Crimes against humanity are nothing an intelligent person jokes about. Especially not when you are trying to have a discussion about it. Thing is, I forgot I lack intelligent persons around here.
Imagine a messageboard somewhere in the interwebs. Someone wants to become a meatman, in all likelyhood not because he likes butchering, but because he believes its an honourable profession which provides people with good meat. He asks others of the same profession about their experience. Now someone enters who is vegetarian or a vegan. We don't know for sure. What we do know, however, is that he hates those who eat meat. He calls them murderers. He tells them that all meat is bad. That, where he comes from, meat is generally seen as a bad thing. Even though he may have some very good arguments to think about, nobody listens to him, because he antagonises most of the audience. And soon even other vegetarians and vegans join the chorus of the meatmen: MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT tl;dr I'm telling a random story about someone who wants to become a meatman and a vegetarian.
You call butchers meatmen? To be fair, even though I eat meat, the vegetarian is on pretty solid ground in saying we shouldn't (or at least not nearly as much). For a number of reasons (health, environment, cruelty) it would be better if people ate way less meat than we do. I do it because I am greedy and my morality is weak, and because I live in a culture in which it is normal to eat lots of meat. So while I take your point about it being boring or inappropriate to the thread, perhaps it is a good thing for the aspiring meat producers to have their viewpoint questioned, especially at the point when they may commit to it for many years.
This story is not about whose position is correct and whose is not, but about discussion culture. Questioning one's viewpoint may be a good thing, but the vegetarian in my story fails at that because he alienates the meatmen* by accusing them. Any valid point he might have made within a sober discussion has lost its value, and in the worst case he has permanently deafened the ears of the meatmen for years to come. * -- My dictionary told me "butcher" and "meatman" are synonyms; there is a rather obvious reason for choosing the latter.
Instructions unclear. In line at vegan butchershop. http://www.thedailymeal.com/news/eat/america-s-first-vegan-butcher-shop-open-minneapolis/120114
It is also rather unrelated since crimes against humanity are not comparable to eating meat. Neither am I accusing anyone; their own country has already decided that they are guilty by precedent. What I am talking about is what they want to do with that guilt; apparently they want to ignore it.
They don't have to, they can always disassociate themselves from their government, and, preferably, take appropriate action in trying to make sure that these crimes end.
I like the fake chicken my local vegetarian/vegan butcher sells better than real chicken. the bacon blocks are okay I guess but I prefer the real deal there. should try some of their other stuff. I also like their logo a lot: here's a selection of their imitation meats:
I was just saying that, if you want to convince people with arguments, you are doing it wrong. Just like some vegetarian cannot convince a meatman to rethink his position by accusing him of murder. My point was not about your arguments, but how you deliver them from time to time.
although.... is the vegetarian really trying to convince the butcher of anything or is his speech meant for the larger audience. if he's trying to win over popular opinion, denouncing the opposition is an ugly but effective tactic. also, the concept of vegetarianism does not sell itself. It needs to be hawked about in order for anyone to pay attention. and the more obnoxious the hawker, the more attention the idea gets. not unlike making a balance thread. I don't really fault boozah for his tactics. he's just selling the wrong idea.
I think most people would consider war an extremely bad thing. Though many would claim that it is sometimes necessary to combat some other evil. If I was considering joining an army my question would be whether I was likely to be used to do good or bad. In the case of the US military it's questionable. In Iraq (a war my country was also heavily involved in) the legacy has been widespread suffering, sectarian violence and the rise of a jihadi force that makes sadam Hussain look like the dalhi lama. In Afghanistan the result is more mixed, and there is a case for saying the people are better off.
It isn't the idea. It is the wrong tactic that is being used to alter people's perceptions. People aren't choosing the right influence tactic to convince others. If the vegetarian wants people to stop eating meat, he can try various methods. Some negative methods include bribing, threatening, and harassing. Some non negative methods include exchange, collaboration, appraising, legitimation, and rational persuasion. Before acting, the vegetarian has to use pick the most relevant and effective method depending on the situation and the targets. Above all, the vegetarian has to understand people's point of views. So the question is: How can one influence people on poxnora forums on how and what to think? I am not an active forum member but one thing I've noticed is that many people here care too much about what their peers think. Many people also prefer to do the socially acceptable thing rather than challenge unpopular and unorthodox methods. I am not picking on anyone; just basing this on degree of conformity. Poxnora forums also isn't the place for serious discussions regarding humanity/philosophy/history because most active members on these forums primarily log on to satisfy their entertainment needs.
