Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[SpookyFrank]

What Fat Vegans Eat

There was a schism in the 'what fat vegans eat' group a couple of years ago, IIRC it started over real pringles vs Lidl own brand pringles. So there are at least enough fat vegans for them to bitterly fall out with each other.

 

[Tom A]

There was a schism in the 'what fat vegans eat' group a couple of years ago, IIRC it started over real pringles vs Lidl own brand pringles. So there are at least enough fat vegans for them to bitterly fall out with each other.

That's Tumblr for you.

 

[Supine]

What word would you suggest vegans use to refer to people who believe eating meat is natural and normal?

Poo poo heads

 

[veganomics]

None of these are counter arguments to veganism.

Indeed, but meatists invariably wheel at least one of those "useless" arguments out whenever they feel threatened by those nasty horrible mean old vegans.

If you do have any genuinely decent arguments in favour of carnism, then I'd be happy to hear some good ones and not the worn out recycled rubbish that is usually presented.

 

[fishfinger]

Who's going to defend "carnism"? It's a straw-man created by unimaginative people.

 

[SpookyFrank]

what a fucking pathetic fucking post
for fucks sake man

Well I'm convinced.

 

[veganomics]

It's that making up silly terms and framing arguments in such a way is counterproductive if you are genuinely seeking to move people away from meat eating.

This appears to be the substitute for a decent argument, nit picking over the terms used to describe people who are ok with killing and eating animals. Really?
This appears to be a rearguard desperate defence of a dodgy practice. I'm fine with the word carnism, don't see anything wrong with it at all, and it's not any worse than the word veganism. A lot of meatheads are quite happy to join in and/or condone any negative comments or terms used to describe people who chose not to eat meat, but all of a sudden cry foul at the use of a fairly innocuous word like "carnist". I suppose if you really do find such a word offensive then avoid interacting with those nasty people who use that word, and stay away from threads where they have a presence.

...and there was me believing that you carrion crunchers were a tough breed. lol

 

[ddraig]

Who's going to defend "carnism"? It's a straw-man created by unimaginative people.

meat eater = carnivore (alson now carnist)
eating of meat = carnism

what's the big issue with that?
obviously people who eat meat don't seem to like it, tough

 

[SpookyFrank]

If you do have any genuinely decent arguments in favour of carnism, then I'd be happy to hear some good ones and not the worn out recycled rubbish that is usually presented.

Why would anyone argue in favour of a thing that doesn't exist?

Meat consumption by humans exists, meat-eating-as-ideology does not.

 

[SpookyFrank]

meat eater = carnivore (alson now carnist)
eating of meat = carnism

what's the big issue with that?
obviously people who eat meat don't seem to like it, tough

I don't eat meat and I don't like it, nor do I like the idea of a particular clique inventing a word then demanding that other people respond to it.

 

[bimble]

carrion cruncher is much better than carnist, i reckon.
Is there a word along similar lines that vegans use for dairy-eating vegetarians ?

 

[gentlegreen]

Meat consumption by humans exists, meat-eating-as-ideology does not.

https://www.westonaprice.org/

 

[fishfinger]

meat eater = carnivore (alson now carnist)
eating of meat = carnism

what's the big issue with that?
obviously people who eat meat don't seem to like it, tough

People who only eat vegetables call themselves vegetarians or vegans. Most of the rest of us are omnivores. Only someone with a dishonest agenda would label people who are not vegetarian/vegan as "carnists".

 

[gentlegreen]

carrion cruncher is much better than carnist, i reckon.
Is there a word along similar lines that vegans use for dairy-eating vegetarians ?

teet pus-slurper ?

 

[Spymaster]

I suppose if you really do find such a word offensive ...

It's not offensive. It's just silly.

 

[gentlegreen]

Anyway, seeing as I'm almost certainly about to settle for a sea-gan diet, I guess I'm deserving of a nickname too ...

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Why would anyone argue in favour of a thing that doesn't exist?

Meat consumption by humans exists, meat-eating-as-ideology does not.

Playing silly buggers with semantics, eh? Meat eating by humans exists. Some meat eating humans are happy to defend their meat eating practices and don't like it when the many negative aspects of their behaviour are highlighted. Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[SpookyFrank]

This appears to be the substitute for a decent argument, nit picking over the terms used to describe people who are ok with killing and eating animals. Really?
This appears to be a rearguard desperate defence of a dodgy practice. I'm fine with the word carnism, don't see anything wrong with it at all, and it's not any worse than the word veganism. A lot of meatheads are quite happy to join in and/or condone any negative comments or terms used to describe people who chose not to eat meat, but all of a sudden cry foul at the use of a fairly innocuous word like "carnist". I suppose if you really do find such a word offensive then avoid interacting with those nasty people who use that word, and stay away from threads where they have a presence.

...and there was me believing that you carrion crunchers were a tough breed. lol

It's not inoccuous, it's loaded. It was invented to serve an agenda. This is an abuse of language, which I would be more upset about if it weren't for the zero percent chance of the word catching on amongst people who don't already agree with you.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

It's not offensive. It's just silly.

If you don't like it then you don't need to use it, simple. I don't think it's any more or less silly than any other word used to describe meat eating humans. Arguing over terms like this is however a useful distraction away from the things that actually matter, which appears to be part of the gameplan for meatheads.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Meat eating by humans exists. Some meat eating humans are happy to defend their meat eating practices and don't like it when the many negative aspects of their behaviour are highlighted.

All of this is true. And look at how easily you were able to say it without inventing words.

The absence of ideology is not, in itself, an ideology. If there were ideological meat-eaters who considered meat eating to be a moral imperative, those people would be a tiny fringe of a tiny fringe of a group that includes a large chunk of humanity. If you want a word for ideolgical meat eaters fair enough, but you can't then conflate it with 'everyone who eats meat'. To do so is to knowingly use bad reasoning and then cover it up with linguistic fuckery.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

It's not inoccuous, it's loaded. It was invented to serve an agenda. This is an abuse of language, which I would be more upset about if it weren't for the zero percent chance of the word catching on amongst people who don't already agree with you.

Oh dear. Well as I said to SpyMaster just now, if you don't like the word it's easy to avoid. I'm not sure why meatheads appear to be freaking out over it's use. It accurately descriptive of people who like and choose to eat meat. I don't really understand what the objection to it is to be honest.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If you don't like it then you don't need to use it, simple. I don't think it's any more or less silly than any other word used to describe meat eating humans. Arguing over terms like this is however a useful distraction away from the things that actually matter, which appears to be part of the gameplan for meatheads.

There isn't a gameplan. People just eat what they want to eat. If you have a gameplan to change people's desires, it is going to require communication rather than adversarial nonsense.

You can't have a war if the other side isn't a side, doesn't know it's fighting and doesn't care what you do.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

meat eater = carnivore (alson now carnist)
eating of meat = carnism

what's the big issue with that?
obviously people who eat meat don't seem to like it, tough

Can we just call meat eaters "normal" instead?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

If you do have any genuinely decent arguments in favour of carnism, then I'd be happy to hear some good ones and not the worn out recycled rubbish that is usually presented.

My personal arguments for eating meat:

1 - I enjoy it
2 - That's it

 

[ddraig]

Can we just call meat eaters "normal" instead?

why? would it make you more comfortable, awww
carnist fragility in action on this page!

 

[SpookyFrank]

I don't really understand what the objection to it is to be honest.

I've explained in some detail my objection to it.

Can you explain why you'd use 'carnist' which will not be widely understood and which is used inconsistently and ambiguously even on this one thread, as opposed to the factual, non-loaded and unambiguous 'meat eater' ?

 

[ddraig]

why not? all words start somewhere
it's a good descriptor and will become more wildly used

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

why? would it make you more comfortable

No, I simply enjoy accuracy in my world.

 

[SpookyFrank]

it's a good descriptor and will become more wildly used

It's not and it won't.

 

[ddraig]

No, I simply enjoy accuracy in my world.

you like telling people what's what and to be right and not be questioned