Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[sealion]

Brighton Mourns as City’s Last Gluten Tolerant Resident Dies aged 85

 

[littlebabyjesus]

(((gluten-intolerant vegans)))

 

[ddraig]

(((gluten-intolerant vegans)))

sneering prick

 

[Spymaster]

 

[Spymaster]

Teenager Arrested For Selling Lettuce to Desperate Vegans on Hove Street Corner

Some of the comments are mildly amusing

They probably do the hard stuff (carrots, parsnips) in Brighton but this is “Hove Actually” and more refined

I drove through there yesterday and saw them making pipes out of carrots and smoking sage through them.
Some where even going as far as opening up tea bags for a stronger hit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

sneering prick

no cartoon stick men?

 

[Spymaster]

 

[gentlegreen]

Out of interest, what do meat eaters consider "normal" in terms of pooing / frequency of constipation ?
(not that meat eating necessarily means a lack of veggies / fibre in the diet ...)

 

[sealion]

Out of interest, what do meat eaters consider "normal" in terms of pooing / frequency of constipation ?
(not that meat eating necessarily means a lack of veggies / fibre in the diet ...)

This would all depend on the amount of exercise one takes and what time you eat and how big or small the meal might be. I used to go vegan for periods when i was training and didn't notice a different pattern from when i ate meat.

 

[Spymaster]

I had to look up malzoan

malzoan
Meaning : Malzoan (n.) A person who condones, promotes, or actively engages in non-human animal exploitation, enslavement, rape, torture, murder, consumption, or commodification.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Oh, fucking hell,

 

[mrs quoad]

Both yourself and lbj, who are seem to be amongst the more sane contributors, appear to believe that unless somebody agrees with your proposal then they are unreasonable and so you throw your toys out of the pram and start complaining about terrible blood curdling words like the dreaded "carnist".

Tbf, I've seen lbj identify the point at which discussions go no further, which seems pretty accurate to me. I missed the bit where that turned into calling your assumptions "unreasonable," as opposed to pointing out that your vs e.g. my assumptions, and where they differ, and the specific fetishisation of death, are where further dialogue appear to become impossible.

 

[Spymaster]

Tbf, I've seen lbj identify the point at which discussions go no further, which seems pretty accurate to me. I missed the bit where that turned into calling your assumptions "unreasonable," as opposed to pointing out that your vs e.g. my assumptions, and where they differ, and the specific fetishisation of death, are where further dialogue appear to become impossible.

Lbj was even exceptionally patient with ddraigo the other night!

Tbf, when you're dealing with people who can't comprehend that people who are fond of animals can be meat eaters too; who talk about murdering animals, post jaunty slogans, and make up funny words for people they don't agree with, you're never going to have a reasoned debate. It's like arguing with conspiracy theorists. Might as well skip straight to the piss-taking. Casually Red had the right idea.

 

[honkeymonkey]

I think I just don't care that much. Because I can definitely understand their feeling, so we have to respect each other.

 

[Watermelon Man]

I think I just don't care that much. Because I can definitely understand their feeling, so we have to respect each other.

What don't you care about?

 

[A380]

What don't you care about?

disasters, fires, floods and killer bees
the NASA shuttle falling in the sea
starvation and the food that Live Aid bought
the gamblers and the pushers and the freaks
the people who live on the street
the welfare of all the boys and girls.

 

[veganomics]

Don't worry about it, you are not obliged to read or respond, although any quality replies would be gratefully received.

Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment with work and real life and therefore cannot really spare the time to wade through all the timewasting nonsense in this thread, most of it coming from the vegan opposition party, It's fairly low on my priority list, even though this is my topic of choice, the clue being right there in my member name.

Hahahaa, dude I was away from my pute for a few hours yesterday and CR appeared to have some kind of vegan induced fit. He's surely completely off his rocker, poor thing.

I agree with you about the mythical "angry vegan". They don't really exist in real life. Unfortunately some here believe youtube IS real life, lol.

I don't take CR seriously at all and mostly ignore his nonsense, he seems to be one of the VOP right wing extremists nutjobs. Do you like the new acronym, VOP? I just made it up off the top of my head and I'm quite pleased with it, although I think it's just the sort of thing that appears to raise VOP heckles, minting new words and terms that accurately describe them. They don't appear to like that at all.

I believe that the "angry vegan" is a mythical VOP caricature that is at best an exaggeration of what happens in real life. This mythical creature, who by their own admission, mostly exists on youtube, that well known haven of credibility, and the unholy VOP alliance use their belief in this caricature as a lever to justify their behaviour, because the VOP can't really argue their points using logic and reason and so have to resort to mockery, sneers, taunts and just general self confessed "sillyness".

Nearly all of the pillars of the traditional arguments VOPs tend to use are built on very shaky foundations and some of those pillars have collapsed in a heap. So now, under the guidance of the de-facto VOP leader and messiah, lbj, they have formed a defensive circle around one of the few remaining pillars, a bit like Cutlers last stand. Strange as it may seem, they are fighting on the morality ticket. It is the contention of the VOP messiah that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with killing animals for food, as long as you take care of them properly and give them lots of cuddles, and that somehow, killing them is definitely not cruel or inhumane because we are much better than them and they are beneath us, stupid animals.

Apparently there is some forum history/beef that I don't know about (or really care tbh), which gives lbj the right to declare the argument to be over right at start of the thread due to the unwillingness of those unreasonable "angry vegans" who refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable notion that killing animals when there is absolutely no need to do so is definitely not immoral or cruel. What's wrong with these radical vegan terrorists? How dare they not accept this obvious truth. It is this intransigence from unreasonable vegans has been the catalyst for VOP activism and pre-emptive strikes. They feel entitled to sabotage and bombard this thread with "sillyness" because those "angry vegans" deserve it. Right?

That's all I have time for. For those interested there are a number of reasonable debates that go into detail and cover nearly all the aspects of the subject. For those that are a bit more open minded and don't do the "I'm not listening to your crap" instant dismissal, you might learn a thing or two. One of the more recent series of vlogger spats was triggered by Roaming Millenials recent The Problem With Vegans video and there have been some pretty good responses.

 

[xenon]

What? circling the wagons, leaders... No one's arsed having a go at vegans. CR he's just doing his thing. Seriously if you think this thread counts as some kind of angry opposition, you need to read some others around here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment with work and real life and therefore cannot really spare the time to wade through all the timewasting nonsense in this thread, most of it coming from the vegan opposition party, It's fairly low on my priority list, even though this is my topic of choice, the clue being right there in my member name.


I don't take CR seriously at all and mostly ignore his nonsense, he seems to be one of the VOP right wing extremists nutjobs. Do you like the new acronym, VOP? I just made it up off the top of my head and I'm quite pleased with it, although I think it's just the sort of thing that appears to raise VOP heckles, minting new words and terms that accurately describe them. They don't appear to like that at all.

I believe that the "angry vegan" is a mythical VOP caricature that is at best an exaggeration of what happens in real life. This mythical creature, who by their own admission, mostly exists on youtube, that well known haven of credibility, and the unholy VOP alliance use their belief in this caricature as a lever to justify their behaviour, because the VOP can't really argue their points using logic and reason and so have to resort to mockery, sneers, taunts and just general self confessed "sillyness".

Nearly all of the pillars of the traditional arguments VOPs tend to use are built on very shaky foundations and some of those pillars have collapsed in a heap. So now, under the guidance of the de-facto VOP leader and messiah, lbj, they have formed a defensive circle around one of the few remaining pillars, a bit like Cutlers last stand. Strange as it may seem, they are fighting on the morality ticket. It is the contention of the VOP messiah that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with killing animals for food, as long as you take care of them properly and give them lots of cuddles, and that somehow, killing them is definitely not cruel or inhumane because we are much better than them and they are beneath us, stupid animals.

Apparently there is some forum history/beef that I don't know about (or really care tbh), which gives lbj the right to declare the argument to be over right at start of the thread due to the unwillingness of those unreasonable "angry vegans" who refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable notion that killing animals when there is absolutely no need to do so is definitely not immoral or cruel. What's wrong with these radical vegan terrorists? How dare they not accept this obvious truth. It is this intransigence from unreasonable vegans has been the catalyst for VOP activism and pre-emptive strikes. They feel entitled to sabotage and bombard this thread with "sillyness" because those "angry vegans" deserve it. Right?

That's all I have time for. For those interested there are a number of reasonable debates that go into detail and cover nearly all the aspects of the subject. For those that are a bit more open minded and don't do the "I'm not listening to your crap" instant dismissal, you might learn a thing or two. One of the more recent series of vlogger spats was triggered by Roaming Millenials recent The Problem With Vegans video and there have been some pretty good responses.

lol

The only 'obvious truth' I would ask you to accept is that others don't share your belief that killing animals for food is immoral. I've merely tried, and clearly failed, to explain why I don't consider it to be immoral. Your final paragraph betrays your own fundamentalism on this - in reality, you're projecting when you think I'm trying to get you to accept an 'obvious truth'.

 

[Spymaster]

It's the passive aggression and pretence at lack of argument that makes me grin. Like he's made some knock-out case to which there's no reasonable response.

 

[antimata]

reponce is always necessary...

 

[Idris2002]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment with work and real life and therefore cannot really spare the time to wade through all the timewasting nonsense in this thread, most of it coming from the vegan opposition party, It's fairly low on my priority list, even though this is my topic of choice, the clue being right there in my member name.


I don't take CR seriously at all and mostly ignore his nonsense, he seems to be one of the VOP right wing extremists nutjobs. Do you like the new acronym, VOP? I just made it up off the top of my head and I'm quite pleased with it, although I think it's just the sort of thing that appears to raise VOP heckles, minting new words and terms that accurately describe them. They don't appear to like that at all.

I believe that the "angry vegan" is a mythical VOP caricature that is at best an exaggeration of what happens in real life. This mythical creature, who by their own admission, mostly exists on youtube, that well known haven of credibility, and the unholy VOP alliance use their belief in this caricature as a lever to justify their behaviour, because the VOP can't really argue their points using logic and reason and so have to resort to mockery, sneers, taunts and just general self confessed "sillyness".

Nearly all of the pillars of the traditional arguments VOPs tend to use are built on very shaky foundations and some of those pillars have collapsed in a heap. So now, under the guidance of the de-facto VOP leader and messiah, lbj, they have formed a defensive circle around one of the few remaining pillars, a bit like Cutlers last stand. Strange as it may seem, they are fighting on the morality ticket. It is the contention of the VOP messiah that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with killing animals for food, as long as you take care of them properly and give them lots of cuddles, and that somehow, killing them is definitely not cruel or inhumane because we are much better than them and they are beneath us, stupid animals.

Apparently there is some forum history/beef that I don't know about (or really care tbh), which gives lbj the right to declare the argument to be over right at start of the thread due to the unwillingness of those unreasonable "angry vegans" who refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable notion that killing animals when there is absolutely no need to do so is definitely not immoral or cruel. What's wrong with these radical vegan terrorists? How dare they not accept this obvious truth. It is this intransigence from unreasonable vegans has been the catalyst for VOP activism and pre-emptive strikes. They feel entitled to sabotage and bombard this thread with "sillyness" because those "angry vegans" deserve it. Right?

That's all I have time for. For those interested there are a number of reasonable debates that go into detail and cover nearly all the aspects of the subject. For those that are a bit more open minded and don't do the "I'm not listening to your crap" instant dismissal, you might learn a thing or two. One of the more recent series of vlogger spats was triggered by Roaming Millenials recent The Problem With Vegans video and there have been some pretty good responses.

Wow

 

[AnnaKarpik]

I'm coming to the conclusion that absolutely nothing on earth* could persuade me to call myself vegan, regardless of what I do or don't eat.

*if someone wanted to offer money though, I'm open to negotiations.

 

[tonysingh]

I'm coming to the conclusion that absolutely nothing on earth* could persuade me to call myself vegan, regardless of what I do or don't eat.

*if someone wanted to offer money though, I'm open to negotiations.

i offer 27p.

 

[A380]

i offer 27p.

I'll chip in 12p and a 1 Euro coin I found in my coat pocket.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment with work and real life and therefore cannot really spare the time to wade through all the timewasting nonsense in this thread, most of it coming from the vegan opposition party,

I also have not had as much time recently. I've been helping an 89 old lady who's struggling to look after herself and husband with little support. As a country we could look after our old people a bit better. Anyway, I've digressed. Yes, indeed there is an awful lot of nonsense posts and people have a go, a sly dig here and there not much of any substance because they've decided to try and drown out anything sensible that might have emerged. For people that don't much care for veganism, they've invested quite a lot of time and energy to "have a go" and are currently dominating the leaderboard.


Now that's some dedication for folks that claim that they "ain't bovvered" by vegan talk.

I don't take CR seriously at all and mostly ignore his nonsense, he seems to be one of the VOP right wing extremists nutjobs. Do you like the new acronym, VOP? I just made it up off the top of my head and I'm quite pleased with it, although I think it's just the sort of thing that appears to raise VOP heckles, minting new words and terms that accurately describe them. They don't appear to like that at all.

I believe that the "angry vegan" is a mythical VOP caricature that is at best an exaggeration of what happens in real life. This mythical creature, who by their own admission, mostly exists on youtube, that well known haven of credibility, and the unholy VOP alliance use their belief in this caricature as a lever to justify their behaviour, because the VOP can't really argue their points using logic and reason and so have to resort to mockery, sneers, taunts and just general self confessed "sillyness".

Nearly all of the pillars of the traditional arguments VOPs tend to use are built on very shaky foundations and some of those pillars have collapsed in a heap. So now, under the guidance of the de-facto VOP leader and messiah, lbj, they have formed a defensive circle around one of the few remaining pillars, a bit like Cutlers last stand. Strange as it may seem, they are fighting on the morality ticket. It is the contention of the VOP messiah that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with killing animals for food, as long as you take care of them properly and give them lots of cuddles, and that somehow, killing them is definitely not cruel or inhumane because we are much better than them and they are beneath us, stupid animals.

Apparently there is some forum history/beef that I don't know about (or really care tbh), which gives lbj the right to declare the argument to be over right at start of the thread due to the unwillingness of those unreasonable "angry vegans" who refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable notion that killing animals when there is absolutely no need to do so is definitely not immoral or cruel. What's wrong with these radical vegan terrorists? How dare they not accept this obvious truth. It is this intransigence from unreasonable vegans has been the catalyst for VOP activism and pre-emptive strikes. They feel entitled to sabotage and bombard this thread with "sillyness" because those "angry vegans" deserve it. Right?

That's all I have time for. For those interested there are a number of reasonable debates that go into detail and cover nearly all the aspects of the subject. For those that are a bit more open minded and don't do the "I'm not listening to your crap" instant dismissal, you might learn a thing or two. One of the more recent series of vlogger spats was triggered by Roaming Millenials recent The Problem With Vegans video and there have been some pretty good responses.

VOP eh? Not bad. Or how about CC? No not the dieselgate Volkswagen Passat derivative, it's the Carnist Coalition. Maybe we need some marketing advice from Saatchi and Saatchi.
I've not heard of the roaming millenial stuff. I'll get round to it eventually. These videos are usually on the long side and I have to be in the mood and have the time, but there is a lot of good stuff out there (and also a lot of rubbish). Here's one that I saw last week which I thought was alright...

 

[pengaleng]

'suff-folk'

 

[PaoloSanchez]

What? circling the wagons, leaders... No one's arsed having a go at vegans. CR he's just doing his thing. Seriously if you think this thread counts as some kind of angry opposition, you need to read some others around here.

Indeed, "no one's arsed". That's why they've set up camp in this thread, lol.
"Look at my face...am I bovvered tho?..."

 

[Spymaster]

I also have not had as much time recently. I've been helping an 89 old lady who's struggling to look after herself and husband with little support.

Absolutely priceless!!!