Printable View
And I think the "I think meat is murder" is silly...and now we're back to square one without having analyzed why a desire that is categorized as political or moral is somehow more worthwhile than any other desire categorized differently, or why they are even relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Do you think murder is okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Even if you don't believe that meat is murder you have to understand that, if I believe meat is murder, then my aversion to meat trumps your fondness for meat, at least at my wedding.
You've successfully argued that a person hosting a wedding should be allowed to hold the event as they wish, which was not what I was trying to debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Okay then please explain what you ARE trying to debate :p
What I quoted from Flixy. Either his logic is that the onus of reasonable behavior is on the guests when attending an event, or it is on those with more lenient standards. I don't like either line of reasoning, as it assigns priority to arbitrary and subjective values when it comes to who should behave like a reasonable person, instead of something that should be done at all times and with deliberation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
For instance, who is behaving more reasonably or as the "better" person in the following scenario:
Host A & B both hold two separate individual parties. Both Host A and Host B are vegans.
At Host A's party guests only have an option of vegan meals regardless of their own dietary restrictions, or personal desires. Anyone who has a problem with this can leave, or not attend. Non-vegan meals are disallowed from being brought to the event.
At Host B's party, Host B understands that veganism is a personal choice. While not necessarily providing non-vegan meals, Host B has provided for those with special dietary restrictions the option of non-vegan meals, and those other attendees who prefer non-vegan foods are allowed to bring their own food if the menu is not to their liking. No one will be ejected or disallowed from attending simply due to what they may or may not enjoy eating.
Now these scenarios aren't to suggest that only the host should behave in a certain manner, however, but that the guests should as well.
My problem with the article, and perhaps I didn't make this very clear in my first post (it was late last night, I was barely coherent, but this isn't the time for excuses!) was that I objected to the other vegans being outraged that Chelsea and hubby chose to serve meat at the wedding.
Host A, for sticking to his principles. Unless host B really doesn't have any principles and it's just some sort of personal preference for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Great, because veganism is such a great "principle". As I've observed personally the insanity that is "kosher", I dare say that shoving your food choice down other people's throats is not the best way to conduct a wedding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I mean, if we're upholding veganism as such a great "principle", can we also observe that being "kosher" largely is an absolutely murderous waste producing shtick? Let's not even get into schächten, the Jewish kosher slaughter of animals.
So Host B should always get shit on for not having any strong opinions or feeling that compromise is the better solution, where-as Host A, your preferred host, is the most reasonable and "better" person for "sticking to his principles" out of lack of desire or ability to empathize with others or just being a stuck-up selfish prick? Congratulations, society thanks you for applying your critical thinking skills to ensure that we forever have more of the Host A personality type than Host B. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Its all a personal preference Minx, its just whoever feels being the most inflexible about their preferences than others.
Yeah, principles are nice and all, but sometimes you can take tolerance and acceptance too far respectively demand too much tolerance and acceptance.
Case in point: We had a woman from Cameroon living in our students dorm who cooked some national food which stank to the high heavens. I kid you not, I myself likened it to boiled cow shit, someone else compared it to a week-old dead horse steamed in its own piss.
However, when I proposed that we tell her and ask her to seek alternatives or at least open the goddamn windows wide, some goody two shoes declared that telling her was inacceptable, for cultural reasons and all that stuff. Those same people talked behind her back about the very same issue, however, so I don't quite see where they had the moral high ground. Better to get that out in the open.
It's absolutely retarded to equate--in practice--a fondness for meat with a near-religious belief that meat (esp. factory-produced meat :o) is evil. Truth is that you won't always have more of host A than of host B, over time you'll get more moderates than anything else. Considering how this forum tends to feel about even imagined hypocrisy, I don't see how this is a problem for you. If you really believe that something is evil then you really should have a strong stance against it, otherwise you're just making a goddamned fashion-statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
It's kinda like my belief that pedophilia is wrong. I feel absolutely no need to cater to the sensibilities of those who feel otherwise.
So you're actually advocating intolerance?
Why is everyone so intolerant of my intolerance :(
Were vegans just compared to phedophiles? :bulb:
It has to start somewhere... :mad::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I think its more equating the evil of eating meat with the evil of pedophilia...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
...one of the things I had hoped for in this discussion was an application of critical thinking skills, and an actual analysis of the whole situation, but after that reply I don't think I'm getting it, not from Aimless at least.
Edit: In the hopes of fostering continued discussion with Aimless that is on track...
...Aimless, have you considered that perhaps large amounts of opposition to a particular thing does not technically equate with believing that thing to be evil? Or that people can hold strong beliefs or opinions simply out of an over abundance of self interest, or egotism? That principles can sometimes be a result of these things?
completely ignoring the rather basic concept of social norms? Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
"no need to cater to the sensibilities"
I'm rather curious when something like this involving pedophiles would present itself to Aimless. Of course thinking like that is why people are arrested for kiddie porn because the Japanese Manga they own isn't understood by the local law.
With the difference being that animated porn doesn't require the exploitation of any real human being. That said, I certainly feel no compunctions about banning the endorsement of kiddie porn, animated or otherwise, from my home and from my parties.
I'm not sure how this is not getting through to you. If I truly believe that something is morally wrong then it only makes sense for me to oppose it as well as I can, within the limits of the law. And, tbh, there are those who would say that if I believe a law is morally wrong then I should oppose it.
I have no idea why you're babbling about "critical thinking skills", Illusions. I mean, you equated veganism with "I like meat". You're right, not all vegans believe that it is evil to consume animal products. However, vegans are much more extreme than are vegetarians, and I think it's reasonable to believe that, for many of them, those extreme dietary restrictions are rooted in very strong beliefs about right and wrong wrt the exploitation of animals. If you can find me a vegan who's only a vegan because he hates the taste of animal products then, sure, I'll agree that he has no business hating on those who love the taste of animal products.
I was thinking earlier that we can at least say that vegans shouldn't condemn us meat-eaters because we're no less moral--or no more evil--than most of society. But, at the same time, I don't know if it makes sense to approach morality in that way. See outbursts re. moral relativitism in the discussion forum.
"I like meat" != "I want to eat meat" or "I desire to eat meat". This is what I meant by "critical thinking skills". What I also meant by "critical thinking skills" was actually coming up with a logical explanation as to why someone's desire for me to not do something should trump my desire to do it, simply because they feel more strongly about it than I do, especially with emotions being a subjective experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I not only like to eat meat, I like to kill it first.
You will never holder a greater respect for an animal than you do when you have to kill it for food.
Hey I also like growing my own vegetables and I can ASSURE you that when I pull that carrot out of the ground, wash it, peel it, cook it and eat it the goddam carrot is just as dead as the sheep I killed last weekend.
Go live on fresh air and love and see how long you last ya hippy.
:D
What the hell? Make sense goddammit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Hehe I've met a couple of vegans who felt that hunting animals was often better than supporting the meat-industry :)Quote:
Originally Posted by termite
On the matter of emotions and their subjectivity: just because they're subjective doesn't mean that you can't approach them in any sensible way. For example, you and your vegan host could sit at a table and then you might say, "I would like to eat meat, but I can tolerate a meat-free meal."
Your host might then say, "I'm sorry, but I can't bear to serve meat at my wedding," which would imply that he feels much stronger about this business than do you, because you can accept a meat-free meal and he can't. He may even go on to explain his position on his veganism. You can then determine how important it is for you to attend the wedding--can you tolerate a vegan wedding, or can't you? If you can't, then you don't have to attend (although that would signal something about your relationship with your host).
I guess this is over because I really do not know how I can dumb down the complex nuances of human behavior and emotion any further and still keep the intended meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm going to try something really simple, but that is not as closely related.
Person A and B are brought before you. You must decide whether Person A or Person B gets their way on Topic X.
They present their case one at a time.
From how vocal and inflexible Person A is on Topic X, you assume he feels very strongly about it (using your Minxian logic and empathy).
Person B is equally vocal about Topic X, but more willing to seek a compromise. You assume he doesn't feel as strongly as Person A (using your Minxian logic and empathy).
Your judgement is that Person A should have their way on Topic X.
When asked to deliberate on why you chose Person A over Person B you say...?
I think your problem is that you're approaching people as if they are uncomplex beings with one dimensional emotions. Just because a person is willing to compromise does not mean they don't feel as strongly regarding something. Perhaps they have other principals, motives, emotions, etc. that prioritize compromise over forcing their other principles upon other people. Yet you've made an argument that a person who holds strong convictions, and is more self-centered when it comes to compromise is a more reasonable person than a person who holds equally strong convictions, but desires compromise more than seeing their other desires met. You then established a situation where the first person always gets what they want, and the other does not, using your logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Provided there wouldn't be any significant harm to person B, and provided that there is a risk of significant "harm" to person A--in the sense that it would violate his integrity, for example--there's a good chance I'd say person A should have their way. If this is some sort of tribunal then I'd probably ask him to explain himself further, in the hopes that they may be able to reach a compromise. Compromise is, after all, a legitimate way to resolve a conflict. But if there is no room for compromise, then what can I do besides telling them to avoid the conflict either by requesting one person to give way or by encouraging that person to find another damned wedding?
I'd also ask them to not waste the court's time in the future with such frivolous issues :mad:
It's something that happens pretty often irl--conflicts will frequently stop an endeavour in its tracks until all parties reach a compromise, until one side gives way, or until they just part ways. Whether or not a person is being reasonable in his refusal to compromise depends entirely on what's at stake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
This was another point, that this too is entirely subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
... how is that a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Part of some office conduct training I had a few years ago had a video depicting a similar situation. The point of it all was that apparently saying anything about the smell of somebody's food, no matter how terrible it smells or how quickly the stench fills the office, is racist. I know, I was surprised too, but there you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
So...having employees throw up in their mouths is okay, but telling the people that their food smells is not? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Apparently!