Veganuary WTF???

octatonic

Sporky said:

I was vegan for about a month at uni - I'd gone veggie and wanted to see if vegan was doable and enjoyable. It was both, but it seemed a lot more effort than veggie and I didn't feel any great reason to be vegan.

You did it to get laid, didn't you?

Sporky

a) no
b) I didn't know any other vegans
c) it didn't work anyway

octatonic

Don't be ashamed- we were all young once.

Sporky

Eating that many beans was never going to result in sex.

TTony

axisus said:

Note: I don't actually smoke, drink or do drugs

Moss said:

You really are grumpy at the moment

axisus said:

Note: I don't actually smoke, drink or do drugs

Cause, effect.
?

octatonic

Sporky said:

Eating that many beans was never going to result in sex.

Mmmmmmm farty sex.....

fretmeister

Sporky said:

Eating that many beans was never going to result in sex.

If only you didn't limit yourself to posh birds.

Sporky

I s'pose it'd have given a bit more thrust.

stimpsonslostson

octatonic said:

Sporky said:

Eating that many beans was never going to result in sex.

Mmmmmmm farty sex.....

Fixed that for you. (I'm married with two kids under 5). 

There are numerous documentaries on Netflix about the impact of industrial food production & how going vegan (or at least veggie) would help relieve a lot of environmental issues- water consumption being the primary one. 

I try not to eat "bad" meat- I buy from a butcher or friends who shoot game. It's all traceable etc. As a result I have meat once or twice a week tops.
Initially i found it hard work- I kept trying to make the same meals without meat rather than make new ones that suit not having meat in them. Now it's ok. 

Flink_Poyd

Vegan = not eating honey
I'll never be Vegan. 
Vegetarian  = not having steak pie and mash
I'll never be vegetarian 
I like jacket spud and beans, it's about as vegetarian as I get. 
Veganuary? Sounds like either a new planet or STD

Winny_Pooh

Obligatory confrontational post for those Internet tough guys that think Veganuary is pointless. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155645563505299&id=32799215298&_rdr

holnrew

It's been around a few years. There's no obligation to do it. 

Chalky

Grunfeld said:

Chalky said:

Hyenas can rip apart a young living antelope in agony and that is 'natural' and therefore acceptable.

But it is 'unnatural' and unacceptable to humanely and painlessly kill a sheep.

Its an illogical philosophy based solely on 'man = bad'.  It is strange the way animal rights activists stress that
a) man is an animal - we have no rights or priority over other species of animals
b) man is not an animal - what animals do is natural, what man does is unnatural.

Logic is not their strong point...

I agree with @Sporky - there's something of a straw man fallacy going on here.


Ha! The straw man fallacy attack?
In a typical 50-100 word thread response its impossible to cover a topic as wide veganism or animal rights. So arguments have to be reductive, thematic and principle-level rather than detail.
Keeping the argument mired in the detail is a simple defensive strategy, well used by many, and the accusation of straw man fallacy is simply the jargoneering equivalent of the pedantic "That's not what I said", the last refuge of the mind that can only deal with the argument one detail at a time.

Grunfeld

Chalky said:

Grunfeld said:

I agree with @Sporky - there's something of a straw man fallacy going on here.

Ha! The straw man fallacy attack?
In a typical 50-100 word thread response its impossible to cover a topic as wide veganism or animal rights. So arguments have to be reductive, thematic and principle-level rather than detail....

The reason why your statements are a genuine straw man fallacy is not because you've saved us the effort of reading your  detailed analysis it's because you've got it wrong and you are deliberately portraying "animal rights activists" as illogical idiots.  If your arguments were the ones they used then you'd have a point, BUT no one uses your arguments.  You have constructed a ridiculous set of arguments, poked fun at them, and reckon you've made your point.  That's the very definition of a straw man fallacy. 

No one interested in the subject would consider using your arguments to defend their position -- they'd use the sort of things I outlined earlier.

Sporky

Chalky said:

the accusation of straw man fallacy is simply the jargoneering equivalent of the pedantic "That's not what I said", the last refuge of the mind that can only deal with the argument one detail at a time.

Nonsense. You made a straw-man case, which is an informal fallacy. Your argument, as presented, has no merit and isn't going to sway anyone.

You might want to give this a go - it'll help you build more compelling arguments - this is part 1, IIRC there are five sections, part 4 is avoiding fallacies.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments

Flink_Poyd

I always thought a wholesale change in diet was supposed to be bad for you. I can understand the push for attention and change but this sort of thing just washes over me nowadays 

grungebob

I do some times battle with myself over eating meat but I genuinely hate vegetables, I know everyone as  kid didnt eat their veg as it wasnt as nice a chocolate etc but I gag eating the stuff.
I try to be as healthy as possible with exercise and my diet but I just can not eat salads or veg like most folk without vomiting. 

My wife loves veg and has tried to educate my tastebuds for the past 10 years but has now (finally) understood I do suffer physical (maybe physiological i.e its all in my head) discomfort from eating them.

to get around this most of my meals are stews and the like where the veg is grated or cut up small in a sauce that hides their taste.

I honestly do get envious watching people eat colourful salads but I just cant eat them. 

axisus

grungebob said:

I do some times battle with myself over eating meat but I genuinely hate vegetables, I know everyone as  kid didnt eat their veg as it wasnt as nice a chocolate etc but I gag eating the stuff.
I try to be as healthy as possible with exercise and my diet but I just can not eat salads or veg like most folk without vomiting. 

My wife loves veg and has tried to educate my tastebuds for the past 10 years but has now (finally) understood I do suffer physical (maybe physiological i.e its all in my head) discomfort from eating them.

to get around this most of my meals are stews and the like where the veg is grated or cut up small in a sauce that hides their taste.

I honestly do get envious watching people eat colourful salads but I just cant eat them. 

Wow, that is 100% me! I would literally throw up if I tried to eat veg, it would be like a can of worms. I so wish I could but it is a MASSIVE psychological barrier for some reason.

Chalky

Grunfeld said:

Chalky said:

Grunfeld said:

I agree with @Sporky - there's something of a straw man fallacy going on here.

Ha! The straw man fallacy attack?
In a typical 50-100 word thread response its impossible to cover a topic as wide veganism or animal rights. So arguments have to be reductive, thematic and principle-level rather than detail....

The reason why your statements are a genuine straw man fallacy is not because you've saved us the effort of reading your  detailed analysis it's because you've got it wrong and you are deliberately portraying "animal rights activists" as illogical idiots.  If your arguments were the ones they used then you'd have a point, BUT no one uses your arguments.  You have constructed a ridiculous set of arguments, poked fun at them, and reckon you've made your point.  That's the very definition of a straw man fallacy. 

No one interested in the subject would consider using your arguments to defend their position -- they'd use the sort of things I outlined earlier.

Wow. Logically, the only way you can assert that is if you know the arguments used by everyone. You must be omniscient.

Chalky

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

the accusation of straw man fallacy is simply the jargoneering equivalent of the pedantic "That's not what I said", the last refuge of the mind that can only deal with the argument one detail at a time.

Nonsense. You made a straw-man case, which is an informal fallacy. Your argument, as presented, has no merit and isn't going to sway anyone.

You might want to give this a go - it'll help you build more compelling arguments - this is part 1, IIRC there are five sections, part 4 is avoiding fallacies.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments

Logically you can only assert that if you know how every individual will react.  I'd send you a link to read but I can't be arsed.