Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Why Vegan?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 10
 [ 197 posts ] 
Why Vegan?
Author Message
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Sparhafoc wrote:Aren't semantic word games fun?

Do you also pop down the river every time you want to draw money from the bank?

Of course, a 'belief' in gravity is not like a religious belief in the slightest. The English language's lack of specificity here does seem to lend itself to obfuscation, but really I think everyone knows the difference.

You said "Deeply held beliefs that affect all aspects of your life?" as if it is supposed to be a problem (you didn't make a full sentence so I tried to guess). I take "deeply held" to signify high confidence, regardless of the justification, so I was trying to say that having such a belief is not necessarily a problem, especially if said belief is well justified.

Sparhafoc wrote:And....? Sorry, struggling to see what relevance your opinion has with respect to this story.

The author of the article chose to use religion as a reference to talk about veganism. He chose to include input from "the think tank Theos, which stimulates debate about religion in society". The "related topics" at the end are "Veganism", "Employment tribunals", "Employment", "Religion". It is the author of the article who is implying a connection between veganism and religion. He didn't have to do that, although maybe it was expressed by Casamitjana or his lawyer. Since I don't know, I am open to the possibility that they could have brought it up themselves (which is why I made these comments about religious vegans).

Sparhafoc wrote:There are all manner of definitions of religious belief, but I am not sure what that has to do with a BBC article.

The BBC article is constructed to suggest a connection between veganism and religion. And the law that they reference (the "Equality Act 2010") contains wording for both religion and belief as separate items (the link I gave you goes to a government website about the law in question, which is linked in the BBC article).

The point is, in this context, "religion or belief" is a legal category, which is the extent to which veganism would be "akin to a religion".

Sparhafoc wrote:The scientific evidence for veganism? :D

I assume the methodology goes something like this...

Are you vegan?

Yes.

Therefore veganism scientifically exists.

I don't understand this. Are you claiming that vegans don't exist? Or that veganism is impossible?

Sparhafoc wrote:Either you would not take a job that required you to engage in practices contrary to your deeply held beliefs, or no one at your job would know you are a vegan because it's not like vegans have to wear conspicuous garb or symbolic attire in accordance with their vegan beliefs, so no one would even know you were a vegan.

Unless, of course, you repeatedly shoved your beliefs down peoples' throats. At that point, I think, they might well become aware of those beliefs, and then 'discrimination' could occur. Of course, the difficulty then might be in determining whether the discrimination is focused on the behavior rather than the belief in question.

This is logically flawed, and completely ignores the context of the article (I explain more below).

Sparhafoc wrote:Also, please do cite very specifically which class of people I termed 'wankers', where I used it to refer to any group, or even used it in the plural form.

You said "Well, this sounds like a wanker's wet dream." What is the purpose of this sentence if not to insult the people to whom you attribute an opinion you disagree with?

Sparhafoc wrote:your need to sneer imperiously at me

I don't understand how you can read my text and interpret that as imperious sneering (which is not my intent) while you keep using language such as "shoved your beliefs down peoples' throats": do you think you are not sneering imperiously?

You have consistently displayed a pattern of sneering at others in this thread (although you are not alone, and even I made a few pokes) even when you were factually wrong. You decided to re-open this conversation apparently to mock people, and you used a cartoon where someone is insulting someone else and subsequently demanding respect. Maybe it's because I'm biased, but I see irony in that (and also you sneering and then complaining that I "sneer imperiously" when I point out that you are projecting).

Sparhafoc wrote:Grand. Please do remark further on how little there is to remark about here.

You asked "How would anyone know he's a vegan if he didn't shove his beliefs down people's throats?". The answer to this question is that he was working in an organization of animal rights activists: you should expect these people to talk about veganism at least internally, no shoving is necessary to explain how his coworkers would know about his veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's actually not a very common question

I was going with my experience, but I guess I could be wrong on that in general.

Sparhafoc wrote: assuming, of course, the vegetarian or vegan doesn't have the habit of announcing it to everyone, expounding on its purported benefits, or loudly castigating the vices of meat-murderers.

Does everything have to be one extreme or the other with you? Do you honestly not see the possibility of some kind of middle ground?

Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry, your red herring is a little hard to follow here. Are you trying to introduce the notion that an argument has been made that vegans spend all their time in echo-chambers, and that this is supposed to have something to do with the article cited?

A claim has been made in this thread earlier that I come from an echo chamber (I think it was SD). The point that I am trying to make in my reply to you is that your position seems to create a dichotomy were vegans should only talk about veganism among themselves because any outside discussion is labeled "shoving down the throat". In other words, some non-vegans accuse us of being in echo chambers and others (like you) accuse us of being authoritarian. Somehow you don't seem to consider that learning about someone's veganism could come from normal conversations, small talk or gossip (and in the context of the article, organized animal rights activism).

Sparhafoc wrote:How powerful I am - I literally control vegans on a daily basis forcing them to conform to my meat-based diet, bullying, beating and berating them to eat more meat.

Am I accusing you of literally doing that (apart from the berating)? Are vegans literally doing that to you? Am I literally doing that to you? Do you genuinely not understand what I am trying to convey here?

Sparhafoc wrote:In your haste to muddy the waters here, you seem to have missed noticing that your attempt to reframe the analogy requires that Christians be in a position of societal dominance when factually, they're not.

I don't understand what you mean here (is this about the cartoon or the article?). My opinion wrt "societal dominance" is that the fact that most people are non-vegan creates a very strong anti-vegan cultural/peer pressure (it is everywhere: colleagues, friends, family, ads, movies, books, laws, schools, restaurants, holidays, ...). You probably can't feel it because you are not on the receiving end of it. To be clear: some vegans do tend to go too far (being obnoxious and violent), but overall the pressure is completely asymmetric.

Sparhafoc wrote: That's kind of the point of the parody. It's also why it works so well metaphorically for aggressive evangelizing vegans.

And do you think it doesn't apply to you? Do you believe that all vegans are "aggressive evangelizing"? Is this how you see me? Would that invalidate my claims?

Sparhafoc wrote:The vast majority of people would tolerate your deeply held beliefs, if you just didn't think you could castigate others into conforming.

My impression (partially subjective) is that there is increasing cultural tolerance for veganism, although I don't know how widespread it is. It could be that the vast majority of people actually tolerate our beliefs, and even recognize them as potentially valid (example from a non-vegan commenting on Casamitjana 's case and who finds vegans preachy, angry and annoying: "My beef with vegans says more about me than them"). But I don't think that you are speaking for the vast majority.
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:56 am
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Aren't semantic word games fun?

Do you also pop down the river every time you want to draw money from the bank?

Of course, a 'belief' in gravity is not like a religious belief in the slightest. The English language's lack of specificity here does seem to lend itself to obfuscation, but really I think everyone knows the difference.


You said "Deeply held beliefs that affect all aspects of your life?" as if it is supposed to be a problem..... I take "deeply held" to signify high confidence, regardless of the justification, so I was trying to say that having such a belief is not necessarily a problem, especially if said belief is well justified.



No, what you did was attempt to conflate a religious belief with an acceptance of empirical facts.

Cmon chap, it's right there in the post - given the website, you could readily assume people have seen it many times before and know the motivation of such an argument.

It's equivocation, plain and simple.

Finally, high confidence in religious belief is called 'faith', 'zealotry' or 'fundamentalism'.


Vego wrote:(you didn't make a full sentence so I tried to guess)


What on earth are you talking about? I quoted the article containing this phrase, and wrote a question containing this phrase. Do feel free to specify which sentence gave you so much trouble reading it that you needed to 'guess' the meaning..


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:And....? Sorry, struggling to see what relevance your opinion has with respect to this story.


The author of the article chose to use religion as a reference to talk about veganism. He chose to include input from "the think tank Theos, which stimulates debate about religion in society". The "related topics" at the end are "Veganism", "Employment tribunals", "Employment", "Religion". It is the author of the article who is implying a connection between veganism and religion. He didn't have to do that, although maybe it was expressed by Casamitjana or his lawyer. Since I don't know, I am open to the possibility that they could have brought it up themselves (which is why I made these comments about religious vegans).


He didn't have to do that, but he did do that. Then you rejoined with your opinion, when I am clearly not asking whether anyone thinks he's right or wrong, but I feel a shell game is in the offing again. Which vegan is the true one?

Finally, you claim it's the author of the article making such a reference, whereas it is expressly what the subject gentleman vegan is appealing to in order to attain legal privilege for his belief system.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:There are all manner of definitions of religious belief, but I am not sure what that has to do with a BBC article.


The BBC article is constructed to suggest a connection between veganism and religion.


Arse-about-tit. The article's connection between veganism and religion is intrinsically part of the story being reported. It's a direct quote from Casamitjana: "I want ethical veganism to be recognized as a protected belief in the U.K."

That's not the author's inspired leap of editorial savvy. It's the explicit subject of the story.

What are protected beliefs in the UK? Religious ones. Ergo, Casamitjana is asking to have his brand of ethical veganism protected in the same way as religious belief is protected.

That IS the story. How have you misinterpreted it so much?


Vego wrote:And the law that they reference (the "Equality Act 2010") contains wording for both religion and belief as separate items (the link I gave you goes to a government website about the law in question, which is linked in the BBC article).


And? You're not making any sense. The BBC is not using this term to qualify the editorial.

Rather, as you seem quite selective in your reading, it's probably best to spell this out - what the author actually wrote relevant to this side-thrust is...


However, in a hearing next March, an employment tribunal will, for the first time, determine whether veganism is a "philosophical belief" protected by law.

If the tribunal decides that it is, the discrimination claim will proceed to a full trial.

"Religion or belief" is one of nine "protected characteristics" covered by the Equality Act 2010.


So as can quite clearly be see, given this is going to an employment tribunal, this is the explicit legal criteria on which this case will be addressed.

You keep trying to foist this off as some kind of editorial angle... perhaps attempting to diminish the importance of this based on the 'just an opinion' approach. However, you're incorrectly reporting the contents of the article.


Vego wrote:The point is, in this context, "religion or belief" is a legal category, which is the extent to which veganism would be "akin to a religion".


The point would be that Casamitjana is taking his former employee to an employment tribunal arguing that his ethical veganism should be granted the same legal protections as religions.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:The scientific evidence for veganism? :D

I assume the methodology goes something like this...

Are you vegan?

Yes.

Therefore veganism scientifically exists.


I don't understand this. Are you claiming that vegans don't exist? Or that veganism is impossible?


:lol:

The confusion is wholly yours.

You wrote 'the scientific evidence for veganism'. The same sentence could be written 'the scientific evidence for Christianity'.

There's a useful woolly word in there - 'for'. That COULD be used to imply that the scientific evidence provides legitimacy for the belief system because evidence supports its claims. Or it could just mean that scientific evidence shows that the belief system exists.

The latter is obviously banal - both Christianity and veganism indubitably exist.

But scientific evidence does not support the contents of the respective belief systems, not least because neither actually has a single set of beliefs amenable to scientific inquiry that could ever be considered universally representative of those belief systems. Test one thing and get a miss, and both Christians and vegans will simply move onto their next point - only hits are counted, and misses are ignored. This is not how science works. Scientific evidence is the ENTIRE body of knowledge, not the selective bits that don't contradict whatever cherished notion you hold.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Either you would not take a job that required you to engage in practices contrary to your deeply held beliefs, or no one at your job would know you are a vegan because it's not like vegans have to wear conspicuous garb or symbolic attire in accordance with their vegan beliefs, so no one would even know you were a vegan.

Unless, of course, you repeatedly shoved your beliefs down peoples' throats. At that point, I think, they might well become aware of those beliefs, and then 'discrimination' could occur. Of course, the difficulty then might be in determining whether the discrimination is focused on the behavior rather than the belief in question.


This is logically flawed, and completely ignores the context of the article (I explain more below).


Logically flawed but yet you're unable to identify the alleged logical flaw?

Funny that - going back to conjecture and assumptions?



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Also, please do cite very specifically which class of people I termed 'wankers', where I used it to refer to any group, or even used it in the plural form.


You said "Well, this sounds like a wanker's wet dream." What is the purpose of this sentence if not to insult the people to whom you attribute an opinion you disagree with?


And again. This is clearly intentional deception on your part now. I clearly wrote 'wanker' in the singular, and twice now you've tried to claim I am labeling an entire group of people. Tell me how that works grammatically. How does a singular, countable noun indicate an entire group of people?

Clearly, it fucking doesn't so stop bullshitting to my face.

When I said 'wanker' I meant ANY wanker, a MODEL wanker, as in, it's a wanker's wet dream to have the law unduly privilege their beliefs and status. Ergo, assuming your English comprehension is sufficient and you can process adverbial clauses and indefinite articles, the only group of people I could possibly be implying is that anyone who seeks to have their beliefs be given legal protection and privilege is a wanker on account of that, nothing whatsofuckingever to do with what their beliefs entail.

The only actual person I've called a wanker is Casamitjana, and it's not about the contents of his belief, you conniving little bugger, but rather about his actions as per the fucking article where he seeks legal privilege for his beliefs.

Fuck me sideways, if you're not even going to try to respond to what I write, what the fuck are you even doing? Get a fucking blog if you want to rehearse against a proxy.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:your need to sneer imperiously at me


I don't understand how you can read my text and interpret that as imperious sneering (which is not my intent) while you keep using language such as "shoved your beliefs down peoples' throats": do you think you are not sneering imperiously?


Tu quoque is the best you can muster? Surely you had hours to consider your reply here, and yet you STILL opted for that? :D

So you intentionally distort what I wrote, then use that distortion to criticize me, evoking the notion that I am a) projecting my emotions onto others and b) abusing an entire group of people allegedly based on the contents of their beliefs.... and even though this exists solely in your make-believe, and even though you use this tailored fiction to berate me... it's not you who's sneering, it's me! :lol:


Vego wrote:You have consistently displayed a pattern of sneering at others in this thread (although you are not alone, and even I made a few pokes)...


Victim card?

Everyone's out to get you, but of course, I am the Sneerer in Chief. Not you though, although you made a 'few pokes', it's everyone else who's doing it.

Do you think you've deflected enough now from your manifestly egregious discursive bullshit?



Vego wrote:.... even when you were factually wrong.


Translation: even when you adamantly wouldn't agree to facts that were cited.


Vego wrote:You decided to re-open this conversation apparently to mock people,...


1) This conversation was never closed.
2) Given how you wittered about projection, this is fucking beautiful.

Only you would contend that my post was to 'mock' people because there is zero content aimed at mocking. Rather, as everyone can see, I am pointing out the behavior of an individual who seems to think that their dietary choices should be granted special legal privilege.

So the question then becomes why you are constructing this distracting song and dance. I believe I already know why you're doing it... and I expect others here can also read between the lines. Ironically, it may well only be you who doesn't recognize the motivation.

Regardless, I never mocked anyone - your distraction has failed.

Further, were I to play the same game of intimating agendas, I could pontificate on how it is you join this website, talk only about one single subject, get shitty with a bunch of different people, then fail to engage in any other of the numerous topics of conversation here, but pop straight back up as soon as criticism is made of your deeply held sort-of-religious, sort-of-not beliefs.


Vego wrote:... and you used a cartoon where someone is insulting someone else and subsequently demanding respect.


Indeed I did.


Vego wrote: Maybe it's because I'm biased, but I see irony in that...


Maybe it's because you're biased that you don't see the irony in that.


Vego wrote:... (and also you sneering and then complaining that I "sneer imperiously" when I point out that you are projecting).


Again, you distort what's plainly written for your own ends. I didn't complain that you sneered imperiously when you tossed out the phrase 'projection'.

I said you manufactured a wholesale distortion of what I wrote, even changing the grammar in your revision, and did so apparently so you could shove a little condescension at the end.

Let's take a little look at reality, shall we?


Sparhafoc wrote:
Vego wrote:Looking at this discussion it seems to me that you are projecting (you dug out a months-old thread to call a whole class of people "wankers").


I see. Then as much as you may have 'heard' about psychological projection, you clearly need to read up a little more on it as your appeal to it is a non-sequitur.

Also, please do cite very specifically which class of people I termed 'wankers', where I used it to refer to any group, or even used it in the plural form. Once you've acknowledged how you intentionally distorted what I wrote reversing the entire meaning to suit your need to sneer imperiously at me, you can then reflect on whether that would actually engender a more accurate example of projection.


You were clearly playing the man, attempting to paint me as lacking credibility, being angry, psychologically blah blah so that the criticism might transfer somehow to the content of what I wrote given that you couldn't actually address what I wrote as can be seen from the fact you needed to make so many revisions to it.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Grand. Please do remark further on how little there is to remark about here.


You asked "How would anyone know he's a vegan if he didn't shove his beliefs down people's throats?". The answer to this question is that he was working in an organization of animal rights activists: you should expect these people to talk about veganism at least internally, no shoving is necessary to explain how his coworkers would know about his veganism.


This conversation is becoming a shell game. So is there something worthy of remark here or not? You seem to think so only when it suits you, but when it doesn't, it's not worthy.

Also, you are free to make any assumption you like, but I'd think more about the packaging and after-sales service if you want other people to buy into your tailored assumptions.

Worse, were everyone to join you in your assumption that the kind of organisation means that the people there are likely to either be friendly to veganism or be vegans themselves, then it actually generates a gaping flaw in the notion that the chap is being discriminated against for his deeply held consumption beliefs. So your assumption, were it to be entertained, actually produces more confusion than it could hope to resolve.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:It's actually not a very common question


I was going with my experience, but I guess I could be wrong on that in general.


So in your experience, people actively seek out others asking them about their dietary habits? :D


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote: assuming, of course, the vegetarian or vegan doesn't have the habit of announcing it to everyone, expounding on its purported benefits, or loudly castigating the vices of meat-murderers.


Does everything have to be one extreme or the other with you? Do you honestly not see the possibility of some kind of middle ground?


What is this middle ground? When something either is or isn't, then no matter how finely grained you look at the detail, it still remains binary.

But anyway, you've again used your wilful assumption to cast aspersions on my thought processes. It must be me who's at fault here. Your assumptions are superior to mine, after all!


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry, your red herring is a little hard to follow here. Are you trying to introduce the notion that an argument has been made that vegans spend all their time in echo-chambers, and that this is supposed to have something to do with the article cited?


A claim has been made in this thread earlier that I come from an echo chamber (I think it was SD).


So nothing whatsoever to do with anything then. Certainly not relevant to the story. Certainly not relevant to me. Are you still fighting against the tyranny of the faceless mass? Tribalism, chap. You're all tribalism. That's really what's going on here.


Vego wrote:The point that I am trying to make in my reply to you is that your position seems to create a dichotomy were vegans should only talk about veganism among themselves because any outside discussion is labeled "shoving down the throat".


O rly.

Would you like to cite MY WORDS which could hope to support that contention?

Because once again, you are trying to distort what I've written towards a discursive end. This is never going to work out. I know what I think, chap, and it's not like I am struggling to explain it.

So no, I didn't say that, I didn't mean it, I didn't imply it.... you made it up wholesale. Shall we talk more about projection?


Vego wrote:In other words, some non-vegans accuse us of being in echo chambers and others (like you) accuse us of being authoritarian.


Whereas, in reality, I've never accused vegans of anything. Nor am I a 'non-vegan' anymore than I am a 'non-Christian' - pop your blind prejudice back in your pocket, there's a good chap.


Vego wrote: Somehow you don't seem to consider that learning about someone's veganism could come from normal conversations, small talk or gossip (and in the context of the article, organized animal rights activism).


Because I indicated that it is impossible to learn about someone being vegan any other way?

No, what I said is that it would be near impossible to know whether someone's vegan unless they told you. Kind of hard to argue with that, isn't it? Perhaps that's why you need to make up all these fictional revisions of what I've written.

Now, most people couldn't give a rat's chuff what you decide to put in your mouth or not. It impacts no one else at all. So where then would discrimination arise in such a case? Perhaps some small quantity of people are just assholes that play on minor differences to torment others... but by and large, normal people aren't going to bat an eyelid. The same goes for being Christian, to employ an analogy you might be able to approach rationally, setting aside all this tribalistic emotion for a moment.

Some people you know may be Christian without you ever know it. Some people you know may be Christian because they've told you. However, I am sure you've also met Christians who seek to turn every conversation to Christianity, to use the strictures of their own belief system to criticize others. While most normal people wouldn't have any problem at all with someone being Christian, a much higher ratio of people might consider excessive appeals to Christianity to be distasteful, annoying, and cause them to conceive of that individual as someone they dislike.

This IS something veganism shares with Christianity. There ARE vegans who are fucking annoying to others, harping, sneering, berating, belittling, and generally being utter arses. Does this mean ALL vegans are like this? Well, no. For a start, there's all those vegans who don't tell others they're vegan, or who don't use every opportunity to forward their beliefs. Ergo, contrary to your attempt to paint me as small-minded, I am clearly not talking about those former groups, but rather the other group - the group that does endlessly proselytize their dietary preferences as morally superior.

And yes, that's exactly why the image I posted is so accurate - not because it claims ALL Christians are like that, but because it parodies Christians who are like that. In such an analogy, a chap who seeks to have his dietary predilections enshrined in law, privileged as per other extreme belief systems who have unwarranted legal protection due to being incapable of allowing criticism is actually highly accurate in terms of analogy, regardless of whether it makes you feel uncomfortable by association.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:How powerful I am - I literally control vegans on a daily basis forcing them to conform to my meat-based diet, bullying, beating and berating them to eat more meat.


Am I accusing you of literally doing that (apart from the berating)?


Nor did I accuse of accusing me of doing it. I am mocking your silly, self-serving little throw-away.


Vego wrote: Are vegans literally doing that to you? Am I literally doing that to you? Do you genuinely not understand what I am trying to convey here?


I dunno - perhaps ask me some more questions instead of writing what you're trying to convey?

I expect you're probably now angling to distort what I wrote, if the rest of the post is anything to go by.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:In your haste to muddy the waters here, you seem to have missed noticing that your attempt to reframe the analogy requires that Christians be in a position of societal dominance when factually, they're not.


I don't understand what you mean here (is this about the cartoon or the article?).


Cartoon and consequent contention that I am in a position of societal dominance over vegans.


Vego wrote: My opinion wrt "societal dominance" is that the fact that most people are non-vegan creates a very strong anti-vegan cultural/peer pressure (it is everywhere: colleagues, friends, family, ads, movies, books, laws, schools, restaurants, holidays, ...)


Ahh I see... it's a theocracy you're after.

While people freely engage in behaviors that don't conform to your deeply held beliefs, when society hasn't privileged your beliefs over other people's, then they are 'societally dominant' over you.

You sound just like a fundamentalist Christian. I am sure you don't mean to. I am sure you didn't really think this through. But this is akin to the culture wars the religious right in the US has embedded in the minds of its believers. The mere existence of non-Christians is an affront to Christianity, and until their non-Christian behavior is curtailed, Christians are a victimized minority.

Really, this is the dangerous consequence of deeply held beliefs. You're not a victim just because you cannot impose your beliefs on others.

And no, I can't 'feel it' because I am not in the paradigm any more than I am in the Christian paradigm. I don't become a 'non-Christian' just because someone's a Christian. I am not a 'non-vegan' just because you're a vegan. It's you who possesses the deeply held beliefs that formulate your ideology, not me.


Vego wrote:You probably can't feel it because you are not on the receiving end of it. To be clear: some vegans do tend to go too far (being obnoxious and violent), but overall the pressure is completely asymmetric.


Ye gads. It's like you're working over time to validate the application and suitability of that cartoon.

Not being a vegan (Christian in the image) procures no right for the vegan (Christian) to berate them. When that vegan (Christian) goes 'over the top' and is aggressive or violent, or even obnoxious, then the response they get is directed to their BEHAVIOR, not towards veganism (Christianity) as a whole. That is, as is typical for fundamentalists, a misdirection of criticism, taking personal criticism as an attack on beliefs.

Let me make it blunt for you.

You can choose to eat whatever you like, none of my business.
You can choose to tell me about it just as I can then choose to tell you what I think about it.
But if you want to figuratively bash me over the head, when I stop you doing so, you are not the victim.

Casamitjana is not a victim - no one has stopped him being vegan.

Vegans are not victims - no one is stopping them from being vegan.

I doubt there are many people who are not a vegan that want to encourage, convince or oblige vegans to eat meat.... can you say the same for vegans? You've even said so yourself in this thread: you want other people to join you.

Ergo, the motivation here is asymmetric, but not in the way you seek to play the card.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote: That's kind of the point of the parody. It's also why it works so well metaphorically for aggressive evangelizing vegans.


And do you think it doesn't apply to you?


Back to questions?

Answer: no.

I don't think it applies to me because I don't seek out people to convince them of my special little ideas.


Vego wrote:Do you believe that all vegans are "aggressive evangelizing"?


No, as well you know given how many times I've written the contrary to you in this thread.


Vego wrote:Is this how you see me?


Aggressive, no. Evangelizing, yes - clearly so. You've joined a website specifically to extol your deeply held beliefs, have shown no interest whatsoever in anything outside of your beliefs, you've used standard methods of evangelists (i.e. cherrypicked data) to support your beliefs, and you've been snooty and supercilious with people who don't share your beliefs.

But not aggressive. I would consider Casamitjana's approach aggressive, and by that, I mean far worse than just hitting me on the head with a copy of Singer's Animal Liberation because he's seeking to change the laws of my nation of birth to privilege himself above me and others I love.

A question that might come up here is whether this is the only site you've engaged in this, or whether there's a serial component to it. Do you often find yourself talking to, and getting frustrated with, complete strangers about your consumption predilections?


Vego wrote:Would that invalidate my claims?


Another discursive flourish?

Why would that invalidate your claims? You could be a total fucking asshat and still be right.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:The vast majority of people would tolerate your deeply held beliefs, if you just didn't think you could castigate others into conforming.


My impression (partially subjective) is that there is increasing cultural tolerance for veganism, although I don't know how widespread it is.


I guess that would depend on where you live. Where I am, there's no question either way about tolerance for veganism because no one gives a damn about what you choose to put in your mouth, or the reasons for doing so. Many, if not most people spend a month vegan here every year - it's part of their religious traditions going back centuries and millennia.

But I take it you mean in the West. Yes, I would concur, although I also admit to being a little out of touch as I rarely get to sample the sense on the streets, and only get to peek in the window via news and current affairs reporting. I think, although I may be wrong, that the primary motivation there though is ecological - the 'awareness' is not about moral considerations of animal autonomy, but the additional strain farming practices are putting on an already creaking human-muddled environment.


Vego wrote: It could be that the vast majority of people actually tolerate our beliefs,...


I should imagine so.


Vego wrote:... and even recognize them as potentially valid...


Another weasel word as with the last post.

Veganism could be potentially valid in the same way that Christianity is potentially valid - i.e. no suggestion that the contents of the beliefs are factual, accurate, or true, but rather that some people could find a sense of satisfaction in practicing these ideologies, therefore they are valid in that respect. Do Christians feel happy? Valid. Do Vegetarians feel happy? Valid.

In terms of 'validity' in a factual sense though, you'd need to be explicit. Obviously, as I've taken pains to spell out so many times now it's frankly perplexing how you can't subsume it in the on-going conversation... there is no single monolith of veganistic though for there to be an orthodox set of claims which could be queried. Every vegan has their own reasons, and very few arrive at veganism having first done the research - rather, they do the research post-fact and unsurprisingly count this hits more than they count the misses.


Vego wrote: (example from a non-vegan commenting on Casamitjana 's case and who finds vegans preachy, angry and annoying: "My beef with vegans says more about me than them").


Hmm, just so you're aware, David Mitchell is a comedian whose schtick is that he's angry with people. He has an entire youtube channel dedicated to short skits about groups of people and practices he's angry with, including fish and chips, drivers, and sea-side towns. This is how he makes a living.

For me, what's interesting here is you counting the hits though. I appreciate you're unaware of this, but to me, this always inevitably sets of warning signals in my own mind when I seek out corroboratory evidence for something I would like to believe and makes me redouble efforts to find examples to the contrary.


Vego wrote: But I don't think that you are speaking for the vast majority.


Which is good, because nor do I, nor have I ever suggested anywhere otherwise.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:08 am
*SD*User avatarPosts: 357Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Sparhafoc wrote:I could pontificate on how it is you join this website, talk only about one single subject, get shitty with a bunch of different people, then fail to engage in any other of the numerous topics of conversation here, but pop straight back up as soon as criticism is made of your deeply held sort-of-religious, sort-of-not beliefs.


It could be that he has email notifications turned on so he gets alerted when there is a reply to a thread he created (but not other threads)

Which would imply he's only interested in this specific topic, which he started. This backs up your statement in that it suggests he doesn't frequent the forum unless to discuss veganism specifically (as per all his posts)

I don't think he's lurking offline to check for replies to this thread, I think it's that he gets emailed when someone replies to it so then signs in to check it out. Could be wrong of course.
Image
Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:24 pm
WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Oh I agree, and didn't mean to imply that he was refreshing the page hourly for responses... but it's a bit rich for him to paint my post as reopening a 'closed' thread of conversation from months ago when he's there to answer it within hours even though he's not posted in any thread on this forum in the interim.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:11 am
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

This is a bit long and I don't know if I got everything. Please tell me if you think I failed to address something important.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, what you did was attempt to conflate a religious belief with an acceptance of empirical facts.

The article is about veganism as a deeply held belief, and yet veganism is not a religious belief. You (and maybe the author of the article too) are the one trying to conflate a religious belief with something that isn't.

Sparhafoc wrote:Do feel free to specify which sentence gave you so much trouble reading it that you needed to 'guess' the meaning..

You wrote "Veganism akin to religious belief?", which could be an honest question (in what way is veganism akin to religion) or an objection (veganism is not a religion) or a criticism against supposed religious vegans. I tried to make a guess based on what I perceive as your overall stance on the matter.

Sparhafoc wrote:it is expressly what the subject gentleman vegan is appealing to in order to attain legal privilege for his belief system.

I assume that prior to this interview he had a talk with his lawyer and knows enough about the law to use specific wording. However, I don't see where he expressly likened veganism to a religion. From what I can see:
-in the video he says "protected belief" and in the text "veganism is a belief and affects every single aspect of my life" (which doesn't imply religiosity);
-only the explanatory text in the video and the article mention a comparison to religion.

Like I said, it is possible that he or his lawyer did make this comparison themselves, but I don't see it in the article (if I missed it, please tell me). To me it looks like the author/reporters added this comparison on their own, although I can only speculate as to why (explaining in simple terms? legal accuracy? polemic?).

Sparhafoc wrote:It's a direct quote from Casamitjana: "I want ethical veganism to be recognized as a protected belief in the U.K."

The only connection with religion is as a legal category, which I talked about earlier. Incidentally, lack of religion is covered by the same law, and is in the "religion" category instead of "belief" (where veganism would be). And according to this "an employee believes strongly in man-made climate change and feels that they have a duty to live their life in a way which limits their impact on the earth to help save it for future generations: this would be classed as a belief and protected under the Equality Act". Unless you are going to claim that belief in climate change is also akin to a religion, I think it is a mistake to involve religion without the proper legal context.

My point is: this is probably just legal talk.

Sparhafoc wrote:The BBC is not using this term to qualify the editorial

Precisely, and I believe it is a mistake (deliberate or not, I don't know).

Sparhafoc wrote:this is the explicit legal criteria on which this case will be addressed.

Isn't this what I said in my previous post?

Sparhafoc wrote:You keep trying to foist this off as some kind of editorial angle.

If Casamitjana had sued for a belief in man-made climate change instead of veganism, would "akin to religion" be appropriate? I personally think not. But like I said, I don't know what he thinks of veganism (maybe he thinks it's a religion, maybe he doesn't), I only have the reporter's opinion. If I had been in Casamitjana place, I am guessing that the lawyer would have told me to talk about my strong belief in order to strengthen the legal case, and I would probably have complied (even though I wouldn't think that religion has anything to do with my circumstances).

Sparhafoc wrote:The confusion is wholly yours.

I asked for clarification because I was confused. I don't see what you find funny here.

Sparhafoc wrote:scientific evidence does not support the contents of the respective belief systems

There is mainstream scientific support for "the content of" veganism (mainly that it is possible to be vegan and that societal move toward veganism can be expected to be beneficial* for environment and health), I don't understand why you think there isn't (some of it has been discussed in this thread).

*The ethical aspect has to be inferred since I am not aware of any study that tries to quantify suffering in association to dietary changes (there is however scientific consensus that many non-human animals are sentient and can experience suffering).

Sparhafoc wrote:Scientific evidence is the ENTIRE body of knowledge, not the selective bits that don't contradict whatever cherished notion you hold.

I can't possibly be aware of everything that has ever been published. However, people (scientists, doctors, dietitians) whose job it is to know about these things regularly communicate on their findings. There are studies involving thousands of vegans followed for decades showing at the very least that it can be done. Dietitians from multiple countries recognize that it is possible to be vegan (and importantly, they provide advice for well-planned vegan diets). Plant Positive (I don't know what his job is, but it doesn't matter because he references everything) has done an incredibly extensive fact-checking of many pro-meat/fat health claims showing them to be misleading. Scientists studying the environment regularly find that animal exploitation in general is causing many problems. Aside from dietitian organizations, I don't know if there is any formal consensus (like there is for climate change) but it is quite apparent to me that veganism can be defended in light of mainstream science.

Sparhafoc wrote:Logically flawed but yet you're unable to identify the alleged logical flaw?

Logically flawed because of obvious counter examples to pretty much everything in your two paragraphs. Since you seem to want me to spell it out:
- "you would not take a job that required you to engage in practices contrary to your deeply held beliefs"
A bit extreme, but it is possible for a vegan to take a job in a slaughterhouse (maybe because of economic hardship, or as part of undercover investigation).
Much more common: people can become vegan at any point, and more generally beliefs can change.
In the case of Casamitjana, he was in an organization a priori compatible with veganism, and he discovered, during his employment, practices which he found objectionable.
- "no one at your job would know you are a vegan because it's not like vegans have to wear conspicuous garb or symbolic attire in accordance with their vegan beliefs"
Vegan don't have to do that, but they can (unless there is a strict clothing policy).
- "Unless, of course, you repeatedly shoved your beliefs down peoples' throats"
Unless, of course, the employer learns the information from a third party, or the topic comes up during meetings (because the job is animal welfare activism), or other alternative scenarios.
- "so no one would even know you were a vegan"
Not so.

Sparhafoc wrote:Tell me how that works grammatically. How does a singular, countable noun indicate an entire group of people?

I am assuming this is rhetorical since you are explaining it yourself in your next sentences (your explanation more or less matches my understanding, and it confirms my criticism).

Sparhafoc wrote:the only group of people I could possibly be implying is that anyone who seeks to have their beliefs be given legal protection and privilege is a wanker on account of that, nothing whatsofuckingever to do with what their beliefs entail

This mostly confirms what I thought, except for the last part (what you are saying now seems even worse than what I initially objected to).

Sparhafoc wrote:The only actual person I've called a wanker is Casamitjana ... about his actions as per the fucking article where he seeks legal privilege for his beliefs.

Personally I think it is bad enough that you are insulting him, but you keep giving criteria that could apply to others, because the law was not made specifically for him. Anyway, it's going to be for the judge to decide, so I don't really get what you are objecting to when we don't even know if he is going to win.

Sparhafoc wrote:if you're not even going to try to respond to what I write, what the fuck are you even doing?

I am responding to what you write, but I don't necessarily understand exactly what you mean all the time. The same text can be interpreted differently by different people, this is a general problem with natural language, it is not specific to me.

Sparhafoc wrote:it's not you who's sneering, it's me! :lol:

If this is what you think...

Sparhafoc wrote:Everyone's out to get you

You may not have noticed, but I received a lot of criticism on this forum, although not from everyone.

Sparhafoc wrote:even when you adamantly wouldn't agree to facts that were cited.

I have explained to you why I objected to your "facts" (I am assuming you are talking about older posts here). On the other hand, you often avoided giving me adequate answers to my replies.

Sparhafoc wrote:This conversation was never closed.

I meant that the thread was inactive for a while.

Sparhafoc wrote:Given how you wittered about projection

I merely described what you were doing from my perspective. Apparently I struck a nerve.

Sparhafoc wrote:Only you would contend that my post was to 'mock' people because there is zero content aimed at mocking.

Actually you are contending that too (what you wrote just before about Casamitjana).

Sparhafoc wrote:I am pointing out the behavior of an individual who seems to think that their dietary choices should be granted special legal privilege

The case is not about diet.

Sparhafoc wrote:So the question then becomes why you are constructing this distracting song and dance. I believe I already know why you're doing it... and I expect others here can also read between the lines. Ironically, it may well only be you who doesn't recognize the motivation.

Please enlighten me.

Sparhafoc wrote:I never mocked anyone

I don't want to get into a semantic dispute, what I mean by that is what you are doing when you call people "wanker" or "conniving little bugger".

Sparhafoc wrote:even changing the grammar in your revision

Even if you had said "the wanker's wet dream" I would still have criticized you for being insulting. The grammar is not the problem here.

Sparhafoc wrote:attempting to paint me as lacking credibility

No (although I personally don't find you convincing).

Sparhafoc wrote:, being angry

Yes.

Sparhafoc wrote:, psychologically blah blah

Er... maybe.

Sparhafoc wrote:so that the criticism might transfer somehow to the content of what I wrote given that you couldn't actually address what I wrote as can be seen from the fact you needed to make so many revisions to it.

From my point of view, I am addressing what you wrote. If you think I missed something important, please try asking again.

Sparhafoc wrote:So is there something worthy of remark here or not?

You asked a question built on the assumption that it is remarkable that his veganism was known from his employer, and I am trying to tell you that, in context, it is not remarkable.

Sparhafoc wrote:the notion that the chap is being discriminated against for his deeply held consumption beliefs

That is his claim, not mine. As I said, I neither side for nor against the guy. As far as I know, the case hasn't been judged yet, so it is possible that he is in the wrong, I don't know.

Sparhafoc wrote:So your assumption, were it to be entertained, actually produces more confusion than it could hope to resolve.

I am not hoping to resolve this specific case, this is for the judge/jury/lawyers to figure out. My objection is that you seem to have already decided that his claim is unjustified, and at this point neither of us can make this determination (unless you have more information than what is in the article).

Sparhafoc wrote:So in your experience, people actively seek out others asking them about their dietary habits?

Yes, in my experience, going to restaurants in groups or to company BBQ or in airplanes, the organizers or staff generally ask if people have special dietary requirements (allergies or vegetarianism). It doesn't happen all the time, but even once or twice would be enough to make hiding something like veganism difficult.

Sparhafoc wrote:What is this middle ground?

Simple conversation, for example.

Sparhafoc wrote:So nothing whatsoever to do with anything then. Certainly not relevant to the story. Certainly not relevant to me.

It has to do with this thread and I explained how I find it relevant to what you said, even if you disagree.

Sparhafoc wrote:Would you like to cite MY WORDS which could hope to support that contention?

I was thinking about your two paragraphs "Either you would not take a job that required ... no one would even know you were a vegan ... Unless, of course, you repeatedly shoved your beliefs down peoples' throats." It looks to me like you are trying to say that it is impossible to know that someone is vegan through 'peaceful' means outside of specialized workplaces.

Sparhafoc wrote:Whereas, in reality, I've never accused vegans of anything.

Please explain what you mean when you talk about shoving beliefs down people's throats.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, what I said is that it would be near impossible to know whether someone's vegan unless they told you.

I think that you are wrong about that (at least in my experience), but now you are revising your text: before it was "repeatedly shoved ... down peoples' throats", and now it is simply "told" (I think I can agree with that).

Sparhafoc wrote:Now, most people couldn't give a rat's chuff what you decide to put in your mouth or not. It impacts no one else at all.

I disagree. I don't mean literally putting something in the mouth, I mean the general consumption of animal products: it impacts us all in many ways (climate change, healthcare, and obviously the animals themselves).

Sparhafoc wrote:So where then would discrimination arise in such a case? Perhaps some small quantity of people are just assholes that play on minor differences to torment others...

And perhaps that is the case for Casamitjana. As I said, I don't know, but if true, it is what the anti-discrimination law would be for.

Sparhafoc wrote:but by and large, normal people aren't going to bat an eyelid

Then by and large this case shouldn't be a problem (if Casamitjana is in the wrong, the judge will just rule against him I imagine).

Sparhafoc wrote:Some people you know may be Christian without you ever know it. Some people you know may be Christian because they've told you. However, I am sure you've also met Christians who seek to turn every conversation to Christianity, to use the strictures of their own belief system to criticize others.

I agree.

Sparhafoc wrote:While most normal people wouldn't have any problem at all with someone being Christian, a much higher ratio of people might consider excessive appeals to Christianity to be distasteful, annoying, and cause them to conceive of that individual as someone they dislike.

The case is not about disliking, it is about alleged termination of employment due to discrimination (once again, it may or may not be true in this case, I don't know). In addition, I do recognize that some vegans go too far (same for non-vegans), although I do not know if it is the case for Casamitjana.

Sparhafoc wrote:Does this mean ALL vegans are like this? Well, no.

Okay.

Sparhafoc wrote:For a start, there's all those vegans who don't tell others they're vegan, or who don't use every opportunity to forward their beliefs.

Okay, if that means that you do recognize that it is possible to talk normally about veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:Ergo, contrary to your attempt to paint me as small-minded, I am clearly not talking about those former groups, but rather the other group - the group that does endlessly proselytize their dietary preferences as morally superior.

I think I sort of see your point, but:
- veganism is not just about diet;
- veganism can be properly justified, unlike Christianity, so this "other group" would fail on form but not necessarily on content (to be clear: I object to excessive disturbance and violence, although I see value in some potentially unlawful activities like undercover investigations).

Sparhafoc wrote:privileged as per other extreme belief systems who have unwarranted legal protection due to being incapable of allowing criticism is actually highly accurate in terms of analogy

I don't know how you determine that legal protection is unwarranted. In addition, the Equality Act doesn't make beliefs immune to criticism, it is supposed to prevent discrimination. Maybe in practice thinks are different, but I don't know enough about this law and its consequences to take a strong stance (it sounds reasonable to me, so I give it the benefit of the doubt until I know more).

Sparhafoc wrote:I am mocking your silly, self-serving little throw-away.

Next you will tell me that you are not mocking me, just what I write... And it wasn't a throw-away, it was a sincere response to what I perceived to be your position on the balance of power in society.

Sparhafoc wrote:I dunno - perhaps ask me some more questions instead of writing what you're trying to convey?

I'll take that as a no. What I was trying to convey was that today's society is mainly non-vegan (by a large margin), and when you try to depict vegans (even only a few) as being forceful with their beliefs, you seem to completely ignore that almost everything that we experience since birth is forcing us to be non-vegan. This doesn't excuse the few, but a one-sided focus on an extreme minority (obnoxious/violent vegans) in an extreme minority (vegans) hides the larger context.

Sparhafoc wrote:Cartoon and consequent contention that I am in a position of societal dominance over vegans.

If I am not mistaken, you are not vegan (please correct me if I'm wrong here). This automatically puts you in a position of societal dominance: modern society is designed to cater mainly to people like you (by that I mean non-vegans) and your decisions and behavior contribute to the zeitgeist, and how (and how fast) it changes wrt veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:it's a theocracy you're after.

No.

Sparhafoc wrote:While people freely engage in behaviors that don't conform to your deeply held beliefs, when society hasn't privileged your beliefs over other people's, then they are 'societally dominant' over you.

No, it's simple numbers. Non-vegans individuals and cultural items vastly outnumber vegan individual and cultural items, creating a de facto dominance. It's not about being explicitly anti-vegan, it's more like finding yourself in a foreign country where there is a strong incentive to conform, even if nobody explicitly says so.
And I don't know what you are trying to say about privilege here (the legal case is about protection from discrimination, I don't see it as anything else).

Sparhafoc wrote:You sound just like a fundamentalist Christian.

This is your own bias. My belief in veganism is akin to my belief in climate change (although my confidence in climate change is higher): both are based on scientific evidence, and if I could be convinced that veganism is unhealthy and environmentally damaging and unethical, then I would stop being vegan. The positions that I can (and did) defend with scientific papers in this thread are:
- it is possible for an individual to be vegan (given the appropriate precondition on health and access);
- a population shift toward well-planned vegan diets would be beneficial for the environment (and also for the animals, although this has to be inferred from the change in numbers).

(I do not have evidence for my core values, that is to say: I believe that it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm, and if you disagree on that then that's too bad).

Despite what you may think, I took the articles that you posted earlier seriously and I genuinely believe that I have good reasons for not finding them to contradict my position. I am not trying to derail the thread here, but I believe that you have misconceptions about veganism, nutrition, and what my position is and isn't, and I am willing to get to the bottom of it if necessary.

Sparhafoc wrote:I am sure you didn't really think this through.

I did. And my opinion is only about the nature of the anti-vegan pressure. The existence of this psychological pressure is already known in scientific literature (I briefly discussed this with Dragan Glas in the previous thread), and also in surveys where ex-vegans explain why they dropped.

Sparhafoc wrote:But this is akin to the culture wars the religious right in the US has embedded in the minds of its believers. The mere existence of non-Christians is an affront to Christianity, and until their non-Christian behavior is curtailed, Christians are a victimized minority.

I can empathize with them without agreeing with their beliefs. I don't necessarily want a culture war, but I definitely want a culture change. And the existence of non-veganism is not an affront, it is a problem with quantifiable consequences.

Sparhafoc wrote:Really, this is the dangerous consequence of deeply held beliefs. You're not a victim just because you cannot impose your beliefs on others.

There you go again. You claim that you are not accusing anyone of anything, and yet this is exactly what you are doing because somehow you think that veganism is about imposing beliefs to others. Trying to impose one's opinion is not specific to veganism, and not all vegans want to impose things. Personally I don't, I only advocate for doing the right thing based on proper information.

Sparhafoc wrote:I am not a 'non-vegan' just because you're a vegan.

What I mean by non-vegan is rejecting the beliefs and practices of veganism (I am not saying there is only one true way to be vegan).

Sparhafoc wrote:Not being a vegan (Christian in the image) procures no right for the vegan (Christian) to berate them.

I have some difficulty parsing your sentence, but I am going to assume that you are saying that vegans/Christians are not justified in berating non-vegans/non-Christians for the fact of not being vegan/Christian.

Sparhafoc wrote:When that vegan (Christian) goes 'over the top' and is aggressive or violent, or even obnoxious, then the response they get is directed to their BEHAVIOR, not towards veganism (Christianity) as a whole.

If that is the case, then what does it have to do with the article? Do you have evidence that Casamitjana behaved in such a way?

Sparhafoc wrote:You can choose to eat whatever you like, none of my business.

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a simple world. What people actually do (not just what they believe) can have an impact on everyone else. This is easy to see for vaccination, there is very strong evidence for climate change, and I believe there is also evidence for the negative impacts of animal products. So long as you care about quantifiable consequences, I believe that you are mistaken to hold this position.

Sparhafoc wrote:But if you want to figuratively bash me over the head, when I stop you doing so, you are not the victim.

This is what I am trying to tell you when I talk about projection: I don't know what you see as bashing in the case of Casamitjana, but why assume that he did something wrong? (maybe you are correct, but maybe you are not). Does it seem like bashing if I am telling you that I believe that you would be a better person as a vegan (all else being equal, and assuming the option is available to you)?

Sparhafoc wrote:Casamitjana is not a victim - no one has stopped him being vegan.

He didn't complain about being stopped to be vegan, he complained about being fired. If he is correct (and I don't know if he is) then he would in fact be a victim of discrimination (but this is for the judge to decide, not you).

Sparhafoc wrote:Vegans are not victims - no one is stopping them from being vegan.

Vegan are under constant pressure of stopping, and some vegans have stopped because of that. So if stopping someone from being vegan makes a victim of that person, then there are definitely victims out there.

Sparhafoc wrote:I doubt there are many people who are not a vegan that want to encourage, convince or oblige vegans to eat meat.... can you say the same for vegans?

You obviously have never been a vegan in a non-vegan family. There are vegan/non-vegan couples where friction leads one to give in to the other for the sake of the relationship. I don't know if it is "many", but it happens.

Sparhafoc wrote: You've even said so yourself in this thread: you want other people to join you.

I want people to do the right thing by making informed decisions:
-if my position is correct, then hopefully more and more people will indeed join me, although I would not want to force anyone to do anything;
-if my position is incorrect, then I hope that someone or something can eventually convince me to change my stance.

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't think it applies to me because I don't seek out people to convince them of my special little ideas.

I see what you mean, but it is possible that you simply don't realize the impact that you have on people around you.

Sparhafoc wrote:have shown no interest whatsoever in anything outside of your beliefs

Are you talking about poor countries again? It does not change my belief because it is logically irrelevant (I am not denying or criticizing people in need). Here is an analogy: if I claim 'People with red cars can go fast' and 'it would be better for more people to have red cars' and 'maybe some day most people will have a red car', and you answer 'Some people don't have cars', then you are not addressing my claims at all.

Sparhafoc wrote:you've used standard methods of evangelists (i.e. cherrypicked data) to support your beliefs

I have not, and I already explained that to you. If you disagree, please reply to my earlier objections (I think there were 5 or 6).

Sparhafoc wrote:you've been snooty and supercilious with people who don't share your beliefs.

Not sure what you mean by that. In this thread I criticized people for misrepresenting my beliefs, who made unjustified claims, or claims that could be contradicted through logic or evidence (and yes I was occasionally sarcastic). However, I don't think I criticized anyone simply for not sharing my beliefs (which are justified with mainstream scientific evidence).

Sparhafoc wrote:he's seeking to change the laws of my nation of birth to privilege himself above me and others I love.

I am not a legal expert, but it seems to me that he is applying an existing law, and it is not to privilege himself but to protect himself (and others) against discrimination.

Sparhafoc wrote:A question that might come up here is whether this is the only site you've engaged in this, or whether there's a serial component to it.

A more relevant question is whether or not you can understand that mainstream science supports veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:Do you often find yourself talking to, and getting frustrated with, complete strangers about your consumption predilections?

Only online because I can't check sources in live conversations.

Sparhafoc wrote:Why would that invalidate your claims? You could be a total fucking asshat and still be right.

I am trying to see if we agree on something. It appears that we do here.

Sparhafoc wrote:Where I am, there's no question either way about tolerance for veganism because no one gives a damn about what you choose to put in your mouth, or the reasons for doing so.

That's unfortunate.

Sparhafoc wrote:Many, if not most people spend a month vegan here every year - it's part of their religious traditions going back centuries and millennia.

I guess it lowers the bar a little bit if the situation ever changes.

Sparhafoc wrote:Veganism could be potentially valid in the same way that Christianity is potentially valid - i.e. no suggestion that the contents of the beliefs are factual, accurate, or true, but rather that some people could find a sense of satisfaction in practicing these ideologies, therefore they are valid in that respect. Do Christians feel happy? Valid. Do Vegetarians feel happy? Valid.

What I meant is that some non-vegans think 'vegans might be right', that is to say 'the vegan position is potentially valid'. For me it is valid in the sense that the beliefs and practices can be properly justified in light of the core values.

Sparhafoc wrote:Every vegan has their own reasons,

There are shared reasons, but it is true that not everyone agrees on everything.

Sparhafoc wrote:very few arrive at veganism having first done the research

I did, and I doubt that I am the only one.

Sparhafoc wrote:they do the research post-fact and unsurprisingly count this hits more than they count the misses.

Not entirely sure of what you mean here: if somebody goes vegan for wrong reasons, and then discovers that there are in fact good reasons, and then adopts those good reasons and discards the wrong ones, then I think it's fine (I don't expect anyone to start life with all the right answers, vegan or not).

Sparhafoc wrote:David Mitchell is a comedian whose schtick is that he's angry with people

I was not aware of that, thanks for the info.

Sparhafoc wrote:For me, what's interesting here is you counting the hits though.

For me what's interesting here is what claim you think I am trying to justify with this link?

Sparhafoc wrote:but it's a bit rich for him to paint my post as reopening a 'closed' thread of conversation from months ago when he's there to answer it within hours even though he's not posted in any thread on this forum in the interim.

From the timestamps, you are factually incorrect (maybe you meant 'days'). My point was: you decided, after months of silence in this thread, that insulting some guy that you don't know was an appropriate thing to do. It reminds me of Joe Rogan who often talks negatively about veganism when he doesn't have to talk about it at all.
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Last edited by Vego on Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:53 am
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

*SD* wrote:It could be that he has email notifications turned on so he gets alerted when there is a reply to a thread he created (but not other threads)

I think I have notifications for all threads that I contributed to, but this is essentially true. I first came here from an Aron Ra video, and initially I didn't intend to contribute since I am not knowledgeable enough for most topics discussed. But when someone posted about (against) veganism, I thought that maybe I could contribute something.

What drove me off was a slow loss of interest (I have other time-consuming activities), and then this notable quote ("I think the problem ... platforms") made me think that maybe I am not in the right place after all.

*SD* wrote:Which would imply he's only interested in this specific topic

Is there something wrong with that?
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:02 am
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:This is a bit long and I don't know if I got everything. Please tell me if you think I failed to address something important.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, what you did was attempt to conflate a religious belief with an acceptance of empirical facts.


The article is about veganism as a deeply held belief, and yet veganism is not a religious belief. You (and maybe the author of the article too) are the one trying to conflate a religious belief with something that isn't.



Your post may be long, but given how you've started with such a complete denial of facts and an apparent desire to engage in wish-thinking, I don't think I can be bothered to read any further.

First, it was you who conflated beliefs with acceptance of empirical facts:

Vego wrote:Is this a problem if there are good reasons? (for example, my deeply held beliefs about gravity affect many aspects of my life)



Secondly, neither the author nor myself are contending that veganism is necessarily akin to religious belief, rather that the chap in question in the article is trying to garner the protection afforded to religious belief for his vegan beliefs.


As you seem again to be unwilling to engage in any level of honest discourse, I'll pass on further discussion with you. It is, after all, not discussion when someone's only interested in promulgating their ideas.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:19 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:
*SD* wrote:It could be that he has email notifications turned on so he gets alerted when there is a reply to a thread he created (but not other threads)


I think I have notifications for all threads that I contributed to, but this is essentially true.


All 2 of them? - "The moral case for Veganism" and "Why Vegan?"

Of course it's essentially true - how would you get notifications for threads you're not subscribed to?


Vego wrote: I first came here from an Aron Ra video, and initially I didn't intend to contribute since I am not knowledgeable enough for most topics discussed. But when someone posted about (against) veganism, I thought that maybe I could contribute something.


You contributed your beliefs as if everyone thought that vegans were as unknowable as Martians.


Vego wrote:What drove me off was a slow loss of interest (I have other time-consuming activities), and then this notable quote ("I think the problem ... platforms") made me think that maybe I am not in the right place after all.


Presumably you were correct then because there's nothing in that post that should really cause you such tremors unless the mere fact that it was written by me is the cause of your concern. Of course, there's always the possibility you just didn't understand it, or that you mistakenly thought it was pointed at you.

Do you want to question its validity? Or does the mere phrasing of it make you pull back in outrage? Maybe go and look up Normal Distributions to garner some insight. If you are still outraged then consider whether you would feel so put off if I was talking about height, finger length, or amount of body hair. Facts are facts, regardless of how appetizing we might find them.


Vego wrote:
*SD* wrote:Which would imply he's only interested in this specific topic

Is there something wrong with that?


Well, it could be a potentially unhealthy obsession.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:24 pm
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't think I can be bothered to read any further

In that case, don't complain later that I didn't address your points.

Sparhafoc wrote:First, it was you who conflated beliefs with acceptance of empirical facts:
Vego wrote: Is this a problem if there are good reasons? (for example, my deeply held beliefs about gravity affect many aspects of my life)


I'm not sure what you mean here. Even if you think that knowledge isn't a kind of belief (I myself am not sure about that), not all beliefs are religious, and belief in gravity is an example of such a non-religious belief (belief in climate change is another, and it would be covered by the Equality Act 2010 with the same classification as veganism).

Sparhafoc wrote:neither the author nor myself are contending that veganism is necessarily akin to religious belief

I don't know about "necessarily", but the author started the article with "akin to a religion", without making it immediately clear that there is a specific legal terminology, and that veganism is not a religion. They even added comments from a think tank concerned with religious debates, and the editing in the video seems manipulative (and you fell for it). However, the article does include the legal criteria to classify veganism. Either way (legal and non-legal), you are mistaken about what the author is saying and implying.

Sparhafoc wrote:the chap in question in the article is trying to garner the protection afforded to religious belief for his vegan beliefs

The protection in question (Equality Act 2010) covers far more than religion (full list; examples: age, disability, gender reassignment), and under this law veganism would be categorized as a philosophical belief, which is grouped with religion and yet explicitly distinguished from it in the text of the law.

Sparhafoc wrote:As you seem again to be unwilling to engage in any level of honest discourse

What? You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan. Have you considered that maybe you are simply wrong about almost everything on this topic?

Sparhafoc wrote:All 2 of them?

Actually 3, but yes, I think (I don't know how to check).

Sparhafoc wrote:the mere fact that it was written by me is the cause of your concern

No, it could have been written by anyone (the first time I saw the quote I didn't even notice it was from you, but I found it objectionable all the same). What I find problematic is that it was selected by someone else with (I presume) the tacit approval of everyone else.

Sparhafoc wrote:Do you want to question its validity?

I will try to answer as briefly as I can because this is off-topic. The main problems that I see are the obvious condescension (I assume you don't count yourself as below the mean), and the underlying assumptions (that "intelligence" is one-dimensional and doesn't change, that high intelligence people don't contribute loads of poor or counter-productive ideas, and that what you consider to be a bad idea is actually one). Maybe the context explains things better, but the quote is given without it.
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:11 am
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:In that case, don't complain later that I didn't address your points.


In that case, don't complain later that I wrote in all caps.

You mean you didn't intend to do that and the sentence appears to have bugger all to do with anything ever?

Yes, yes it does - doesn't it?


Vego wrote:I'm not sure what you mean here. Even if you think that knowledge isn't a kind of belief (I myself am not sure about that),...


Oh rubbish. I already dealt with this flaccid non-point right at the outset. Hiding behind weak semantics does not an argument make. You are perfectly well aware of the distinction between a religious belief and a justified belief based on objective, empirical evidence. That the English language calls them both 'belief' really doesn't give refuge for obfuscation when people are still readily aware of the distinction between homonyms. Remember... drawing money from the river bank?

As usual, when your argument has been shown flawed, you simply double down on it endlessly without ever actually addressing why it was challenged.


Vego wrote:... not all beliefs are religious,...


Red herring. No one said that all beliefs are religious.


Vego wrote:... and belief in gravity is an example of such a non-religious belief...


No, as explained in spades: it's an example of a homonym. Belief in gravity and religious beliefs are not in the same category regardless of the fact that the English language holds only one frequently employed word for both.

Your belief in gravity has no bearing on its effect on you.


Vego wrote: (belief in climate change is another, and it would be covered by the Equality Act 2010 with the same classification as veganism).


What a load of manufactured tosh. No, belief in gravity is not a protected belief because no one writing or involved in the Equality Act is confused by homonyms. Belief in gravity will never be a protected belief as per the Equality Act because it's abjectly nonsensical.

As for whether or not belief in climate change could be considered a protected belief - someone would first have to test it by appealing to the court, ergo, exactly as per the vegan in the story on whose behalf you are manufacturing so much obfuscation. Would it succeed? No, of course it wouldn't, but people could still try... just as the vegan chap is trying to have his beliefs protected. What beliefs actually are factually protected by the Equality Act? Religious ones.


Vego wrote:I don't know about "necessarily", but the author started the article with "akin to a religion", without making it immediately clear that there is a specific legal terminology, and that veganism is not a religion.


You are either desperately confused or desperately making stupid arguments for some terminally opaque reason.

A journalist reporting on what someone does or says does not indicate that the journalist is doing or saying those things, nor does it express any agreement by the journalist. As explained 5 times or more already - the journalist is reporting on what the vegan chap in question is saying as has already been shown by direct reference in this thread. The vegan chap in question is seeking to have his vegan beliefs protected in the same manner religious beliefs and ONLY religious beliefs are protected.

Now I see why you started your post with the apparent non-sequitur about me complaining you failed to address points.... because you just keep ignoring what's been written to churn out the same half-baked nonsense over and over.


Vego wrote:They even added comments from a think tank concerned with religious debates,...


BECAUSE IT'S EXPLICITLY RELEVANT TO THE LAW THE VEGAN CHAP IS APPEALING TO!

Either you are failing at a most elementary level to grasp this, or you are so desperate to throw shade you are willing to just make up ad hoc bollocks and expect it to float.

Again, it's not the journalist contriving this from thin air. The vegan chap is appealing to the same law of protections under which persecution of religious beliefs is deemed an offense to have his vegan beliefs so protected. Ergo, it's relevant because the only philosophical beliefs which are so protected are religious ones, ergo the chap in question expects the state to conceive of his vegan beliefs in a manner functionally equivalent to religious beliefs. That's the story. And it's what you are working overtime to obfuscate.

Now stop contriving nonsensical distractions about the journalist. You might want to avoid processing this, but your gymnastics is not distracting anyone else.


Vego wrote:... and the editing in the video seems manipulative (and you fell for it).


Oh what a crock of shit. It's manipulative because YOU say so from within the context of your professional victimhood. Really, it's only 'manipulative' because it says something you don't want it to say.

As usual, evidence-free assertions simply don't wash here. For you to contend it is manipulative editing, you would need to have the whole film you could point to in order to show where it has been manipulated and why. Do you have that? No, of course you fucking don't. Throw some more shit - none of it's going to stick, but it shows your Morton's Demon hard at work.


Vego wrote: However, the article does include the legal criteria to classify veganism. Either way (legal and non-legal), you are mistaken about what the author is saying and implying.


Unable to show your claim is true, just repeat it ad nauseum.

In reality, no one else here is going to struggle to see how your defense is full of holes and apparently willfully manufactured to protect you from conceiving things which are uncomfortable.


Vego wrote:
The protection in question (Equality Act 2010) covers far more than religion (full list; examples: age, disability, gender reassignment),....


Red herring. None of those are beliefs, so try as you might, no one is distracted.


Vego wrote: ... and under this law veganism would be categorized as a philosophical belief, which is grouped with religion and yet explicitly distinguished from it in the text of the law.


No, religious beliefs are considered philosophical beliefs according to that very law which you apparently haven't even read yet.


Vego wrote:
What? You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan.


:lol:

What does that even mean?

Is it another one of those ones when you are obliged to cite what the fuck you are talking about where you suddenly become coy and start yammering about how someone else possibly said something sometime somewhere else?

In reality, I've explained dozens of times in this thread that the majority of my British friends are vegan - are you going to claim I didn't say that, or do you want to argue that I think they don't exist or that they're lying?

Who knows? There seems to be little you won't try when it comes to manufactured distractions.



Vego wrote: Have you considered that maybe you are simply wrong about almost everything on this topic?


On which topic? Veganism? How could I be wrong about everything and how would you know when you just finished writing that I am allegedly unwilling to acknowledge that vegans exist when I've never said anything like that and have in fact written plenty that would be directly antithetical to that notion?

I'd say it's much more likely that your vegan Morton's Demon won't let you engage honestly in any discussion that even lightly touches on the topic of veganism because you're under this manufactured victimhood that meat-eaters are out to get you.



Vego wrote:
Actually 3, but yes, I think (I don't know how to check).


I do: 2.



Vego wrote:
No, it could have been written by anyone (the first time I saw the quote I didn't even notice it was from you, but I found it objectionable all the same). What I find problematic is that it was selected by someone else with (I presume) the tacit approval of everyone else.


Brilliant. Another substanceless reply.

Regardless, thanks for admitting that you find reality objectionable. It explains a lot.

As for 'tacit approval' - whence cometh you by this notion? How on Earth would you know? Did your feelies inform you? Show me how you could judge the degree to which anyone other than he_who_is_nobody expressed approval?

Again, you've simply made it up. Every single member of this site could disagree aside from HWIN and myself and you would be completely unaware of it. I wasn't even aware HWIN had posted it there until you linked it.

Regardless, this is all more useful distraction whereby you fail to engage in ANY level of substance. What exactly do you find objectionable about a factual expression of normative distributions?



Vego wrote:
I will try to answer as briefly as I can because this is off-topic. The main problems that I see are the obvious condescension (I assume you don't count yourself as below the mean),...


Oh so it's not the facts you are questioning, but rather the tone you projected onto it. Ok, so now project a light-hearted chuckle as you read it and add the theme tune from Loony Toons playing in the background.... Better?

If you're projecting a tone onto it that you find objectionable, then stop projecting that tone onto it. Simple, no?

No, I am not below the mean. Nor are you. Was that condescending of me to include you? How exactly is it condescending to note that some 30% of any given population are below the mean in any given trait compared to the rest of that population? It's hardly my fault that the universe operates this way, but it would be my fault if I were to elect to ignore it or pretend it wasn't true simply because I found reality objectionable.

As I already asked, and as you already transparently evaded.... would you find it so objectionable if the trait in question was 'finger length' or 'thickness of enamel on premolars' or 'dairy consumption'?

If not, perhaps have a think before feeling at me. Although it might exist in your head, no one is actually making any statements about intrinsic human value - only about intelligence and its impact via technological progress on the human world.


Vego wrote: ... and the underlying assumptions (that "intelligence" is one-dimensional and doesn't change,...


No such assumption exists outside of your imagination. Funny how you aren't talking about what's IN the quote, but rather what's NOT in the quote.


Vego wrote: ...that high intelligence people don't contribute loads of poor or counter-productive ideas,...


An unwarranted assertion that has no bearing on anything relevant even if it were valid, which it isn't because 'counter-productive' would require a context in which productivity is the yard-stick of validity, and also would still require people of at least mean intelligence to determine that validity.

Again, you are taking objection to something that's not IN the quote.


Vego wrote: ...and that what you consider to be a bad idea is actually one).


What I consider to be bad ideas are ones that are empirically wrong, so it's not me determining what's bad, but reality.

Of course, it's a red herring anyway as the merit of ideas is not actually discussed in the quote, no mention of bad or good ideas, nothing about what I consider to be bad or good.... nothing at all contained IN the quote, only IN your head.


Vego wrote: Maybe the context explains things better, but the quote is given without it.


It would be par for the course for you to take a snippet out of context and read unicorns and rainbows into it, but it's actually irrelevant that you didn't bother looking into the context prior to taking objection. Unarguably, the quote stands alone perfectly well which is why HWIN elided it from other context.

Again, you've not really responded to anything substantively. The bit of the quote that you're objecting to is empirically true and is a foundational component of population biology. I am not really surprised that your acceptance of reality is based primarily on how you feel about it rather than whether it's true or not. That is practically your modus operandi.

Understand that for me it's the opposite. Regardless of what I feel about something, I refuse to ignore, object, reject or avoid reality out of respect for my preferences.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:46 am
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Sparhafoc wrote:You mean you didn't intend to do that and the sentence appears to have bugger all to do with anything ever?

I mean I addressed your points (and made others), and since you are not reading my answers, it might come up eventually as me saying something assuming what I said previously and you answering as if the previous message did not exist, because you wouldn't know about it. This seems inconvenient, which is why I am telling you about it.

Sparhafoc wrote:You are perfectly well aware of the distinction between a religious belief and a justified belief based on objective, empirical evidence.

I am aware of this distinction, and I even expressed my position on this in a previous post. What I don't understand is what you are complaining about. Are you trying to say that a deep belief cannot be based on objective, empirical evidence?

Sparhafoc wrote:As usual, when your argument has been shown flawed, you simply double down on it endlessly without ever actually addressing why it was challenged.

It would be helpful if you could simply tell me "why it was challenged" when I ask for a clarification so that I can address it. And in this case, I don't know what argument you are referring to and how it has been shown flawed. I am not even sure that you know what my arguments are.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, as explained in spades: it's an example of a homonym. Belief in gravity and religious beliefs are not in the same category regardless of the fact that the English language holds only one frequently employed word for both.

I don't think I agree with that. We seem to agree that belief in gravity is well justified while religious beliefs aren't. However, I don't see the concept of belief itself as different in both cases. From my perspective, it is possible to believe something true for bad reasons, and something false for seemingly good reasons (the quality of the reasons itself is subject to belief). In other words, belief in something, by itself, does not imply anything about the justifications. So to me, it's not an example of homonym (justified belief is different from non-justified belief, but belief is belief).

Sparhafoc wrote:As for whether or not belief in climate change could be considered a protected belief

Yes it would. There is even a precedent under an older law. And, as it turns out, I already addressed this very point in a message that you didn't bother reading.

Sparhafoc wrote:What beliefs actually are factually protected by the Equality Act? Religious ones.

Did you even read the text of the law? The link to the official text and the criteria for philosophical beliefs are in the BBC article, I gave my personal (not a lawyer) opinion about the criteria in my first response (about this article), and Casamitjana's solicitor (an actual lawyer) seems convinced that the law as it is written applies in this case. Your personal uninformed opinion doesn't have much weight here.

Sparhafoc wrote:As explained 5 times or more already - the journalist is reporting on what the vegan chap in question is saying as has already been shown by direct reference in this thread.

No. as I have addressed in a post that you didn't bother reading, neither Casamitjana nor his lawyer actually invoked religion (as far as I can tell).

Sparhafoc wrote:The vegan chap in question is seeking to have his vegan beliefs protected in the same manner religious beliefs and ONLY religious beliefs are protected.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Sparhafoc wrote:you just keep ignoring what's been written to churn out the same half-baked nonsense over and over

I am not ignoring you, I am disagreeing with you because you keep writing the same falsehoods (based on nothing more than your personal opinion) while I actually give you the evidence that contradicts your claims.

Sparhafoc wrote:BECAUSE IT'S EXPLICITLY RELEVANT TO THE LAW THE VEGAN CHAP IS APPEALING TO!

No, the opinion of the think tank person is not legally relevant. It is only relevant if you (or the author) are trying to establish a non-legal (I mean more traditional, intuitive) connection between veganism and religion.

Sparhafoc wrote:The vegan chap is appealing to the same law of protections under which persecution of religious beliefs is deemed an offense to have his vegan beliefs so protected.

It is possible that I agree here (there seems to be several such laws in the UK, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure).

Sparhafoc wrote:the only philosophical beliefs which are so protected are religious ones.

Unclear. From my non-lawyer understanding of the law, I can't say for certain that religious beliefs are indistinguishable from philosophical beliefs. The way the text is worded, it looks like they could be different somehow, but I could be wrong here.

Sparhafoc wrote:the chap in question expects the state to conceive of his vegan beliefs in a manner functionally equivalent to religious beliefs

If by "functionally" you mean 'legally', then I think I agree (as usual, not a lawyer here).

Sparhafoc wrote:That's the story.

That's what the story should be. However, that's not how it is framed.

Sparhafoc wrote:And it's what you are working overtime to obfuscate.

It's actually quite easy to see, and my position doesn't obfuscate anything, the article does.

Sparhafoc wrote:Now stop contriving nonsensical distractions about the journalist. You might want to avoid processing this, but your gymnastics is not distracting anyone else.

I am not the one trying to associate veganism and religion (unless we are talking about the legal classification).

Sparhafoc wrote:it's only 'manipulative' because it says something you don't want it to say.

It's manipulative because the interviewee literally does not say (and probably doesn't imply either) what the journalist says.

Sparhafoc wrote:For you to contend it is manipulative editing, you would need to have the whole film you could point to in order to show where it has been manipulated and why. Do you have that? No, of course you fucking don't.

Are you complaining that I did not address this in a previous post that you did not read?

Sparhafoc wrote:Unable to show your claim is true

Since you don't read me, this doesn't mean anything.

Sparhafoc wrote:In reality, no one else here is going to struggle to see how your defense is full of holes and apparently willfully manufactured to protect you from conceiving things which are uncomfortable.

I may be repeating myself here, but I don't rely on approval from people on this forum (or any forum) to change my mind. For example, if everyone here thinks that it is not possible to be vegan, despite clear evidence to the contrary, then everyone here is wrong.

Sparhafoc wrote:Red herring. None of those are beliefs.

Why red herring? The law is a general protection law, it is not limited to beliefs. You often sound as if religious beliefs are the only thing protected by the law (which is demonstrably false). If the law can protect things other than religion, it makes sense to expect it to protect non-religious beliefs (like veganism), unless stated otherwise.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, religious beliefs are considered philosophical beliefs according to that very law which you apparently haven't even read yet.

I have read it, and to me it implies some kind of distinction (more precisely, both are treated equally as far as the law is concerned, but there is an implied recognition that they are not actually the same thing). However, since I am not a lawyer, it is possible that I am misreading it.

Sparhafoc wrote:What does that even mean?

It's a health claim about dietary veganism, and it means: do you acknowledge that, under the proper circumstances (access to sufficient resources, absence of special physical or mental condition), it is possible for an individual to live normally without consuming animal products? (by "living normally" I mean to exclude excessive claims like being immune to all diseases, but include activities like sports/professional athletes).

Sparhafoc wrote:I've explained dozens of times in this thread that the majority of my British friends are vegan - are you going to claim I didn't say that, or do you want to argue that I think they don't exist or that they're lying?

I don't really know what you mean, because you generally go into sarcastic tirades when I ask for clarification, and even now you are not providing a straight answer. In other words, to me it looks like every time I bring up the topic, you dodge the question, like you are doing now. Notice also that I have tried to limit giving justifications based on personal experience (it did happen once or twice), and I don't think I ever did for health claims.

Sparhafoc wrote:On which topic? Veganism?

Yes.

Sparhafoc wrote:How could I be wrong about everything and how would you know when you just finished writing that I am allegedly unwilling to acknowledge that vegans exist when I've never said anything like that and have in fact written plenty that would be directly antithetical to that notion?

It has been a long time so it is possible that one of us is misremembering, but I think you tried to claim or imply in one of your earlier posts that somehow humans require meat (or something like that). If that's not the case, then you can easily clear the misunderstanding by explicitly acknowledging that it is possible to be vegan (see details above).

Sparhafoc wrote:I do: 2.

Do you mean I only have notifications for 2 of the 3 threads? Oh well, no big deal.

Sparhafoc wrote:Regardless, thanks for admitting that you find reality objectionable. It explains a lot.

You seem to be confusing your personal opinion with reality.

Sparhafoc wrote:As for 'tacit approval' - whence cometh you by this notion? How on Earth would you know?

I don't know, "I presume" (did you misread me again?). I have no idea what process leads to someone being quoted. Whatever this process is, it doesn't seem to guarantee the accuracy of the quote.

Sparhafoc wrote:Every single member of this site could disagree aside from HWIN and myself and you would be completely unaware of it.

Exactly, I am completely unaware of any disagreement with this egregious quote.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, I am not below the mean. Nor are you.

I don't know.

Sparhafoc wrote:Was that condescending of me to include you?

I don't know, it seems more like unjustified claim.

Sparhafoc wrote:How exactly is it condescending to note that some 30% of any given population are below the mean in any given trait compared to the rest of that population?

You are not talking about any given trait, you are assuming that there exists a specific trait that can be reduced to a number, and you go further and draw unjustified conclusions from this.

Sparhafoc wrote:would you find it so objectionable if the trait in question was 'finger length' or 'thickness of enamel on premolars' or 'dairy consumption'?

It depends; these traits have the advantage of being apparently uncontroversial, but what would you conclude from them?

Sparhafoc wrote:no one is actually making any statements about intrinsic human value

Actually you are, otherwise your quote doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sparhafoc wrote:only about intelligence and its impact via technological progress on the human world.

Which is one of the things I am objecting to.

Sparhafoc wrote:No such assumption exists outside of your imagination.

I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see it, but contrary to what you are saying here, this assumption is logically necessary for your quote. To put it another way, you can't talk about the distribution of intelligence without assuming that intelligence is a well-defined thing that can be measured with a single number.

Sparhafoc wrote:Funny how you aren't talking about what's IN the quote, but rather what's NOT in the quote.

The assumptions are important. Without good assumptions, what you are saying is unsound (as for validity, the problem that I see has to do with the "goes a long way" that I detail below). Besides, the "doesn't change" assumption is confirmed by your subsequent words ("they've always been there").

Sparhafoc wrote:An unwarranted assertion

I did say that I was trying to be brief, so tried to summarize my thoughts. Well, so much for brevity and off-topic-ness I guess...

Sparhafoc wrote:that has no bearing on anything relevant even if it were valid

You said "This goes a long way to explaining the apparent rise of ..." (the rest is indeterminate foul language which I assume refers to bad or counter-productive ideas).
In other words, you are asserting (without any evidence, in the quote at least) that the 30% below the mean intelligence play a major role in something bad. In addition to the superiority claim (which you confirmed) and the foul language, this is also part of the condescension.

Sparhafoc wrote:What I consider to be bad ideas are ones that are empirically wrong, so it's not me determining what's bad, but reality.

Without evidence, your opinion is not reality.

Sparhafoc wrote:no mention of bad or good ideas, nothing about what I consider to be bad or good

I used "bad ideas" as the most general concept that made sense to me and that could match your words given the context. Of course, you could avoid that by being less ambiguous.

Sparhafoc wrote:Unarguably, the quote stands alone perfectly well which is why HWIN elided it from other context.

It arguably doesn't, but at this point I don't expect you to actually understand that.

Sparhafoc wrote:Again, you've not really responded to anything substantively.

From what I can tell from this conversation, you are saying that every time you don't understand what I am saying. If you think I am unclear you can just ask for clarification.

Sparhafoc wrote:The bit of the quote that you're objecting to

Do you even know what bit I am objecting to?

Sparhafoc wrote:is empirically true

The thing that I am objecting to is not evidently true, and likely false in my opinion.

Sparhafoc wrote:I am not really surprised that your acceptance of reality is based primarily on how you feel about it rather than whether it's true or not. That is practically your modus operandi.

Projection.

Sparhafoc wrote:Regardless of what I feel about something, I refuse to ignore, object, reject or avoid reality out of respect for my preferences.

You have actually demonstrated the opposite in this conversation. That said, your words more-or-less describe my personal stance. Unlike you however, I am not deluding myself into thinking that I don't have biases.
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:04 am
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:I mean I addressed your points (and made others), and since you are not reading my answers,...


I am not reading a post where you simply repeat the same faulty contentions you already made and which were shown false 3 times before. What's the point? Essentially, it's the same. You might as well not have read what I've written if you're just going to keep repeating the same arguments irrespective of what's written in response.


Vego wrote:... it might come up eventually as me saying something assuming what I said previously and you answering as if the previous message did not exist, because you wouldn't know about it. This seems inconvenient, which is why I am telling you about it.


No less convenient than having to see you repeat the same falsehoods ad nauseum.


Vego wrote:I am aware of this distinction, and I even expressed my position on this in a previous post. What I don't understand is what you are complaining about. Are you trying to say that a deep belief cannot be based on objective, empirical evidence?


How can you say you're aware of the distinction then in the next sentence show exactly the opposite?

How hard is it to read and process what's been written? A 'belief' in gravity is not in any way equivalent to a religious belief. It's a fallacy of equivocation. You either intentionally employed that fallacy, or you did so without being aware of it... I pointed it out to you in the very next post and you have doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on it... so there's little reason to assume that you were just unaware of it.

You're still repeating it now... so what exactly is the difference between you reading a post and ignoring the entire content of it to repeat the same errors, and not reading the post at all?


Vego wrote:It would be helpful if you could simply tell me "why it was challenged" when I ask for a clarification so that I can address it. And in this case, I don't know what argument you are referring to and how it has been shown flawed. I am not even sure that you know what my arguments are.


Read the very first post after you made the silly contentions about the article.

Answer the damn question: when you need to withdraw money, do you go to the river as it's lined with BANKS?

No? Why not?

Because it's fucking stupid? Yes, because it's fucking stupid. In exactly the same way, it's fucking stupid to pretend that your 'belief' in gravity is functionally equivalent to a religious belief, but have you acknowledged that and changed direction? Of course you haven't, which is why we're still on it.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:No, as explained in spades: it's an example of a homonym. Belief in gravity and religious beliefs are not in the same category regardless of the fact that the English language holds only one frequently employed word for both.


I don't think I agree with that.


Agree or not: it remains a fact. Other languages make distinctions regarding the acceptance of facts comparative to notional imagination.

It's also trivial to show the distinction as I've already done above several times.

If you were Christian and decided you no longer believed in it, then Christianity will no longer affect you. It will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist for you beyond observing what other people do. Gravity, on the other hand, will persist regardless of your belief in it. Stop believing in gravity, and you're still going to plummet to the ground should you step out of a 3rd storey window, but when you stop believing in Christianity, you won't still be compelled to attend Church on Sundays. That's because these two quantities are not alike, and pretending they are is wholly fallacious.

The term 'belief' when used in context of gravity or heliocentricism or any scientific quantity is superfluous. The word should be something more equivalent to knowledge, but despite the English language's inability to furnish a commonly used term, the distinction still remains perfectly clear (as I've now written what 5 times?).


Vego wrote: We seem to agree that belief in gravity is well justified while religious beliefs aren't. However, I don't see the concept of belief itself as different in both cases. From my perspective, it is possible to believe something true for bad reasons, and something false for seemingly good reasons (the quality of the reasons itself is subject to belief).


Irrelevant. You can believe that gravity is caused by minuscule pixies pulling you down for all it matters. What you can't do is stop believing in gravity and thereby cause it to no longer affect you. Gravity remains, regardless of your beliefs.


Vego wrote: In other words, belief in something, by itself, does not imply anything about the justifications. So to me, it's not an example of homonym (justified belief is different from non-justified belief, but belief is belief).


Well, it factually is an example of a homonym and you are still insisting on your equivocation fallacy regardless of how it's been shown wrong. So what's the difference really between what you're doing and me just not bothering to read your post? They still have the same outcome - yours is just more wordy.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:As for whether or not belief in climate change could be considered a protected belief


Yes it would. There is even a precedent under an older law. And, as it turns out, I already addressed this very point in a message that you didn't bother reading.


Funny how you elided my sentence to remove what I'd written there which already acknowledged that it could, under very specific circumstances, be defined as a belief akin to a religious one.

What's even funnier is that the article you're appealing to directly contradicts everything you've been arguing. The Judge rules that his belief in climate change is EQUIVALENT TO A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, ergo just what the vegan chap is asking the tribunal to enact on behalf of his religious beliefs.

That's exactly what was said in the first post on this topic, and you've spent thousands of words arguing the contrary.

The vegan chap in question wants his vegan beliefs to be treated by the state as religious beliefs in terms of the protections afforded to them. That's even what this article says, but you don't seem to be taking such umbrage that the exact same wording is being used: "Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion "

Why aren't you accusing the journalist of spin, of manipulation, and manufacturing it out of thin air as you did when it was about the vegan guy? :roll:



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:What beliefs actually are factually protected by the Equality Act? Religious ones.


Did you even read the text of the law?


Yes, that's what I just asked you: did you even read the text of the law, or just the synopsis?


Vego wrote:The link to the official text and the criteria for philosophical beliefs are in the BBC article,...


It's sitting right in front of me - cite the 'criteria'.


Vego wrote: I gave my personal (not a lawyer) opinion about the criteria in my first response (about this article), and Casamitjana's solicitor (an actual lawyer) seems convinced that the law as it is written applies in this case. Your personal uninformed opinion doesn't have much weight here.


You can't make this up.

You're trying to argue that the vegan guy is not appealing to have his beliefs afforded the same protection as religious ones, pretending it's all made up by me and the journalist in question, and now you're arguing that the law should see it this way.

Do you even know what you're arguing, or is it all just knee-jerk defense of any perceived criticism of vegans or veganism?



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:As explained 5 times or more already - the journalist is reporting on what the vegan chap in question is saying as has already been shown by direct reference in this thread.


No. as I have addressed in a post that you didn't bother reading, neither Casamitjana nor his lawyer actually invoked religion (as far as I can tell).


Honestly, I am starting to question my earlier assessment. :facepalm:

He's appealing to a law which affords religious belief protections. Ergo, regardless of whether he or anyone says it is a religious belief, it is AKIN to a religious belief with respect to the application of those state protections.

It's like you want two contradictory positions to be simultaneously true. Having bits of the cake of which you only eat some.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:The vegan chap in question is seeking to have his vegan beliefs protected in the same manner religious beliefs and ONLY religious beliefs are protected.


I don't understand what you are trying to say.


:lol:

This is becoming a farce. You don't understand what I am 'trying' to say, even though I've said it dozens of times and you've argued against it while also arguing for it. :|



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:you just keep ignoring what's been written to churn out the same half-baked nonsense over and over


I am not ignoring you, I am disagreeing with you because you keep writing the same falsehoods (based on nothing more than your personal opinion) while I actually give you the evidence that contradicts your claims.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Did you copy and paste that from your earlier posts on veganism? It looks exactly like you've written many times and possesses exactly the same degree of truth: i.e. none. No, you've offered zero evidence at all. Not a single shred of evidence whatsoever. Instead, what you've done is lash out at perceived criticism of veganism, then got yourself all tied up in knots as you've flip-flopped about apparently unaware of what you're trying to argue.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:BECAUSE IT'S EXPLICITLY RELEVANT TO THE LAW THE VEGAN CHAP IS APPEALING TO!


No, the opinion of the think tank person is not legally relevant. It is only relevant if you (or the author) are trying to establish a non-legal (I mean more traditional, intuitive) connection between veganism and religion.


It's fuck all to do with the think tank. It's fuck all to do with me. It's fuck all to do with the journalist. You are either being wilfully stupid or your Morton's Demon is on a cocaine fuelled rage.

It is explicitly the provision of protections that the vegan guy is appealing to: to have his vegan beliefs protected in the exact same manner as religious beliefs are protected, just as the climate-change guy above sought to have his beliefs in climate-change afforded the same protections as religious beliefs. Somehow, the latter one slips past your Morton's Demon, but the vegan one... oh ho ho! Thousands more words you will write on that contradicting yourself from post to post. Yeah, climate-change guy's beliefs are akin to religious ones and therefore can be protected under the Act, but no, no, no... the vegan guy isn't doing that, it's just made up by me and the journalist to sully the good name of a vegan! :lol:


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:The vegan chap is appealing to the same law of protections under which persecution of religious beliefs is deemed an offense to have his vegan beliefs so protected.


It is possible that I agree here (there seems to be several such laws in the UK, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure).


It is possible that you agree here, even though you've disagreed with exactly that a dozen times. In fact, you literally just disagreed with it in the previous sentence.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:the only philosophical beliefs which are so protected are religious ones.


Unclear. From my non-lawyer understanding of the law, I can't say for certain that religious beliefs are indistinguishable from philosophical beliefs. The way the text is worded, it looks like they could be different somehow, but I could be wrong here.


Just before you were telling me that my opinion on it is worthless presumably because it was already manifestly clear, you also claimed to have provided evidence (the article that factually I cited) even though you now say you're not sure this evidence actually supports what you said, and you've asked me if I even bothered to read the law in question which already answers this so it's bemusing why you're now diffident on its meaning.

What kind of beliefs are protected by that Act? Religious ones. Any other beliefs? Well, yes if they are akin to religious beliefs in the manner in which they are held. Ergo.... vegan guy wants his vegan beliefs to be treated as religious ones by the state when it comes to affording those beliefs protection.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:the chap in question expects the state to conceive of his vegan beliefs in a manner functionally equivalent to religious beliefs


If by "functionally" you mean 'legally', then I think I agree (as usual, not a lawyer here).


Are you even aware that you are quite literally contradicting everything you've written?

Go back and look at your arguments right after the post where I brought this article to the discussion.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:That's the story.


That's what the story should be. However, that's not how it is framed.


No, it's exactly the story framed exactly as it is.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:And it's what you are working overtime to obfuscate.


It's actually quite easy to see, and my position doesn't obfuscate anything, the article does.


No, you obfuscated the article, but apparently you've confused only yourself. Why aren't you taking the same line with the article about the climate-change guy? The EXACT SAME WORDING is used! :lol:

Go look up Morton's Demon. You are afflicted.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Now stop contriving nonsensical distractions about the journalist. You might want to avoid processing this, but your gymnastics is not distracting anyone else.


I am not the one trying to associate veganism and religion (unless we are talking about the legal classification).


Right. It's the vegan guy who's associating his vegan beliefs with religion by appealing to an act which would afford his vegan beliefs protection assuming they are akin to religious beliefs.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:it's only 'manipulative' because it says something you don't want it to say.


It's manipulative because the interviewee literally does not say (and probably doesn't imply either) what the journalist says.


No, that's simply what follows. You've even acknowledged it yourself, then contradicted yourself, then contradicted that contradiction.

Initially, I thought you were bullshitting. Now it's clear you're just hopelessly confused. It's cognitive bias. You exhibit no such confusion with respect to the climate-change guy's article, but it's worded exactly the same. I don't see you accusing the journalist there of bias and manipulation.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:For you to contend it is manipulative editing, you would need to have the whole film you could point to in order to show where it has been manipulated and why. Do you have that? No, of course you fucking don't.


Are you complaining that I did not address this in a previous post that you did not read?


Do you have the entire film or not? Prevarication and dissembling is not going to get you out of answering that in the binary. If you don't have the entire film to show where the editing has been manipulated for effect, then you're just throwing shit and hoping it will stick.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Unable to show your claim is true


Since you don't read me, this doesn't mean anything.


Oh fuck off. I didn't read ONE post because you started by repeating bullshit that had already been shown wrong. Now you're trying to hide behind that as if the rest of the post is the font of all truth.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:In reality, no one else here is going to struggle to see how your defense is full of holes and apparently willfully manufactured to protect you from conceiving things which are uncomfortable.


I may be repeating myself here, but I don't rely on approval from people on this forum (or any forum) to change my mind. For example, if everyone here thinks that it is not possible to be vegan, despite clear evidence to the contrary, then everyone here is wrong.


:lol:

Hilarious.

There's actually a very important component your Morton's Demon is forcing you to ignore: intersubjective verification.

Of course, you can be a solipsist if that's what floats your boat, but then it does produce questions as to why you'd seek to change other people's mind if you don't give a rat's chuff about them.

For example: you keep warbling about other people not believing it's possible to be a vegan when literally NO ONE has ever said anything like that. In fact, you've now tossed that out several times - each time met with perplexed rebuttal - and you're still saying it. So perhaps you SHOULD put a little more emphasis on other people so that you don't continually misrepresent them?

Twice across two posts you've claimed that I question whether veganism exists or whether vegans are really vegans (despite me laughing at you and rebutting it with reality)... but I've never said anything of the sort. So why is this stuck in your brain? Where does it come from? It's clearly confusion on your part, presumably you've misread something... and if you've misread to that extent, why are you confident you're not misreading other things?


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Red herring. None of those are beliefs.


Why red herring?


Oh I dunno... perhaps you could read what I wrote immediately after 'red herring'?


Vego wrote: The law is a general protection law, it is not limited to beliefs.


I didn't say it was limited to beliefs, but as we're talking about beliefs, what other things it says or doesn't say is irrelevant, or a red herring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.



Vego wrote:You often sound as if religious beliefs are the only thing protected by the law (which is demonstrably false). If the law can protect things other than religion, it makes sense to expect it to protect non-religious beliefs (like veganism), unless stated otherwise.


The law protects beliefs which are AKIN TO RELIGION. The criteria for those beliefs are drawn from the format of religious beliefs. You can't protect your belief that blue is the best colour, or that a particular sports team should be considered winners regardless of their actual competitive status. The vast majority of beliefs cannot be protected because... they do not meet the criteria which is defined in accordance with the way in which religious beliefs are held.

And now you're also contradicting yourself by saying that veganism should be a protected belief, whereas you said the opposite at the outset.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:No, religious beliefs are considered philosophical beliefs according to that very law which you apparently haven't even read yet.


I have read it, and to me it implies some kind of distinction (more precisely, both are treated equally as far as the law is concerned, but there is an implied recognition that they are not actually the same thing). However, since I am not a lawyer, it is possible that I am misreading it.


Given that it consists of less words than you've written even in that sentence above, I genuinely think you're just reading into it whatever you want.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:What does that even mean?


It's a health claim about dietary veganism, and it means: do you acknowledge that, under the proper circumstances (access to sufficient resources, absence of special physical or mental condition), it is possible for an individual to live normally without consuming animal products? (by "living normally" I mean to exclude excessive claims like being immune to all diseases, but include activities like sports/professional athletes).


Of course, but the same is true of a diet consisting solely of animal products, i.e. Inuit and Sami peoples. Do you acknowledge that?

So it's a much ado about nothing.

That one can do something doesn't actually infer it's desirable to do so.

However, what you actually wrote is: You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan.

That does not possess the same significance you've now changed it to.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I've explained dozens of times in this thread that the majority of my British friends are vegan - are you going to claim I didn't say that, or do you want to argue that I think they don't exist or that they're lying?


I don't really know what you mean, because you generally go into sarcastic tirades when I ask for clarification, and even now you are not providing a straight answer.


It IS a straight answer. The sarcasm is because you are warbling incoherently at me. You've several times declared something along the lines of "You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan." - whereas, no one could possibly agree with you that I have said anything like that, or that you could infer anything like that from anything I've written. I maintain the right to employ sarcasm - or any other emotion - when someone says something so manifestly nonsensical. Sarcasm is preferable to despair, after all.


Vego wrote: In other words, to me it looks like every time I bring up the topic, you dodge the question, like you are doing now.


See what I mean?

How am I supposed to take your 'question' seriously when it presupposes something utterly inane? Far from dodging the topic, I am responding directly to it by laughing at its ridiculousness.

You asserted that I am unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan.

You seem to think that means something quite different to me.

So let's SHOW you what it means.

Do you think that atheism entails being unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be theist?

If I don't believe in gods, does it then follow that I don't believe that theists exist?

That's what you're asking me... well, not asking, telling me is my position. That I don't believe that vegans exist.

Now, given that this is your imaginative fabrication, it is not hard to understand why I might find this amusing, and to consider what the implications could mean. Ergo, I asked you whether you think I am of the mind that my friends who are vegan are either lying or that they don't actually exist.

What's droll here is that you are now saying that this sentence:

Vego wrote:You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan.


Is meant to be read as:

Vego wrote:do you acknowledge that, under the proper circumstances (access to sufficient resources, absence of special physical or mental condition), it is possible for an individual to live normally without consuming animal products? (by "living normally" I mean to exclude excessive claims like being immune to all diseases, but include activities like sports/professional athletes)


:|

Perhaps in your mind these two questions are functionally the same, but I assure you that it is not the case for ANYONE else.

Again, to give you an example which your Morton's Demon might allow past:

When i wrote this....

Object Example wrote:You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be Christian


What I obviously meant by that was...

Object Example wrote:do you acknowledge that, under the proper circumstances (access to sufficient resources, absence of special physical or mental condition), it is possible for an individual to live normally as a Christian? (by "living normally" I mean to exclude excessive claims like being immune to all diseases, but include activities like sports/professional athletes


So why are you dodging the question? :lol: Yes, sarcasm... and absolutely justified.

Clearly, the first sentence holds a very different meaning to the second one and there is no relation between them.

If the former sentence is short-hand for the latter in your brain, not only can I not be expected to understand your notional idiosyncrasies, but you really need to consider whether anyone would be able to understand what you mean.


Vego wrote:Notice also that I have tried to limit giving justifications based on personal experience (it did happen once or twice), and I don't think I ever did for health claims.


What are you even talking about? You're still trying to argue that you've done something of importance with respect to defending veganism, but that has fuck all to do with anything actually being discussed right now. It's a symptom of the cognitive bias you're operating under.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:How could I be wrong about everything and how would you know when you just finished writing that I am allegedly unwilling to acknowledge that vegans exist when I've never said anything like that and have in fact written plenty that would be directly antithetical to that notion?


It has been a long time so it is possible that one of us is misremembering, but I think you tried to claim or imply in one of your earlier posts that somehow humans require meat (or something like that). If that's not the case, then you can easily clear the misunderstanding by explicitly acknowledging that it is possible to be vegan (see details above).


Again, why would I need to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible to be a vegan when I have never argued the contrary?

Why would I need to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible to be a vegan when I have spent many dozens of words telling you about a) my vegan friends b) discussions with vegans c) vegan cultural practices in the country in which I reside?

Each and every single one of those points is intrinsically predicated on the position that it is possible to be a vegan. Had I written those but simultaneously been in denial of the possibility of being a vegan then I would quite probably and justifiably be considered mad.

Thus, your demand that I perform a task for you as if I was dodging doing so is genuinely bizarre. From my position, you keep jumping the shark.

Honestly, I think my posts on the subject were just too subtle for you. You're looking at this from such an ideologically binary perspective where it's all about us and them that you can't see any distinction other than either with you, or against you.

I never wrote anything so sloppy as 'humans require meat' because I've spent my professional life studying humans, so I know what humans are capable of. I know of cultures that have a generational preference for veganism, and of cultures that have existed for millennia subsisting solely on meat. I know of cultures that never had access to sea foods, and cultures that subsist solely on sea foods. Cultures that have never eaten grains, and cultures that subsist primarily on grain production.

Humanity and the human experience is complex and diverse. The suite of human behavior is not something that can be squeezed into simplistic binaries, and there's no reason for me to join anyone who insists on doing so. I insist that I will continue to reject it, and continue to make points that I deem relevant and substantive regardless of whether you like it or no.

Next topic has to be split off as the post is too long - it makes sense to anyway as it deserves a little focus:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:27 am
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Regardless, thanks for admitting that you find reality objectionable. It explains a lot.


You seem to be confusing your personal opinion with reality.


That is literally what you are doing.

You find a statement of fact objectionable.

A statement of fact which you haven't actually challenged substantively, just said you didn't like the tone of.

Why is it you haven't challenged that statement of fact? Is it because you suspect that it's actually true, but you don't want it to be true?



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:As for 'tacit approval' - whence cometh you by this notion? How on Earth would you know?


I don't know, "I presume" (did you misread me again?). I have no idea what process leads to someone being quoted. Whatever this process is, it doesn't seem to guarantee the accuracy of the quote.


Misread you? No, I am beginning to question whether we share the same reality.

No idea what process leads to someone being quoted? Seriously, that's what your response is? :?

Well, it involves highlighting the section of text, then pressing the QUOTE button. That's it. You do it every time you reply.

You are quoting my posts. Were you under the impression that doing so needed the tacit approval of other members here? By quoting my post, are you implying the content of that quote has the tacit approval of other members here?

If no to both of these, then please explain why you think it's different in another thread.

You choosing to quote something says nothing whatsoever about what any other member thinks.... it's more than probable that the majority of members of this site don't and never will know that you quoted it in the first place, and while some of them may agree with the contents, the mere act of quoting it offers no insight into their opinion of the position therein.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Every single member of this site could disagree aside from HWIN and myself and you would be completely unaware of it.


Exactly, I am completely unaware of any disagreement with this egregious quote.


A non-sequitur. How do you go from 'exactly' to then diametrically contradicting yourself. Why would you be aware of any disagreement with that 'egregious' quote? You are, once again, making no sense whatsoever.

As for the quote supposedly being egregious: that's a big complaint from someone who could only whine about the tone which they projected onto it.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:No, I am not below the mean. Nor are you.


I don't know.


Irrelevant. Whether you know or not is fuck all to do with the point. If you don't know, maybe you should stop whinging about a topic you're clearly not equipped to think about.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Was that condescending of me to include you?


I don't know, it seems more like unjustified claim.


Does it? Unjustified on what grounds?

Are you going to engage in ANY substance at ANY point here? Or am I just a leg for you to virtue hump?



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:How exactly is it condescending to note that some 30% of any given population are below the mean in any given trait compared to the rest of that population?


You are not talking about any given trait,...


See, there's this set called 'any given trait'... and within that set is the trait 'intelligence'. So when I expand to say ANY GIVEN TRAIT it shows you that the particular trait in question is not being treated specially, or differently to other traits.

Thus, if you don't have a problem with those other traits being so treated, then it's you who needs to justify why this trait should be treated differently. You can't just moralize at me as reality couldn't give two hoots about your feelies.


Vego wrote:...you are assuming that there exists a specific trait that can be reduced to a number, and you go further and draw unjustified conclusions from this.


No, you're just flapping your gums again.

No assumptions were made: the existence of intelligence is a predicate that cannot be disproven as it would contradict itself and result in a paradox.

Intelligence is not a single, homogeneous value, but differs from person to person, as with all other variable traits.

When one collects sufficient data points and plots them, human intelligence follows a normal distribution. As with all normal distributions, the majority of data points fall within the mean (obviously, or it wouldn't be the mean). Then there are a smaller set of data points which are higher or lower than the mean. I simplified the numbers to indicate that the mean is about 40% (between 90 & 110 IQ) while lower than the mean (under 90) is about 30% thereby indicating that greater than the mean (over 110) is also about 30%. This isn't perfectly accurate and there's different ways of delineating following different mathematical approaches such as standard deviations, but it's close enough. In any given population, given sufficient data points, approximately 15% of the population will be slightly lower (and slightly higher than) than the mean intelligence and approximately 15% of the population will be greatly lower (and greatly higher than) than the mean.



https://www.britannica.com/science/huma ... telligence

The distribution of IQ scores

Intelligence test scores follow an approximately normal distribution, meaning that most people score near the middle of the distribution of scores and that scores drop off fairly rapidly in frequency as one moves in either direction from the centre.



https://www.westga.edu/academics/resear ... _notes.pdf

One example of a variable that has a Normal distribution is IQ. In the population, the mean IQ is 100 and it standard deviation, depending on the test, is 15 or 16. If a large enough random sample is selected, the IQ distribution of the sample will resemble the Normal curve. The larger the sample, the more clear the pattern will be.



http://www.ncurproceedings.org/ojs/inde ... ew/159/164

Does the Normal Curve Accurately Model the Distribution of Intelligence?

Like many human characteristics, intelligence is theorized to be normally distributed. However, a vocal minority of researchers and practitioners who study individuals with high intelligence have claimed that there are more people in the upper echelons of intelligence than would be expected if the normal curve accurately modeled the distribution of intelligence scores.1,2,3,4 To verify this claim we carefully searched articles from the journal Intelligence dated 1979 to 2012, completed an academic journal search and reviewed national data sets for samples that permit this claim to be tested. To be included samples must have been (a) representative of the population that the intelligence test used was normed on, (b) not be the test’s norm sample, (c) have at least 1,000 subjects in the sample, and (d) examined subject intelligence using an intelligence test with norms that are no more than 15 years old. This search yielded one such sample used in a study by.5 Two national data sets were also identified for use in this review, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY) and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS). We reviewed the information provided from these sources and determined that intelligence is indeed normally distributed.



What's interesting is how you parse this. You are employing a filter which causes you to prejudge the worth of something before you even know any of the relevant details. It's Morton's Demon, and you have a very bad case of it.

Your feelies simply cannot trump facts. They may be very important to you, but the mere fact that you feel badly disposed to something doesn't mean you should reject it, or you limit yourself and elect to live life blinkered by comforting lies.

Again, you seem to be (and tell me if I am wrong) reacting to this from a moral outrage perspective. It's as if you are assigning worth to a person based on their intelligence, and therefore projecting that onto me. In reality, the quote in question says nothing about the worth of a person, their human value, only about the apparent rise of absurd, damaging, and wholly false claims permeating national consciousness.

If you bothered to ask instead of hand-wringing, we could have talked about the component of the quote that implies that the past was different, and that traditionally access to the market place of ideas was restricted, usually either to those in power, or responsible, or expertly trained. In many ways that is preferable. 50 years ago if you were suffering from daily migraines, you'd go to the doctor - a guy trained to have an opinion that is based on expertise and knowledge. You wouldn't have gone and asked Bob-down-the-pub what he thought and acted on that. Today, that is happening all the time across multiple spheres: people are placing undue value on what Bob-on-the-internet what he thinks and demonizing actual experts.

Even then, you'd probably still misread me by trying to make my position absolute, and you consequently wouldn't know that I am not suggesting this process is wholly flawed - there are benefits to the democratization of ideas, it's just that this entails a suite of unprecedented dangers we appear to be ill-equipped to address.

So yeah, much subtlety of discussion swept away in a flurry of hand-wringing. Had you considered that perhaps HWIN and every other member is just more capable of detecting and engaging in that nuance than you?


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:would you find it so objectionable if the trait in question was 'finger length' or 'thickness of enamel on premolars' or 'dairy consumption'?


It depends; these traits have the advantage of being apparently uncontroversial, but what would you conclude from them?


So whether they're controversial or not has an impact on whether they're empirically valid or not?

What conclusions follow?

Finger length: a glove manufacturer should produce approximately 40% of any product in a mean size, 30% in smaller sizes, and 30% in larger sizes if they want to optimize their production costs for market demand.

Is that the kind of thing you mean?



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:no one is actually making any statements about intrinsic human value


Actually you are, otherwise your quote doesn't make a lot of sense.


Actually I am emphatically not, so you are projecting. Actually, it makes perfect sense alone and the introduction of an intrinsic human worth component would require a whole bunch more words which aren't in the quote, so it's you who isn't making any sense. You're arguing against something that's not there.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:only about intelligence and its impact via technological progress on the human world.


Which is one of the things I am objecting to.


Ineffectually as you don't seem capable of explaining what it is you are objecting to, only that you are objecting.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:No such assumption exists outside of your imagination.


I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see it,...


Fuck me, maybe you are a solipsist. Are you really going to try and tell me that I don't understand what I wrote?

Surely the more parsimonious analysis is that YOU don't understand what I wrote?


Vego wrote:... but contrary to what you are saying here, this assumption is logically necessary for your quote.


No, it's not. You are clearly operating under a flawed conception, and this is made even more apparent by your inability to actually phrase what is supposedly necessarily inferred by my quote.


Vego wrote:To put it another way, you can't talk about the distribution of intelligence without assuming that intelligence is a well-defined thing that can be measured with a single number.


That's a nonsensical bit of confused verbiage. You again don't know what you're talking about.

If intelligence could be measured with a single number, then there wouldn't be a fucking normal distribution, would there, Sherlock? :roll:


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Funny how you aren't talking about what's IN the quote, but rather what's NOT in the quote.


The assumptions are important.


The only assumptions I am seeing here are yours. You are making a slew of assumptions which aren't justified then using them as strawman proxies, knocking them down.


Vego wrote:Without good assumptions, what you are saying is unsound...


No assumptions: data.

All the assumptions so far are yours, and they're all wrong.


Vego wrote: (as for validity, the problem that I see has to do with the "goes a long way" that I detail below). Besides, the "doesn't change" assumption is confirmed by your subsequent words ("they've always been there").


Stop rubbing yourself off on me. You've entirely misread the quote because you've reacted to it emotionally, and now you're trying to blame your failings on me.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:An unwarranted assertion


I did say that I was trying to be brief, so tried to summarize my thoughts. Well, so much for brevity and off-topic-ness I guess...


I never asked you to be brief. I asked you to explain yourself. Hiding behind brevity isn't going to evade the requirement to commit some substance here.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:that has no bearing on anything relevant even if it were valid


You said "This goes a long way to explaining the apparent rise of ..." (the rest is indeterminate foul language which I assume refers to bad or counter-productive ideas).
In other words, you are asserting (without any evidence, in the quote at least) that the 30% below the mean intelligence play a major role in something bad. In addition to the superiority claim (which you confirmed) and the foul language, this is also part of the condescension.


Full of errors.

Firstly, fuck off with your tone policing. You're not my grandma.

Secondly, you've just projected your nonsense onto the quote, then pretended I agree with you. No note of superiority exists within - I never confirmed anything of the sort. Further, the only condescension apparent we have already established exists only in your imagination, projected onto the quote via the tone in which you read it in your head.

Thirdly, what a joker. You're whining about a quote then say you 'assume' the words refer to something positing it as if you can't read it because it's got naughty words in it. Perhaps you should try reading it before contesting it.

Fourthly, read the damn quote again you liar - there's no 'foul' language in there whatsoever, even if I were to bend over backwards to defer to your vapid moralizing:

I think the problem we're collectively running into at the moment is the power of the internet and modern media to promulgate voices beyond their traditional (and valid) power and remit. It's a hard fact of life that some 15% of any population is dramatically below the mean intelligence of that population, with nigh on another 15% slightly below the mean. This goes a long way to explaining the apparent rise of gibbering moronism; they've always been there, but only a few people ever had to listen to them before, now they can club together and form idiot vox populi platforms.


Go on... point out this 'indeterminate foul language' - it no more exists than the superiority or condescension.

So you've failed abysmally to establish anything actually true so far, and just seem to dislike the quote regardless of anything even when shown that it is grounded in empirical fact.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:What I consider to be bad ideas are ones that are empirically wrong, so it's not me determining what's bad, but reality.


Without evidence, your opinion is not reality.


You are now moving firmly into the outright lying camp - this doesn't even amount to quote-mining as you're taking a reply to your accusation out of context.

What I consider to be bad ideas are ones that are empirically wrong, so it's not me determining what's bad, but reality.

Of course, it's a red herring anyway as the merit of ideas is not actually discussed in the quote, no mention of bad or good ideas, nothing about what I consider to be bad or good.... nothing at all contained IN the quote, only IN your head.


Secondly, as per your previous confusion, you don't grasp the notion of empiricism - that is literally the evidence you then claim I don't have, whereas, I manifestly do have the evidence for the distribution of intelligence across any given population.

As for the opinion part of the quote: yup, you got me there Sherlock.... I dared to posit an opinion by using the deceptive tactic of writing "I think...." - how foul am I?




Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:no mention of bad or good ideas, nothing about what I consider to be bad or good


I used "bad ideas" as the most general concept that made sense to me and that could match your words given the context. Of course, you could avoid that by being less ambiguous.


There's no need to be less ambiguous given that the quote is perfectly comprehensible as is, and only you are struggling with its meaning. For example, the notion of 'bad ideas' isn't discussed in the quote - you added it, tried to pin it on me, then whined about it.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Unarguably, the quote stands alone perfectly well which is why HWIN elided it from other context.


It arguably doesn't, but at this point I don't expect you to actually understand that.


Well, that's because your objection isn't understandable because it's all substanceless feelies.

For everyone else, the quote is perfectly clear.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Again, you've not really responded to anything substantively.


From what I can tell from this conversation, you are saying that every time you don't understand what I am saying. If you think I am unclear you can just ask for clarification.


I understand exactly what you are saying which is why I am saying your responses lack any substance.

You still haven't actually managed to identify what it is you find objectionable IN the quote. You've made a long list of things you find objectionable which ARE NOT IN the quote, only in your head. Then you spent some time trying to tell me I don't get what I wrote, whereas you know better than me what I meant. Oh and my tone is terrible and awful and yet all the bad words which are supposedly blocking your ability to read the quote also don't actually exist in the quote, only in your head.

It appears you expect me to argue with a figment of your imagination.



Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:The bit of the quote that you're objecting to


Do you even know what bit I am objecting to?


Do you?

No seriously. Let's list what you've identified:

Condescension: doesn't exist in the quote
Superiority: doesn't exist in the quote
Assumption of single number: functionally antithetical to the content of the quote discussing means which is predicated on multiple 'numbers'.
Tone: the tone in which you read something isn't on me
Foul words: none exist in the quote
Opinion: you are pretending that the factual part of the quote is my opinion but never actually addressing the factual component

So I would say that your objection is emotional which is why you're struggling to explain it but then explain that failing away by supposedly trying to be brief while writing hundreds of words not explaining your objection.

/shrug


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:is empirically true


The thing that I am objecting to is not evidently true, and likely false in my opinion.


Here we go again. Your opinion. I don't give a toss about your opinion if it's contradicted by facts. What is or is not evidently true for you is no worthy litmus test to what is ACTUALLY true.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I am not really surprised that your acceptance of reality is based primarily on how you feel about it rather than whether it's true or not. That is practically your modus operandi.


Projection.


Yes, you project your failings onto me so you don't have to process them.


Vego wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Regardless of what I feel about something, I refuse to ignore, object, reject or avoid reality out of respect for my preferences.


You have actually demonstrated the opposite in this conversation.


No, I really haven't. That is literally exactly what you are doing. You won't engage honestly in the facts here about the distribution of intelligence across a population - you keep sliding off of it and try to talk about something else while still pretending that your objection is substantive.

I am ready and willing to discuss the merits of that position - I guarantee you I am intimately aware of all aspects of discussion regarding human intelligence given that it's a significant part of my field - but you seem to want to deny the facts outright while avoiding any substance and offering only nonsense diversions.

You can't have it both ways chap.

Do you disagree that intelligence follows normal distributions? If you disagree, you're wrong - see empirical evidence contradicting you. If you don't disagree, then all of this is just you being argumentative for no good reason as you did with the article on the vegan.


Vego wrote: That said, your words more-or-less describe my personal stance. Unlike you however, I am not deluding myself into thinking that I don't have biases.


Coming from the guy telling me what I mean in my own writing! :lol:

And a new trolling line has been cast. Where now did I say that I don't have biases? I just wrote a paragraph saying I am biased towards empirical evidence, and then you respond with that! :lol:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am
SparhafocPosts: 2648Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Found it:

Sparhafoc wrote:... except for the briefest moment of modern history and an extremely restricted geographical socioeconomic situation, eating meat sometimes was and is a nutritional necessity.


Vego wrote:you tried to claim or imply in one of your earlier posts that somehow humans require meat



So what discussion can really occur when so little honesty is involved?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:46 pm
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Sparhafoc wrote:I am not reading a post where you simply repeat the same faulty contentions you already made and which were shown false 3 times before. What's the point?

Two points: understanding that you are mistaken and becoming aware of all the other things being discussed.

Sparhafoc wrote:Essentially, it's the same. You might as well not have read what I've written if you're just going to keep repeating the same arguments irrespective of what's written in response.

It is not the same at all: I read and answer you, and I explain why I disagree with you.

Sparhafoc wrote:A 'belief' in gravity is not in any way equivalent to a religious belief.

Both are belief, and both can be deeply held.

Sparhafoc wrote:In exactly the same way, it's fucking stupid to pretend that your 'belief' in gravity is functionally equivalent to a religious belief.

I don't know what you mean by "functionally". One is justified, and the other is not.

Sparhafoc wrote:Agree or not: it remains a fact.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Sparhafoc wrote:If you were Christian and decided you no longer believed in it, then Christianity will no longer affect you.

That is only because Christian beliefs are probably false. If they were true, then it would be just like gravity (that is the Christian god would exist even if no one believed in it).

Sparhafoc wrote:The term 'belief' when used in context of gravity or heliocentricism or any scientific quantity is superfluous.

No, it is not superfluous because 'belief' is not necessarily unjustified.

Sparhafoc wrote:the distinction still remains perfectly clear

No, it is not perfectly clear, otherwise we wouldn't be disagreeing. Belief without qualification (justified or not, strong or not) is ambiguous*. In this sense 'deeply held belief' is ambiguous about the justification, but not about the strength. Belief about gravity is both strong (deeply held) and justified.

*I don't know if "ambiguous" is the right word for what I am trying to express here. Hopefully it's clear with the examples.

Sparhafoc wrote:as I've now written what 5 times?

How many times you write it doesn't matter, you are still mistaken.

Sparhafoc wrote:Irrelevant. You can believe that gravity is caused by minuscule pixies pulling you down for all it matters. What you can't do is stop believing in gravity and thereby cause it to no longer affect you. Gravity remains, regardless of your beliefs.

It is you who are saying irrelevant things. Strong beliefs can be true or false, you haven't shown anything wrong with my position.

Sparhafoc wrote:it factually is an example of a homonym

I should have worded that better, but what I am saying is that in the context of the law, it doesn't matter whether the belief is justified or not, but it does matter that it is strong.

Sparhafoc wrote:regardless of how it's been shown wrong.

You believe that I am wrong, but that does not mean that my position has been shown wrong.

Sparhafoc wrote:So what's the difference really between what you're doing and me just not bothering to read your post?

I read your text and explain why I disagree with you. If you are not reading and replying to me, then you are just talking to yourself.

Sparhafoc wrote:The Judge rules that his belief in climate change is EQUIVALENT TO A RELIGIOUS BELIEF

Legally, yes.

Sparhafoc wrote:ergo just what the vegan chap is asking the tribunal to enact on behalf of his religious beliefs.

No, it's just a legal point.

Sparhafoc wrote:That's exactly what was said in the first post on this topic, and you've spent thousands of words arguing the contrary.

You don't seem to understand what I am arguing.

Sparhafoc wrote:The vegan chap in question wants his vegan beliefs to be treated by the state as religious beliefs in terms of the protections afforded to them.

He wants the protection offered by the law. This ambiguous use of religion (legally or non-legally?) is an equivocation that you keep making to smear veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:That's even what this article says, but you don't seem to be taking such umbrage that the exact same wording is being used: "Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion "

What makes you think that the wording doesn't bother me?

Sparhafoc wrote:Why aren't you accusing the journalist of spin, of manipulation, and manufacturing it out of thin air as you did when it was about the vegan guy?

The title is clickbait (manipulative), but the content clarifies what happened:
- "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." (quote from the judge himself);
- "It's a great decision. Why should it only be religions which are protected?" (from a legal expert);
- "[Nicholson] did not believe that climate change was the new religion, because "it is based on scientific evidence, not faith or spirituality"."
I find the wording of the title objectionable, but the article itself doesn't try to claim or imply that a deeply held belief in climate change is a religious belief, and instead of looking for a think tank on religious debates, they interviewed several legal experts.

Sparhafoc wrote:Yes, that's what I just asked you: did you even read the text of the law, or just the synopsis?

I don't know what you call synopsis and text. I read what I could find online following the link in the BBC article. There seems to have been an update these past few weeks (so the content may have changed from when I posted a few weeks ago).

Sparhafoc wrote:It's sitting right in front of me - cite the 'criteria'.

You can read my earlier post about it, I already quoted (and discussed them). I think they are called Grainger criteria, and they are given in both articles (the BBC article and the Guardian article about Nicholson's case).

You are free to give your interpretation of the criteria and explain why you think they don't apply (if this is your opinion, I can't tell anymore), but legal experts are not on your side (and ultimately it is going to be the judge's decision).

Sparhafoc wrote:You're trying to argue that the vegan guy is not appealing to have his beliefs afforded the same protection as religious ones

You obviously have no idea what I am arguing, and then you are going to do just like SD and accuse me of moving the goalpost when all this time you have been mistaken about my position.

Sparhafoc wrote:Do you even know what you're arguing

Do you even know what I'm arguing?

Sparhafoc wrote:He's appealing to a law which affords religious belief protections

Yes.

Sparhafoc wrote:regardless of whether he or anyone says it is a religious belief, it is AKIN to a religious belief with respect to the application of those state protections.

Yes, this looks similar to what I said in my earlier posts.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's like you want two contradictory positions to be simultaneously true.

It's like you didn't bother reading me.

Sparhafoc wrote:You don't understand what I am 'trying' to say, even though I've said it dozens of times

The bit about "ONLY religious beliefs are protected" is puzzling to me.

Sparhafoc wrote:you've offered zero evidence at all

That's what you think because you didn't read my post.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's fuck all to do with the think tank.

Exactly, the think tank is irrelevant and should not be there.

Sparhafoc wrote:Just before you were telling me that my opinion on it is worthless presumably because it was already manifestly clear

No, your opinion is worth little because you are not a legal expert (we are probably in the same boat here), and your interpretation of the law doesn't look like what lawyers say about it.

Sparhafoc wrote:What kind of beliefs are protected by that Act? Religious ones.

And philosophical ones. More generally, I think it is beliefs that pass the Grainger test.

Sparhafoc wrote:Go back and look at your arguments right after the post where I brought this article to the discussion.

In my first answer:
- "This is a legal matter and IANAL, but I think the case could be made ".

In my second answer:
- "the law that they reference contains wording for both religion and belief as separate items " (the website has been updated since then, but there is still the distinction between religious and philosophical belief)
- "in this context, "religion or belief" is a legal category, which is the extent to which veganism would be "akin to a religion"." (to be clear: the categorization requires verifying the criteria, but I do not know if these criteria are used for religious beliefs)

I don't see any contradiction with anything I have said since.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, it's exactly the story framed exactly as it is.

I believe that you are mistaken, and I explained why. Your insistence in trying to call vegan beliefs religious means that the manipulation worked (probably more easily with you because of your pre-existing bias).

Sparhafoc wrote:Why aren't you taking the same line with the article about the climate-change guy?

Why don't you ask me the question and wait for my answer? (which I give in this post)

Sparhafoc wrote:Go look up Morton's Demon. You are afflicted.

Projection.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's the vegan guy who's associating his vegan beliefs with religion by appealing to an act which would afford his vegan beliefs protection assuming they are akin to religious beliefs.

The last part of your sentence is incorrect. The law as it is written affords protection for "religious or philosophical belief" (text), and he is trying to argue that veganism counts as a philosophical belief.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, that's simply what follows. You've even acknowledged it yourself, then contradicted yourself, then contradicted that contradiction.

My guess is that your confusion stems from your refusal to acknowledge that I am making a distinction between the legal use of religion and the non-legal use.

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't see you accusing the journalist there of bias and manipulation.

How about waiting for my answer?

Sparhafoc wrote:Do you have the entire film or not?

I only have access to what is published online, and I don't know if it is "the entire film". However, none of the material that I have seen indicates that Casamitjana or his lawyer are claiming that vegan beliefs are religious, and as far as I know the expression "akin to a religion" is only used by the journalist, and the text in the video is timed in a way that I find deliberately misleading.

Sparhafoc wrote:I didn't read ONE post because you started by repeating bullshit that had already been shown wrong.

So you judge a book by its cover, and you can't tell that you disagreeing with me does not mean that I haven't been shown wrong. Still, if you don't read me then you can't claim that I am unable to show my claim true.

Sparhafoc wrote:intersubjective verification.

Which doesn't necessarily apply here. I could go to a vegan forum and get general agreement that it is possible to be vegan, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that it is true.

Sparhafoc wrote:you keep warbling about other people not believing it's possible to be a vegan when literally NO ONE has ever said anything like that

It doesn't have to be those exact words, but if you think that humans require meat, then you think that it's not possible to be vegan.

UPDATE: this is discussed in more details below when I address the quote that you provided

Sparhafoc wrote:So perhaps you SHOULD put a little more emphasis on other people so that you don't continually misrepresent them?

I keep asking the question because your reluctance to give me a straight answer means that you are avoiding the question and I would like to know why (UPDATE: you explain more later, thanks).

Also, it's not clear from the way you worded your reply, but I did not claim or imply that "everyone here thinks that it is not possible to be vegan" (my words). If this is what you are reading, then you are misreading me.

Sparhafoc wrote:Twice across two posts you've claimed that I question whether veganism exists or whether vegans are really vegans

I thought it was more than that, but yes.

Sparhafoc wrote:despite me laughing at you

Why you think this is supposed to answer my questions is beyond me.

Sparhafoc wrote:and rebutting it with reality

Or rather your biased presentation of it.

Sparhafoc wrote:Where does it come from?

It comes from the ambiguous text that you posted and which I quoted in an earlier post "The scientific evidence ... scientifically exists.".

Sparhafoc wrote:It's clearly confusion on your part

Yes, this is what I told you already.

Sparhafoc wrote:, presumably you've misread something...

Which is why I was asking for clarification (see, just like I expected, we are just repeating the same things that I addressed in the post that you didn't read).

Sparhafoc wrote: and if you've misread to that extent, why are you confident you're not misreading other things?

Many times I asked you for clarification, saying that I don't understand or that I am not sure about what you mean. Where do you get the idea that I am confident that I'm not misreading other things, when I have been explicit in showing my lack of such confidence? You are projecting again.

Sparhafoc wrote:The law protects beliefs which are AKIN TO RELIGION.

The law protects religious and philosophical beliefs. This "akin" thing does not imply that the beliefs have to be religious, and importantly it does not preclude justifiable beliefs like climate change and veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:The criteria for those beliefs are drawn from the format of religious beliefs.

I am not sure, but this may not be true. The Guardian article ends with the judge (Mr Justice Burton) outlining five tests quite similar to what the BBC mentions. It could be that the judge in Nicholson's case crafted these criteria for the purpose of dealing with non-religious beliefs. In any case, being legally similar to religious belief doesn't mean that there can't be a justification for those beliefs, so it still doesn't make veganism (or climate change) a religious belief.

Sparhafoc wrote:And now you're also contradicting yourself by saying that veganism should be a protected belief, whereas you said the opposite at the outset.

Please quote me saying or implying that veganism should not be a protected belief.

Sparhafoc wrote:Given that it consists of less words than you've written even in that sentence above, I genuinely think you're just reading into it whatever you want.

You can't understand what I am trying to say without actually reading the words, mere counting is not enough.

Sparhafoc wrote:Of course

That looks like the acknowledgement that I have been asking for. Unless you disagree, I will from this point on consider that you believe, like I do, that it is possible to be dietary vegan (in the sense that I explained and on which we seem to be in agreement).

Sparhafoc wrote:, but the same is true of a diet consisting solely of animal products, i.e. Inuit and Sami peoples. Do you acknowledge that?

You are mixing truth and falsehood preventing me from giving you a simple yes/no answer without risking being misunderstood. So, I am going to answer your question in details, please try to read it instead of just counting the words.

Strictly speaking, I do not acknowledge your statement that "a diet consisting solely of animal products, i.e. Inuit and Sami peoples" is possible because the Inuit and Sami diets do not consist solely of animal products (Inuit: "berries", "herbaceous plants", "tubers", etc.; Sami: "berries") making your statement inconsistent. If you have evidence that these peoples only consumed animal products, please provide such evidence.

For the Inuits:
- "their traditional winter diet, which did not contain any plant matter" (here) suggests that they might be getting plants (even if it's not a lot) outside winter
- "the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population." (here)
This last point is consistent with the health claim of plant-rich diets being protective against cardiovascular risks.

However, I do acknowledge that some people claim to live only on animal products (with no plants whatsoever, although I think they use vitamins and fiber supplements which are not strictly speaking animal products). I do believe that it is possible to live like this for some time (maybe years, I doubt decades). I do not believe that it is healthy in the long term (I don't know if there are studies on these diets specifically, but the evidence in favor of plant-rich diets could be interpreted as against plant-free diets).

FWIW, youtuber Plant Positive goes into more technical details regarding various cultures claimed to be evidence against veganism (Inuit, Maasai, etc.). If you want a technical discussion about that (with scientific references, charts and all), I could probably do it but I would be drawing heavily from Plant Positive, and I am nowhere near his level (in other words, it would be more instructive to watch his material directly).

Sparhafoc wrote:However, what you actually wrote is: You seem unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan.

That does not possess the same significance you've now changed it to.

I don't understand. Is it not an empirical fact that it is possible to be vegan?

Sparhafoc wrote:I maintain the right to employ sarcasm

If you want to make your text ambiguous on purpose, don't be surprised that you are being misunderstood, especially when you are talking to people with whom there is a profound disagreement (like me).

Sparhafoc wrote:Do you think that atheism entails being unwilling to acknowledge the empirical fact that it is possible to be theist?

No, I do not think that.

Sparhafoc wrote:If I don't believe in gods, does it then follow that I don't believe that theists exist?

No, but gods are not necessary to live. If it were not possible to be vegan, then vegans would suffer from various diseases (possibly death) as a predictable result of a well-planned vegan diet.

Sparhafoc wrote:That's what you're asking me

I am certainly asking. What you think I am asking is not clear here.

Sparhafoc wrote:well, not asking, telling me is my position

Projection.

Sparhafoc wrote:I asked you whether you think I am of the mind that my friends who are vegan are either lying or that they don't actually exist.

And I already answered that I don't know. Whatever else you guessed from that is just that: a guess.

Sparhafoc wrote:What are you even talking about?

When I ask you if you acknowledge that it is possible to be vegan, I am not asking you about your friends. When I make health claims about veganism, I use scientific evidence, and it is in this context that I am asking you if you acknowledge that it is possible to be vegan.

Sparhafoc wrote:Why would I need to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible to be a vegan when I have spent many dozens of words telling you about a) my vegan friends

I don't know your friends.

Sparhafoc wrote:b) discussions with vegans

So what?

Sparhafoc wrote:c) vegan cultural practices in the country in which I reside?

You said it was only for one month each year. It is probably possible to live without food for several weeks each year, but this is not what I am asking.

Sparhafoc wrote:Each and every single one of those points is intrinsically predicated on the position that it is possible to be a vegan.

Not really. Points a) and b) require people anecdotally claiming to be vegan, and point c) is only temporary.

Sparhafoc wrote:Had I written those but simultaneously been in denial of the possibility of being a vegan then I would quite probably and justifiably be considered mad.

Or you could have thought that vegan diets are unhealthy and cause all kinds of disease.

Sparhafoc wrote:Thus, your demand that I perform a task for you as if I was dodging doing so is genuinely bizarre. From my position, you keep jumping the shark.

This is because you don't see alternatives, leading you to think that there is only one possible interpretation (yours). This is the type of thinking used in 'god of the gaps' arguments. Not seeing alternatives is generally unavoidable (I often don't see all the alternatives), but failing to acknowledge this limitation is the main problem with your discourse. The simple solution is to ask questions, and I am glad that you are finally starting to do so.

Sparhafoc wrote:Honestly, I think my posts on the subject were just too subtle for you.

Can you see an alternative to that? How about 'I am not clear enough', or 'I am mistaken'?

Sparhafoc wrote:You're looking at this from such an ideologically binary perspective where it's all about us and them that you can't see any distinction other than either with you, or against you.

After all the time you have spent insulting and misrepresenting me, you find it surprising that I think that you are against me?

Sparhafoc wrote:I never wrote anything so sloppy as 'humans require meat'

If we agree that this is not true, then I am not going to look for the exact quote. I am fine admitting that maybe you misspoke or I misunderstood.

UPDATE: I just saw your last post where you quote yourself saying "except for the briefest moment of modern history and an extremely restricted geographical socioeconomic situation, eating meat sometimes was and is a nutritional necessity".
Of course you couldn't help yourself and had to question my honesty, even though I honestly told you that I didn't remember well.

However, here is how I understand your quote: "except [A], [B]" (where A="for the briefest moment ... socioeconomic situation" and B="eating meat sometimes was and is a nutritional necessity").
To me this says that outside of A, B applies. In other words, B is the general case, and A characterizes exceptions. I don't know if you forgot a word or what, but to me you are saying that eating meat is generally a nutritional necessity (I don't know what to make of the "sometimes was").

Additionally, we probably disagree on terminology here: it's not clear to me what you mean by "nutritional", but from my perspective eating meat was probably never a biological necessity unless we had distant obligate carnivore ancestors. In other words, it has probably always been (and still is) the case that if meat is the only thing you have to eat (in sufficient quantity), then you have to eat meat, but if there are alternatives, then you don't have to.

Sparhafoc wrote:and of cultures that have existed for millennia subsisting solely on meat.

Are you sure you know that? That being said, a culture subsisting on meat isn't exactly the same as an individual (it depends what you mean by subsisting).

Sparhafoc wrote:The suite of human behavior is not something that can be squeezed into simplistic binaries

I agree.

Sparhafoc wrote:continue to make points that I deem relevant and substantive regardless of whether you like it or no.

And maybe some day you will understand that what you deem relevant and substantive may not be.

Sparhafoc wrote:Next topic has to be split off as the post is too long - it makes sense to anyway as it deserves a little focus:

Fair enough. The rest is off-topic and should probably be moved to another thread. Please tell me how you want to proceed (I will wait a while before replying).
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:39 am
*SD*User avatarPosts: 357Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Why Vegan?

Vego wrote:You obviously have no idea what I am arguing, and then you are going to do just like SD and accuse me of moving the goalpost when all this time you have been mistaken about my position.


That's because it's exactly what you did. Over and over again.

I stopped replying to you MONTHS ago so why are you bringing me into this?

I was, still am, and will remain completely clear on your position. You have been refuted again and again by at least 3 different people in this thread alone. You can keep pretending it isn't so, but that won't change anything.

Whilst I don't control what you post here, nor do I wish to, it would be courteous of you to not reference me unless you're actually addressing me - and if you want to do that then you'll need to set up a debate between us as that's the only way I'm willing to interact with you further. You can do that here, or on another platform, but if you have no intention of doing so then kindly leave me out of your shenanigans.
Image
Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:15 pm
WWW
VegoUser avatarPosts: 102Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 pm

Post Re: Why Vegan?

*SD* wrote:That's because it's exactly what you did. Over and over again.

I told you many times that you did not understand my position, that you were misrepresenting me. It's no wonder that you think that I changed my position, but simply following the links that I give in my first post proves that you are wrong*. You just keep attacking my personality/honesty because you are unable to address my arguments. If you have a good argument against well-planned vegan diets, why don't you just give it? And if you don't, why don't you just admit that it is possible to be vegan? (I can be more specific if you wish)

* To put this another way, if we were to repeat this thread (please let's not), my answers to your questions involving veganism would be substantially identical (I would probably rephrase the ambiguous statement that we discussed toward the end, but I would keep the essential of its meaning).

*SD* wrote:I stopped replying to you MONTHS ago

And I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Sparhafoc. I only mentioned you as an example that, hopefully, Sparhafoc will not try to emulate. If he had pressed me on the topic, I would have made sure to not go too far because I generally avoid arguing with people who aren't there.

*SD* wrote:so why are you bringing me into this?

You brought yourself into this thread where you have been a major contributor, and once in a while someone is going to reference something that you have written, just like you yourself have referenced other posters in this thread.

*SD* wrote:I was, still am, and will remain completely clear on your position.

Then please state clearly and unambiguously (so no sarcasm) what you believe my position was/is. It shouldn't be hard because I have been explicit about it many times, but I am convinced that you don't actually get it (I did my best to be clear, but I can't compete against what looks like willful ignorance).

*SD* wrote:You have been refuted again and again by at least 3 different people in this thread alone.

Did you miss the part where Dragan Glas acknowledged that I could be correct about the food efficiency argument (which consequently defeats part of your ethical argument), while you have denied it to the bitter end? Did you notice that at some point Dragan Glas tried to argue that literal injections were required for vegans? Or that Sparhafoc doesn't have an obsession with supplementation? You keep acting as if you are in perfect agreement with everyone else even though this is demonstrably false.

*SD* wrote:it would be courteous of you to not reference me unless you're actually addressing me

I am not trying to be discourteous to you. If you had a legitimate reason to invoke your 'Right to be Forgotten' (doxxing for example), I would comply. But it would be impossible to describe this thread without mentioning the major contributors and their various incompatible perceptions of the events.

And since we are on the topic of courtesy, in case you decide to keep posting, it would be courteous of you to stop your ad hominems and claims that I am dishonest when there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations (like me being unclear, or you being mistaken [which is not an insult]).

*SD* wrote:if you want to do that then you'll need to set up a debate between us as that's the only way I'm willing to interact with you further.

If you are unable to argue against veganism without criticizing individual vegans (whether it's me or anyone else), then you don't have a case against veganism. Please post your solid evidence that defeats veganism... My guess is, you have nothing.

UPDATE: This just came out (there is a full report with the details). This is the kind of stuff that you could try to use to build your case against veganism.

*SD* wrote:your shenanigans

So you want courtesy, but are unwilling to give it to others. That's childish.
"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:00 am
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 10
 [ 197 posts ] 
Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests