
> anti-"decorating," etc.).
>
> Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
> necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
> assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
> meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
> condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
> didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
> from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>
> During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
> hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
> all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
> experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
> (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
> for her.
>
> As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
> vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
> rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
> week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
> she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
> stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
> exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
>
> Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
> the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
> up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
> normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
> brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
> maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
> *had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
> ****ed up he really thinks she is.
>
> The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
> to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
> about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
> telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
> as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>
> I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
> entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
> especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
> therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
> interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
> cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
> with the Cajun family.
You are assuming all vegans are like
each other. It's like watching Jerry
Springer and coming to the conclusion
that all couples have bizarre problems.
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
|
|
|
| rick |
"Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> wrote in message
news:dlsses$fid$1@reader2.nmix.net...
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> There are few examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue
>> of collateral deaths.
>
> There are equally few non-vegans who know about or
> acknowledge them. You are not applying an equal standard
> to them.
========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot fool! There is no equal,need for them to
know. They aren't claiming to live their lives in such a way as
to kill no/fewer/less animals, dolt. That is what YOU are doing.
Vegans come here claiming they care, and usually that they have
'completely' research their diet, and we know that that is a ly.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> and irrelevant in any case.
>
>> It's relevant, Karen. In fact, "don't harm animals" is the
>> foundation of veganism. We know vegans continue to harm
>> animals through either ignorant consumption or ambivelant
>> consumption.
>
> So do non-vegans -- and they add an additional list of harms
> by using animal products. It is easier for a vegan to reduce
> harm by choosing less harmful vegetable products than for a
> non-vegan to reduce harm by continuing to use animal products.
==========================
No, fool, it is not. Tell us what those "less harmful"
vegetables are, killer. You, amd no other vegan has even tried
to find out which veggies cause more/less death and suffering.
It's quite easy for a meat eater to easily and quickly change to
a grass-fed, free-range, or game animals and immediately reduce
the impact that *YOU* calim to care about.
>
>>> Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
>>> animal products.
>
>> Veganism doesn't even address that issue. Vegans suggests
>> they're not harming animals by not eating them, not wearing
>> their hides, not using products tested on animals, and so on.
>
> Insofar as that is true, they are not.
>
>> That's all rhetorical -- in practice, their consumption
>> continues to harm animals by giving up a fraction of an animal
>> at a meal and instead causing many more animals to die from
>> crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
>> predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
>> petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.
>
> All those things can be changed as vegans become aware of them.
========================
No, they can't. Because as vegans like to say, 'you can't feed
the world' on some meaningless gesture, hypocrite.
> They begin from a better foundation, and a better basic
> philosophy, and have to change fewer things if/when they come
> to know more about other aspects of their consumption.
>
> How can anyone move toward more humane consumption based on
> your philosophy of "it doesn't matter how much harm
> consumers cause to animals if humans find the results more
> tasty or convenient for them"?
==============================
Tell us then how you do it? Afterall, your diet is based on YOUR
taste and conveninece and still kills massive numbers of animals.
Numbers that *could* be reduced tomorrow if your chose the right
meat, eh killer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| RobDar |
First...I am not sure it is fair to generalize the vegan lifestyle and
assume they are all like the goof pot on the show...
I cannot say that I have known more than a handful of vegans...but none of
them were as...interesting...as the lady on wife swap.
Our conversation during the show?....Where the hell do they find all these
people? Nearly everyone on these shows has some serious quirk or
another...I guess living my " average joe american" life in my hard working
neighborhood on a blue collar street...I have lost touch with just how many
off kilter folks there are around me!
There is a part of me that feels sorry for people like her. There is
something sorely lacking in their lives. Some part of themselves that is
empty and out of balance....anyone with so strict a mind set or activist
personality, and I mean those people who have become so engrossed that they
have lost the ability/willingness to understand and/or associate with people
outside their idealology, has something missing in themselves. People look
at activists and see dedication and strength of conviction...I see weakness.
I deal with activists and "want to be" activists everyday and you cannot
talk to even one of them. If offered a descenting opinion they react with
emotional outcry...why?...because they nothing else to offer. They are the
perpetual victims. People who, if they do not have some cause or issue to
rally around and cry about, have very little else about themselves to make
them feel alive or valued.
"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:E7cef.19830$th3.4226@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
> because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show would
> benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a vegan. It
> showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and how they
> interact with normal people.
>
> The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat) to
> consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
> household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
> street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
> "principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
> their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
> spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
>
> The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the things
> most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most within her
> control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing so for the
> consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no fear of
> consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to avoid coming
> home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing, bitching,
> domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane things;
> he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family were kind
> of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold and the
> daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
> anti-"decorating," etc.).
>
> Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
> necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
> assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with meat)
> and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
> condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I didn't
> think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara from
> Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>
> During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
> hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
> all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole experience
> to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband (Ricky)
> apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic for her.
>
> As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
> vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
> rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
> week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
> she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
> stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
> exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
>
> Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
> the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
> up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
> normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
> brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
> maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she *had*
> taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how ****ed
> up he really thinks she is.
>
> The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try to
> proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
> about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
> telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across as
> emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>
> I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
> entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
> especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
> therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
> interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
> cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat with
> the Cajun family.
|
|
|
| C. James Strutz |
"RobDar" <robdar@houndsong.com> wrote in message
news:nXlef.10$%L5.5@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
> First...I am not sure it is fair to generalize the vegan lifestyle and
> assume they are all like the goof pot on the show...
You're right, it's unfair to make wide generalizations about any group of
people.
> I cannot say that I have known more than a handful of vegans...but none of
> them were as...interesting...as the lady on wife swap.
> Our conversation during the show?....Where the hell do they find all these
> people? Nearly everyone on these shows has some serious quirk or
> another...I guess living my " average joe american" life in my hard
> working neighborhood on a blue collar street...I have lost touch with just
> how many off kilter folks there are around me!
You're right again. It's a reality show and producers screen people and put
them in circumstances that provide the best entertainment value. It's silly
for anyone to believe that characters on some reality show are
representitive of, well, reality....
> There is a part of me that feels sorry for people like her. There is
> something sorely lacking in their lives. Some part of themselves that is
> empty and out of balance....anyone with so strict a mind set or activist
> personality, and I mean those people who have become so engrossed that
> they have lost the ability/willingness to understand and/or associate with
> people outside their idealology, has something missing in themselves.
> People look at activists and see dedication and strength of conviction...I
> see weakness. I deal with activists and "want to be" activists everyday
> and you cannot talk to even one of them. If offered a descenting opinion
> they react with emotional outcry...why?...because they nothing else to
> offer. They are the perpetual victims. People who, if they do not have
> some cause or issue to rally around and cry about, have very little else
> about themselves to make them feel alive or valued.
Strength and weakness is a dichotomy - there cannot be one without the
other. Don't pity people like the woman in the reality show. She obviously
feels as though her ideology is a strength, not a weakness. It's not that
they're "perpetual victims", rather their focus is so narrow that there's
very little overlap with mainstream thinking. That's okay as long as it
doesn't hurt anyone or anything.
|
|
|
| RobDar |
You are right C.J....the question is...do they hurt anyone?
I do not know. I think that the effect extremist positions have on public
opinion can be damaging...it can be helpful as well...I guess the question
of whether they hurt anyone can only be answered with "It depends on what
kind of damage you are looking for". I think that many of the extremist
positions have some unintended social consequences. I think these positions
sometimes allow questionable laws and questionable practices to enter the
mainstream as a kind of "tolerable compromise" or a "lesser of two evils"
kind of thing.
and you are right...all of this is okay...but as Mark Twain said...the
weakest of all things is a virtue that has not been tested in fire. I find
that the narrow focus of many of the extremists I come across is narrow for
just this reason...their virtue will not withstand fire...or even discussion
of dissenting opinion. I find these people very troubling...
"C. James Strutz" <strutzj@NOSPAMstrutz.com> wrote in message
news:11njvj5mqks7u17@news.supernews.com...
>
> "RobDar" <robdar@houndsong.com> wrote in message
> news:nXlef.10$%L5.5@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
>> First...I am not sure it is fair to generalize the vegan lifestyle and
>> assume they are all like the goof pot on the show...
>
> You're right, it's unfair to make wide generalizations about any group of
> people.
>
>> I cannot say that I have known more than a handful of vegans...but none
>> of them were as...interesting...as the lady on wife swap.
>> Our conversation during the show?....Where the hell do they find all
>> these people? Nearly everyone on these shows has some serious quirk or
>> another...I guess living my " average joe american" life in my hard
>> working neighborhood on a blue collar street...I have lost touch with
>> just how many off kilter folks there are around me!
>
> You're right again. It's a reality show and producers screen people and
> put them in circumstances that provide the best entertainment value. It's
> silly for anyone to believe that characters on some reality show are
> representitive of, well, reality....
>
>> There is a part of me that feels sorry for people like her. There is
>> something sorely lacking in their lives. Some part of themselves that is
>> empty and out of balance....anyone with so strict a mind set or activist
>> personality, and I mean those people who have become so engrossed that
>> they have lost the ability/willingness to understand and/or associate
>> with people outside their idealology, has something missing in
>> themselves. People look at activists and see dedication and strength of
>> conviction...I see weakness. I deal with activists and "want to be"
>> activists everyday and you cannot talk to even one of them. If offered a
>> descenting opinion they react with emotional outcry...why?...because they
>> nothing else to offer. They are the perpetual victims. People who, if
>> they do not have some cause or issue to rally around and cry about, have
>> very little else about themselves to make them feel alive or valued.
>
> Strength and weakness is a dichotomy - there cannot be one without the
> other. Don't pity people like the woman in the reality show. She obviously
> feels as though her ideology is a strength, not a weakness. It's not that
> they're "perpetual victims", rather their focus is so narrow that there's
> very little overlap with mainstream thinking. That's okay as long as it
> doesn't hurt anyone or anything.
>
|
|
|
| RobDar |
Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?
There are a fair number of folks who think that crap is real...and the way
it is!
"Scented Nectar" <me@scentednectar.com> wrote in message
news:qJmdnTRkuOeWxeTenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@rogers.com...
> "usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:E7cef.19830$th3.4226@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
>> because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
>> would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
>> vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
>> how they interact with normal people.
>>
>> The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
>> to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
>> household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
>> street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
>> "principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
>> their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
>> spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
>>
>> The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
>> things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
>> within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
>> so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
>> fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
>> avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
>> bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
>> things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
>> were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
>> and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
>> anti-"decorating," etc.).
>>
>> Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
>> necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
>> assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
>> meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
>> condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
>> didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
>> from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>>
>> During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
>> hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
>> all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
>> experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
>> (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
>> for her.
>>
>> As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
>> vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
>> rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
>> week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
>> she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
>> stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
>> exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
>>
>> Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
>> the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
>> up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
>> normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
>> brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
>> maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
>> *had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
>> ****ed up he really thinks she is.
>>
>> The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
>> to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
>> about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
>> telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
>> as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>>
>> I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
>> entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
>> especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
>> therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
>> interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
>> cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
>> with the Cajun family.
>
> You are assuming all vegans are like
> each other. It's like watching Jerry
> Springer and coming to the conclusion
> that all couples have bizarre problems.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>
>
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Beach Runner wrote:
>> For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
>> because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
>> would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
>> vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe,
>> and how they interact with normal people.
>>
>> The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the
>> cat) to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself
>> and her household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to
>> strangers on the street in an attempt to get them to live according to
>> her peculiar "principles." Part of those principles at home included
>> getting rid of their stove and many of their possessions; her home
>> became increasingly spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan
>> abyss.
>>
>> The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
>> things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
>> within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears
>> doing so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he
>> expressed no fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also
>> overworks to avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy
>> navel-gazing, sun-gazing, bitching, domineering, and protesting to
>> clean house or do other mundane things; he's adopted the role of
>> housemaid by default. The whole family were kind of drifting apart and
>> becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold and the daughter afraid to
>> speak up about any of the changes (dietary, anti-"decorating," etc.).
>>
>> Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out
>> of necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile,
>> Jackie assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled
>> with meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are,
>> she's condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit,
>> though, I didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan
>> witch Barbara from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>>
>> During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
>> hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to
>> an all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
>> experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
>> (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
>> for her.
>>
>> As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year,
>> the vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from
>> animal rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for
>> an entire week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them,
>> even though she said she's seen them many times before. Though the
>> kids were briefly stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are
>> atypical), they didn't exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and
>> fruits.
>>
>> Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed.
>> Since the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but
>> haven't given up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the
>> stove Bobbi (the normal wife who ended up having to deal with
>> milquetoast Harold) had brought in and has even resumed eating some
>> cooked foods. She admitted maybe she was taking things too far. I'm
>> sure her husband agrees she *had* taken things too far, even if he
>> lacks the courage to tell her how ****ed up he really thinks she is.
>>
>> The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
>> to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and
>> aggressive about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and
>> informative by telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end
>> up coming across as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>>
>> I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's
>> very entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population
>> -- especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally,
>> it's therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to
>> benefit from interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is
>> again eating cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara)
>> even ate meat with the Cajun family.
>
>
> A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
> behavior.
The Koplin family from Arizona are much more typical of vegans,
especially raw faddists, than they're atypical.
> How prejudicial and bigoted.
Vegans ARE prejudiced bigots.
> Obviously the producers sought
> extremists to make the sure more interesting.
Irrelevant. I pointed out that the inclusion of nuts makes shows like
this more interesting (see my first point in the last paragraph, dumb
ass). Vegans are kooks. They're extremists. They don't mesh well with
normal people. That's why they tend to make shows like this interesting
and amusing.
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Skanky whined:
>>For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
>>because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
>>would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
>>vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
>>how they interact with normal people.
>>
>>The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
>>to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
>>household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
>>street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
>>"principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
>>their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
>>spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
>>
>>The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
>>things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
>>within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
>>so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
>>fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
>>avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
>>bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
>>things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
>>were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
>>and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
>>anti-"decorating," etc.).
>>
>>Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
>>necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
>>assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
>>meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
>>condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
>>didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
>>from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>>
>>During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
>>hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
>>all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
>>experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
>>(Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
>>for her.
>>
>>As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
>>vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
>>rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
>>week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
>>she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
>>stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
>>exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
>>
>>Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
>>the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
>>up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
>>normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
>>brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
>>maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
>>*had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
>>****ed up he really thinks she is.
>>
>>The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
>>to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
>>about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
>>telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
>>as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>>
>>I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
>>entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
>>especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
>>therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
>>interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
>>cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
>>with the Cajun family.
>
> You are assuming all vegans are like
> each other.
They are, generally speaking. Vegans are conformists; they conform to a
doctrinaire, sanctimonious position that they have to save the world. I
should've pointed out above that Jackie's focus on the things most out
of her control and avoids dealing with the things most within her
control is typical of vegans. Vegans tend to be emotionally immature
(e.g., crying through repeated showings of AR videos) and obsess about
things they cannot control; they let the things they CAN control go
downhill -- whether it's a career, family, pet, etc. (And Jackie's case
shows how far and quickly someone can sink into the abyss. Her focus was
on things completely outside her control -- saving the animals. She
didn't work, she didn't tend to her home or family, she didn't tend well
to herself. Sound familiar, carless agoraphobic pothead Skanky?)
As an extremist and absolutist pseudo-philosophy, veganism is both
dogmatic and monolithic. There's not much difference philosophically,
politically, tempermentally between vegans. There are only degrees
separating the hard-core out-of-touch zealots and those who admire them
(including wannabes).
> It's like watching Jerry
> Springer and coming to the conclusion
> that all couples have bizarre problems.
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.
|
|
|
| Scented Nectar |
"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:cCKef.26907$jN6.9711@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Skanky whined:
> >>For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
> >>because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
> >>would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
> >>vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
> >>how they interact with normal people.
> >>
> >>The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
> >>to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
> >>household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
> >>street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
> >>"principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
> >>their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
> >>spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
> >>
> >>The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
> >>things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
> >>within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
> >>so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
> >>fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
> >>avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
> >>bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
> >>things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
> >>were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
> >>and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
> >>anti-"decorating," etc.).
> >>
> >>Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
> >>necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
> >>assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
> >>meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
> >>condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
> >>didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
> >>from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
> >>
> >>During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
> >>hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
> >>all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
> >>experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
> >>(Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
> >>for her.
> >>
> >>As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
> >>vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
> >>rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
> >>week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
> >>she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
> >>stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
> >>exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
> >>
> >>Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
> >>the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
> >>up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
> >>normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
> >>brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
> >>maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
> >>*had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
> >>****ed up he really thinks she is.
> >>
> >>The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
> >>to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
> >>about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
> >>telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
> >>as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
> >>
> >>I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
> >>entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
> >>especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
> >>therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
> >>interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
> >>cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
> >>with the Cajun family.
> >
> > You are assuming all vegans are like
> > each other.
>
> They are, generally speaking. Vegans are conformists; they conform to a
> doctrinaire, sanctimonious position that they have to save the world. I
> should've pointed out above that Jackie's focus on the things most out
> of her control and avoids dealing with the things most within her
> control is typical of vegans. Vegans tend to be emotionally immature
> (e.g., crying through repeated showings of AR videos) and obsess about
> things they cannot control; they let the things they CAN control go
> downhill -- whether it's a career, family, pet, etc. (And Jackie's case
> shows how far and quickly someone can sink into the abyss. Her focus was
> on things completely outside her control -- saving the animals. She
> didn't work, she didn't tend to her home or family, she didn't tend well
> to herself. Sound familiar, carless agoraphobic pothead Skanky?)
What the **** are you talking
about? My career, family, pets
have not gone downhill. I tend
to myself well. It's interesting
that you want to see all vegetarians
as being as nuts as the Springeresque
one on tv. Please cite the study that
says dysfunction is typical of vegans.
You can't because there is none.
> As an extremist and absolutist pseudo-philosophy, veganism is both
> dogmatic and monolithic. There's not much difference philosophically,
> politically, tempermentally between vegans. There are only degrees
> separating the hard-core out-of-touch zealots and those who admire them
> (including wannabes).
You sure do have a hate-on for
vegans. Funny considering you
are one. LOL
> > It's like watching Jerry
> > Springer and coming to the conclusion
> > that all couples have bizarre problems.
>
> The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
> are dysfunctional.
You must be basing this on yourself
from when you identified as a vegan.
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:cCKef.26907$jN6.9711@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>>Skanky whined:
>>
>>>>For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
>>>>because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
>>>>would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
>>>>vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
>>>>how they interact with normal people.
>>>>
>>>>The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
>>>>to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
>>>>household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
>>>>street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
>>>>"principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
>>>>their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
>>>>spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
>>>>
>>>>The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
>>>>things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
>>>>within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
>>>>so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
>>>>fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
>>>>avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
>>>>bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
>>>>things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
>>>>were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
>>>>and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
>>>>anti-"decorating," etc.).
>>>>
>>>>Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
>>>>necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
>>>>assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
>>>>meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
>>>>condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
>>>>didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
>>>
>>>>from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
>>>
>>>>During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
>>>>hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
>>>>all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
>>>>experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
>>>>(Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
>>>>for her.
>>>>
>>>>As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
>>>>vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
>>>>rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
>>>>week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
>>>>she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
>>>>stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
>>>>exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
>>>>
>>>>Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
>>>>the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
>>>>up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
>>>>normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
>>>>brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
>>>>maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
>>>>*had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
>>>>****ed up he really thinks she is.
>>>>
>>>>The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
>>>>to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
>>>>about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
>>>>telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
>>>>as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
>>>>
>>>>I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
>>>>entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
>>>>especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
>>>>therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
>>>>interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
>>>>cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
>>>>with the Cajun family.
>>>
>>>You are assuming all vegans are like
>>>each other.
>>
>>They are, generally speaking. Vegans are conformists; they conform to a
>>doctrinaire, sanctimonious position that they have to save the world. I
>>should've pointed out above that Jackie's focus on the things most out
>>of her control and avoids dealing with the things most within her
>>control is typical of vegans. Vegans tend to be emotionally immature
>>(e.g., crying through repeated showings of AR videos) and obsess about
>>things they cannot control; they let the things they CAN control go
>>downhill -- whether it's a career, family, pet, etc. (And Jackie's case
>>shows how far and quickly someone can sink into the abyss. Her focus was
>>on things completely outside her control -- saving the animals. She
>>didn't work, she didn't tend to her home or family, she didn't tend well
>>to herself. Sound familiar, carless agoraphobic pothead Skanky?)
>
>
> What the **** are you talking
> about? My career, family, pets
> have not gone downhill.
Hard to go further downhill when you've already reached rock-bottom.
> I tend to myself well.
Bull****. You continue to smoke pot despite knowing you're agoraphobic.
You've also admitted before to having eating disorders -- you suggested
you were way underweight at one point.
> It's interesting
> that you want to see all vegetarians
VEGANS. As opposed to vegetarians. Some vegetarians are nutty, too. But
as a rule, VEGANS are nuts.
|
|
|
| Scented Nectar |
"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:46Lef.22205$th3.6755@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > "usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> > news:cCKef.26907$jN6.9711@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> >
> >>Skanky whined:
> >>
> >>>>For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
> >>>>because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
> >>>>would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
> >>>>vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe,
and
> >>>>how they interact with normal people.
> >>>>
> >>>>The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the
cat)
> >>>>to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
> >>>>household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on
the
> >>>>street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
> >>>>"principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
> >>>>their stove and many of their possessions; her home became
increasingly
> >>>>spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.
> >>>>
> >>>>The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
> >>>>things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
> >>>>within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears
doing
> >>>>so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
> >>>>fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
> >>>>avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
> >>>>bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other
mundane
> >>>>things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole
family
> >>>>were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with
Harold
> >>>>and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
> >>>>anti-"decorating," etc.).
> >>>>
> >>>>Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out
of
> >>>>necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
> >>>>assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
> >>>>meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
> >>>>condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
> >>>>didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch
Barbara
> >>>
> >>>>from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.
> >>>
> >>>>During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
> >>>>hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to
an
> >>>>all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
> >>>>experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
> >>>>(Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
> >>>>for her.
> >>>>
> >>>>As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year,
the
> >>>>vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from
animal
> >>>>rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an
entire
> >>>>week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even
though
> >>>>she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were
briefly
> >>>>stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they
didn't
> >>>>exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed.
Since
> >>>>the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't
given
> >>>>up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi
(the
> >>>>normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
> >>>>brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
> >>>>maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
> >>>>*had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her
how
> >>>>****ed up he really thinks she is.
> >>>>
> >>>>The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
> >>>>to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and
aggressive
> >>>>about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative
by
> >>>>telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
> >>>>as emotive, uninformed jackasses.
> >>>>
> >>>>I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's
very
> >>>>entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
> >>>>especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally,
it's
> >>>>therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit
from
> >>>>interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
> >>>>cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
> >>>>with the Cajun family.
> >>>
> >>>You are assuming all vegans are like
> >>>each other.
> >>
> >>They are, generally speaking. Vegans are conformists; they conform to a
> >>doctrinaire, sanctimonious position that they have to save the world. I
> >>should've pointed out above that Jackie's focus on the things most out
> >>of her control and avoids dealing with the things most within her
> >>control is typical of vegans. Vegans tend to be emotionally immature
> >>(e.g., crying through repeated showings of AR videos) and obsess about
> >>things they cannot control; they let the things they CAN control go
> >>downhill -- whether it's a career, family, pet, etc. (And Jackie's case
> >>shows how far and quickly someone can sink into the abyss. Her focus was
> >>on things completely outside her control -- saving the animals. She
> >>didn't work, she didn't tend to her home or family, she didn't tend well
> >>to herself. Sound familiar, carless agoraphobic pothead Skanky?)
> >
> >
> > What the **** are you talking
> > about? My career, family, pets
> > have not gone downhill.
>
> Hard to go further downhill when you've already reached rock-bottom.
In your dreams.
> > I tend to myself well.
>
> Bull****. You continue to smoke pot despite knowing you're agoraphobic.
> You've also admitted before to having eating disorders -- you suggested
> you were way underweight at one point.
I have never had an eating disorder.
My weight as a kid (when I was eating
meat!) was under the norm. No fears
or illusions of being fat. No eating
disorder. My doctors never felt it was
a problem. I was never sick from it.
I never practiced bulimia or anything
similar. Since I don't smoke pot
before going into crowded areas, it
has nothing to do with agoraphobia.
Pot happens to calm me down and
mellow me out.
> > It's interesting
> > that you want to see all vegetarians
>
> VEGANS. As opposed to vegetarians. Some vegetarians are nutty, too. But
> as a rule, VEGANS are nuts.
Proof please. Now you're saying
that some vegetarians are alright,
only because you are currently
identifying as one. You did so in
a recent post.
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
|
|
|
| Dutch |
"RobDar" <robdar@houndsong.com> wrote
> issue of cd's? not sure I am following....
cds = The collateral death and suffering caused to animals by various
processes, in the case of commercial agriculture, the use of machines for
ploughing, seeding, spraying and harvesting of crops, and the use of organic
and inorganic chemicals for the elimination of pests and weeds. The animals
harmed can be larger mammals like deer, gophers, and rabbits, also smaller
mammals such as mice and other rodents such as shrews, moles and voles. Then
there are ground birds, lizards, frogs, and in the case of poisoning, any
animal that predates on them. We may even consider bees, ants, spiders,
grasshoppers, worms, and other animals of that genre, vegans certainly
consider them in their frequent semi-conscious moral calculations. The
collateral death toll to animals in food production arguably dwarfs the
number of direct deaths of livestock in food production. This all means
that the diet of the typical (sub)urban vegan or vegetarian who shops in
supermarkets could easily be related to more animal death and suffering than
a family who subsists largely on hunting. These often ignored facts cast
doubt on the vegan thought process which concludes that consuming even a
small amount of animal "product" is a moral stain on one's character.
The vegan moral calculation is embodied in the following fallacy, called
"Denying the Antecedent":
1) Animal products cause animal suffering
2) I abstain from animal products, therefore
3) I don't cause animal suffering
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:fjgef.509881$tl2.224390@pd7tw3no...
>> "Beach Runner" <bob@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>> A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
>>> behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted.
>>
>> The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.
>>
>>> Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
>>> interesting.
>>
>> The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and eating mostly
>> meat.
>>
>> The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts, fruit,
>> vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most of their food from
>> the local woods. The issue of cds never came up, but I am quite sure that
>> once the hidden collateral cost in animal death and suffering was tallied
>> up, the hunter family would fare quite well by comparison.
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
S. Maizlich wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glorfindel:
>> because many people who are not vegans are still
>> concerned about *unnecessary* death and suffering of animals.
> Irrelevant. They aren't concerned about death and suffering _per se_.
Yes, many non-vegans *are* concerned about animal death and
suffering _per se_. The popularity of programs like "Animal
Precinct" and "Animal Cops" on Animal Planet, the many editorials
and articles about factory farmed animals in the mainstream press,
and so on, demonstrate that some particular methods are seen as
unethical even by people who eat meat, milk, or eggs. Several
European countries have banned the worst forms of factory farming,
even though their populations still include a majority of
non-vegans. SPCAs nation-wide and outside the U.S. show most
people are concerned about animal suffering and death in general.
It is an almost universal concern of normal people, in fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> CDs in vegetable production are a result of *methods* used,
>> failures which can be reduced with greater or less effort,
>> if not eliminated entirely.
> Yes, which COULD be reduced or eliminated, but which "vegans" make ZERO
> effort to reduce or eliminate.
Anti-vegans claim this frequently, but it does not match my experience
as a vegan, or with other vegans I have known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
| Seeker |
"Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> wrote in message
news:dlsv0p$gj7$1@reader2.nmix.net...
> Seeker wrote:
>> "Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting
>>>>animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire
>>>>emergencies), or fur being fashionable.
>
>>>Why should they? Those are not all aspects of ethics. The one
>>>you mention -- using animals for food in cases of dire
>>>emergencies -- is indeed one example.
>
>> Why should it be?
>
> For the same reason it is true of humans.
It's not true of humans. I cannot (kill and) eat another human no matter how
hungry I am.
> I quote your statement from below,
>
>> "As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
>> using animals in research without their consent as unethical
>> are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
>> without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."
>
>> If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not
>> in ALL cases?
>
> It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
> cannot be used to define general, normal situations.
YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help your
case.
Gary
> Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
> Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
> interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
> almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
> there are many other options.
Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.
> Asking "Which would you save if
> your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
> or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
> you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
> situations.
Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.
> I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,
>
> But we do not judge members of the Donner Party in the same
> way we judge Jeffrey Dahmer.
The Donner Party is irrelevant, those people were already dead. I am talking
about killing another human to eat him if one is starving to death.
> There is a difference between
> someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
> situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
> eats them when there are many other options available to him
> living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
> why ethics are not absolute in the real world.
So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat an
animal even if you were starving?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider using animals
>>>in research without their consent as unethical are the same
>>>reasons they consider the use of humans without their consent as
>>>unethical. You agree with the principle.
>
>> That principle is a complete absurdity.
>
> You think humans should be used in medical research even
> without their consent?
Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign concept
to an animal. You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without
their consent.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> If you want to toss insects in the mix you REALLY have an uphill battle
>> explaining your support for commercial farming.
>
> I don't support commercial farming at all.
Of course you do, you buy groceries don't you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work
>>>for nuclear disarmament?
>
>> Not while pursing pointless causes they don't..
>
> Oh, I'm sure activists can multi-task more than one cause
> at a time. :)
I am sure that their capacity to woolgather is boundless, as long as it
makes them feel good.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information?
>
> A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal
> observation, government data (always suspect).
As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare exception,
not the rule.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in
>>>>nature?
>
>>>Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical
>>>obligations not to abuse it.
>
>> The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every species
>> since the big bang has had it.
>
> Well, not true.
Ipse dixit.
> But we are the only species capable of
> domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping
> them in large numbers
You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral.
> to be killed at our convenience.
Convenience is not necessarily immoral, neither is killing.
> We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented
> weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds.
Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> People who are raised by vegans are at least if not more narrow-minded
>> than children of omnivores.
>
> They may begin so. I was speaking of people who grew up in
> omnivore families and became vegan, which is more common.
> Even so, vegan children usually become aware they are
> different as soon as they get to know non-vegan children.
> Then they must consider the basis of their veganism. If
> they are omnivores surrounded by other omnivores, the issue
> often does not come up at all.
It comes up if they are exposed to vegan children, or veganism or AR are
reported in the media, as it often is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is
>>>completely closed.
>
>> That's incorrect, his mind is OPEN, yours is closed. He already knows all
>> the explantions that you are likely to come up with. He is a strict
>> vegetarian by the way, he's just not hypocrite about it.
>
> Bravo for him, if true. I commend him for that, and wish him
> well in continuing.
Yes, Bravo for him indeed, he came here with the very same set of
misconceptions that you have, but he had the intellectual integrity to
listen and question his assumptions.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> Animal Welfare is another subject entirely, one I have great sympathy
>> for, but Animal Rights groups like PeTA do not own that issue,
>
> First, PETA is no longer a strictly animal *rights* group;
> they are primarily a "hard welfare" group.
The basic philosophy of PeTA is AR/veganism, it's as clear as day on their
site. It is obvious however that welfare causes generate the most response
and hence the most donations, so they are heavily focused on those issues.
> Second, I did not
> say animal rights groups "own" the issue of animal welfare.
I know you didn't, but the rhetoric of ARAs like you tends to assume
ownership of the issue, as if by mentioning welfare abuses in agriculture
you are advancing your own argument.
> AR and non-AR groups can and do work together on specific
> animal welfare issues, and that is good.
I would agree.
|
|
|
| Glorfindel |
Seeker wrote:
> "Glorfindel" <notgiven@all.com> wrote in message
> news:dlsv0p$gj7$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>"As I said, the reasons why supporters of AR consider
>>>using animals in research without their consent as unethical
>>>are the same reasons they consider the use of humans
>>>without their consent as unethical. You agree with the principle."
>>>If this principle is true for using animals in medical research why not
>>>in ALL cases?
>>It is true as a general principle, but extreme situations
>>cannot be used to define general, normal situations.
> YOU are the one who introduced the extreme situation. It did not help your
> case.
You are trying to move from one example to another. The question of the
ethics of using animals for food in extreme circumstances (as in the
Arctic in winter for local subsistence hunters, vs consumers of factory
farmed meat in a Western industrialized society) was an example of
AR not being absolute. The issue of using animals in research is
different: it never involves an absolute necessity to use *this* animal
at *this* time, and it never has a *direct* effect on the survival of
any individual human or animal. Its potential benefits, if any, are
always hypothetical; its direct harm is always real.
> Gary
>>Francione covers this well in his _Introduction to Animal
>>Rights:Your Child or The Dog_ The situations where human
>>interests genuinely conflict in life-or-death ways have
>>almost no relevance to the situation in everyday life, where
>>there are many other options.
> Stop hiding behind quotes from sophists and use your own reasoning.
It's good to demonstrate that authorities in the field support
my own view.
>>Asking "Which would you save if
>>your ship were sinking and you had to choose between a stranger
>>or your mother" is not really relevant to questions about how
>>you should treat either a stranger or your mother in everyday
>>situations.
> Actually there is a direct correlation between the two situations, the
> difference is only in the extremity of the circumstances.
That is what you would like to claim, but you are wrong. In an
extreme case, one must make an either-or choice: if one person
or being is saved, the other must be killed, and *all* his
interests sacrificed in favor of the other. This is extremely
uncommon in real life situations. In most real situations, such
as buying products in our society, the interests of all can be
respected by making limited modifications in behavior. For
instance, the major interest of a cow or chicken in her life, or
her major interest in welfare, can be respected by not buying
meat at all, or by not buying factory-farmed meat. The interest
of the consumer in avoiding starvation is completely respected,
at the very minor cost of choosing a somewhat less attractive
form of food, or one slightly more inconvenient.
>> I may not ethically eat my neighbour if I am starving to death,
No, but the issue is different if one is starving and has no
other food source. There are also differences between members
of our own species and/or community (herd, pack, flock) and
members of other species. Most higher animals have stronger
inhibitions against killing members of their own social group
than members of other social groups or species. That is a
function of biological survival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>There is a difference between
>>someone who violates general ethical norms in extreme
>>situations, and someone who deliberately kills others and
>>eats them when there are many other options available to him
>>living in the middle of normal human society. That is part of
>>why ethics are not absolute in the real world.
> So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat an
> animal even if you were starving?
It would not be ethical, but it would be less unethical than to
kill one for convenience when other options are available.
That is not a choice anyone posting on the newsgroup is likely to
face.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals
> without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign concept< | | | |
