What are peoples views on Vegetarianism, seriously?

[CharethCutestory]

Who was nasty to her?

Lots and lots of people. One user, I think called SoWhySoSad, knew Jo outside of the forum and posted a photo of her on the site. That's not the kind of thing Jo could deal with and was, by all accounts, pretty twatish.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Lots and lots of people. One user, I think called SoWhySoSad, knew Jo outside of the forum and posted a photo of her on the site. That's not the kind of thing Jo could deal with and was, by all accounts, pretty twatish.

How do you know it was a photo of her?

 

[virtually dead]

Lots and lots of people. One user, I think called SoWhySoSad, knew Jo outside of the forum and posted a photo of her on the site. That's not the kind of thing Jo could deal with and was, by all accounts, pretty twatish.

bloody c***! were they banned?

 

[CharethCutestory]

bloody c***! were they banned?

Don't know.

I know that this will sound prevocative, but I'll be back in a bit as I'm off to eat a kebab.

 

[CharethCutestory]

How did people know it was a photo of her? Did that person say that?

Yes, but, from what what I can gather Jo went fncking hatstand and got banned, so I'm assuming thta it was genuine.

To be honest I don't know why. it was a nice picture.

 

[nightandday]

The cows who provide milk will eventually be slaughtered, as will the hens who provide eggs. Are you naive enough to believe they die of old age, warm and happy in their beds? I wish I could say I find your weak justifications for eating animal products amusing, but I'd be a liar if I did.

Oh, so you aren't just against killing animals for meat, you're against keeping domestic animals althogether (because they will eventually be slaughtered)? And your suggestion is... what? That they should be set free in the woods??? Please explain what you would do about the domestic farm animals, I'm sure you have some really useful proposals...

 

[nightandday]

It sounds as if you look after your animals very well, and that's fantastic, but the poor hens in factory farms face a majorly different reality. The mother hens in those circumstances are probably more likely to bond with the eggs because those eggs are literally all they have, since they're cramped in cages so small they can barely move.

See, that's the kind of argument you should use if you really want to convince people to embrace veganism, instead of spouting nonsense such as "it's wrong to steal their eggs because they bond with them" or "it's not natural for humans to drink cow's milk".

 

[nightandday]

And please, stop asking me to define perfectly simple words like natural or unnatural. If your high school English teachers didn't do their jobs properly, that ain't my problem. Ta ta.

Right, the meaning of the words "natural" and "unnatural" is so clear, the only problem are HIM's English teachers...

Let's look at some examples of the use of the word "unnatural", found by a simple Google search. (Apologies to everybody for some of the rubbish you will read here.)

I'll start with a few pages related to this discussion:

Animal Factories Report - Natural Meat Sidebar
We found that most supermarket employees were misinformed about organic and natural meat products. Several meat department clerks incorrectly informed us ...
www.consumersunion.org/other/animal/natural.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

New Harvest - Advancing Meat Substitutes Cultured meat is unnatural, in the same way that bread, cheese, yogurt, and wine are unnatural. All involve processing ingredients derived from natural ...
www.new-harvest.org/faq.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Peaceful Pastures All Natural Meats Peaceful Pastures raises all natural meats: beef, pork, veal, lamb, chicken and turkey. Our animals are raised under the most humane conditions on pasture, ...
www.peacefulpastures.com/ - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Vegetarian Guide: Why meat-eating is unnatural Vegetarian Guide: Recipes, nutritional information, online bookstore, history of vegetarianism in the US, myths, veg. company stocks, plus a guide to veg. ...
michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html - 57k - Cached - Similar pages

Buy Natural Grass Fed Meat, Beef, Grown Pork & Free Range Chicken ...The Healthy Carnivore delivers choice, natural beef, chicken & pork products to your front door. We offer the fastest natural meat home delivery service ...
www.healthycarnivore.com/ - 30k - Cached - Similar pages


and in other contexts:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/contraception/against_1.shtml

The moral case against contraception

Condom
Those who say contraception is morally wrong do so for a variety of reasons.

Contraception is inherently wrong
Contraception is unnatural
Contraception is anti-life
Contraception is a form of abortion
Contraception separates sex from reproduction
Contraception brings bad consequences
Contraception carries health risks
The "contraceptive culture" is dangerous
Contraception prevents potential human beings being conceived
Contraception prevents people who might benefit humanity from being born
Contraception can be used as a eugenic tool
Contraception is often misused in mass population control programmes in a racist way
Mass population control programmes can be a form of cultural imperialism or a misuse of power
Contraception may lead to depopulation
This sounds odd to an age concerned about over population but for substantial parts of the last 150 years this was a real fear.
Contraception leads to "immoral behaviour"
Contraception makes it easier for people to have sex outside marriage
Contraception leads to widespread sexual immorality
Contraception allows people (even married people) to have sex purely for enjoyment

.........................................................................

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/india/innews27.htm

No ‘Unnatural’ Sex Please, We Are Indians!

Hindustan Times, September 11, 2003
Email: [email protected]
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_370897,0008.htm

Indo-Asian News Service

New Delhi—Sexually adventurous Indians may be unwittingly committing several crimes in the bedroom, including some punishable with life imprisonment.

If the Government has its way, homosexuality, oral sex and anal sex, which are increasingly an accepted form of sexual behaviour in many parts of the world, will not be legalised in India just yet.

The Government’s contention in a court that homosexuality should not be legalised as it was not accepted by Indian society has outraged not only the gay community but many who believe the state should keep out of the bedroom.

The Government was responding this week to a petition questioning Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that deems “voluntary sex against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” a criminal offence to be punished with imprisonment for life or up to 10 years.

“We expected nothing better from this Government than the old bogey of Indian culture and society that is completely divorced from scientific realities,” Aditya Bandopadhyay, a member of the Lawyers’ Collective HIV/AIDS unit that formulated the petition for the NGO Naz foundation, said.

“How can you criminalise a whole community when it is scientifically, sociologically, anthropologically and historically accepted that homosexuality is not a depravity or an aberration?”

The petition, filed in 2001, argued that consenting homosexual acts should be legalized because the fear of arrest and harassment from the police had driven gay people underground, hampering the anti-AIDS campaign.

Responding after a long time, the Government told the court that Indian society was “intolerant” towards homosexuality and repealing the law would “open the floodgates of delinquent behaviour”.

It was argued that this was the only law against child abuse and male rape.

But Bandopadhyay retorted, “Why not frame separate laws for child abuse and male rape? Anyhow homosexuals and victims of male rape are harassed by the police.”

The Section under consideration also bans acts such as oral sex and anal sex that could be described as “unnatural” since they were not “penal-vaginal”.

Said Sarah Fernandes, a students’ counsellor, “Is this a police state? Why should the Government decide how or who do I have sex with?”

Echoing the indignation, bank executive Yogesh Mishra said the law could not dictate what consenting adults did in their bedrooms.

“People have the right to choose their sexual behaviour. In a progressive society, such a law is redundant and should be dumped post-haste.”

The petition said the sodomy law was at cross-purposes with the fundamental right to life and liberty.

“The Government’s view is shocking and effectively means sex should be only for procreation, not pleasure,” said Lok Prakash, technical consultant with the Naz Foundation International.

Stating that this attitude was detrimental even to heterosexuals, Prakash remarked that, legally, even a husband and wife could not have anything but conventional sex.

This is a strange irony for the land that produced the most ancient treatise on sex, the Kamasutra of Vatsayana, and the renowned Khajuraho temples that depict most explicit, and no-holds-barred acts of lovemaking.

Noted sexologist Prakash Kothari refers to instances of homosexuality, premarital sex and alternative sexual behaviour in Indian mythology as well as scriptures.

“It is true that many acts are not accepted by society today, but between mutually consenting adults, oral sex etc are acceptable sexual behaviour,” he said.

“There is nothing like unnatural sex between adults—only alternative sex.”

Kothari pointed out that it was better to have homosexuals satisfying their relationship in their own way than becoming “destructive heterosexuals”.

“Laws are meant for citizens’ comfort and not discomfort. Under the present scenario, IPC Section 377 needs to be abolished.”


.................................................................

http://www.priestsforlife.org/postabortion/casestudyproject/casestudy1092.htm

Abortion is unnatural

I was 19 and engaged, but really wasn’t prepared to hear the words, "Your test was positive". I was really stunned and numb, so it was really easy to listen to the advice of others. I wasn’t required to really think about my decision to abort. A family member was getting appointments for me, etc.

[The abortion was] really painful, frightening, emotionally drawing. I had guilt and feelings of great loss.

I talked to my baby with a lot of tears, and then asked him to forgive me. The real comfort came when I felt true forgiveness from God and was able to forgive myself. I guess first I confronted the issue of my abortion and then dealt with it slowly over a period of time.

I am always wondering what my child would have been and done in this life. A part of me is missing. A piece of the puzzle is lost. At least now that I’m involved in pro-life work, pro-abortionists can’t tell me I don’t know anything about abortion.

Abortion is unnatural. Abortion hurts us emotionally and spiritually. The reality of my abortion didn’t hit me until four months later. At that time I saw something about abortion on TV -- that set the spark. I locked myself in the bathroom. I went into a frenzy, crying, sobbing, screaming. I felt such intense emotional pain as I have never experienced. I hurt, but I am thankful for what I saw about abortion on the TV. It was the beginning of my recovery period. It was painful, but at least I could start dealing with what I’d pushed into the back of my brain. I just hope that in my pro-life work, I can help other women who have had abortions or are contemplating abortions.

......

 

[nightandday]

some more...


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/henricks200505130806.asp

May 13, 2005, 8:06 a.m.
Unnatural Alliance
Abortion and gay-marriage advocates share a basic goal.

By Jayd Henricks

The Human Rights Campaign recently named Joe Solmonese as their new president. Solmonese moves from his position as CEO of Emily’s List — a political-action committee aimed at electing women abortion advocates to public office — to HRC, the largest homosexual-rights interest group. Meanwhile, homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson has announced his support for Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the U.S. Both of these are emblematic of an interesting phenomenon in the cultural battle defining American politics today: Homosexual interest groups often form a significant part of the coalition supporting abortion rights. Why is a population that by definition does not procreate heavily involved in the “right” to end a pregnancy?

One might argue that this is simply what defines a liberal. A liberal defends the power of an individual to do as he or she pleases. While this is selectively true (where is the liberal movement to defend the rights of an individual to pray in the public square, or for parents to send their children to the school of their choice?), it’s not quite specific enough. At any large event in support of abortion rights, rainbow flags and other symbols of the homosexual culture are prominent. Homosexual groups frequently advertise pro-abortion events on their websites and publications, and abortion groups often support activities promoting homosexual causes. The two groups clearly overlap. Why is this?

On the surface it is an unlikely coalition, but upon closer examination there is common ground. While the two groups are very different in their particular circumstances, the common denominator between the two agendas is sexual license. Homosexuals are often strong advocates of abortion not because they need access to it but because homosexual activists are driven by the same philosophy that drives abortion rights: sex without restrictions or consequences. The two groups share the same foundation and it is in an effort to fortify this foundation that the two are committed to each other.

The homosexual is provided “rights” to marry, etc. to the degree that society accepts the idea that there are no consequences of a sexual relationship beyond what the individual chooses. The abortion proponent sees an unwanted pregnancy as an imposition on the woman’s (and man’s) right to sex without consequences. Sex becomes merely a matter of personal choice and expression, without consideration for its natural purpose of procreation. In this philosophy the homosexual activist and the advocate of abortion share the same starting point, and while they lead to different modes of existence, the philosophical foundation is the same.

This is why the cultural battle in defense of traditional marriage is largely the same battle waged to protect the innocent life of the unborn child. Marriage defined as a contract between one man and one woman, or the recognition of the rights of the unborn child, naturally flow from a sense that sex is something more than an act of personal gratification. Sex provides physical pleasure but it also is a profound gift to the individual that comes with responsibility. Sex does have consequences that place some restrictions on sexual activity. The restrictions, however, are not limiting but rather put sex within a context that is natural and healthy for both the individual and society. Without this foundation of human sexuality, sex becomes nothing other than the pursuit of personal gratification.

It is critical to recognize the ideology of absolute sexual license that drives and unites abortion and same-sex-marriage advocates. They form a strong coalition that has reshaped the political landscape. It is, consequently, necessary to fight the two fronts of the cultural battle (the dignity of life and the definition of marriage) with the same reaffirmation of the dignity and responsibility of sex. Sex is a great good, but its consequences and procreative purpose cannot be ignored if it is to remain so.

— Jayd Henricks is director of congressional relations at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC.
.................................................................................

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/abortiondangers/p/dangers.htm


Conservative Politics: U.S.
Abortion Hurts Women: Part 2 - The Physical Dangers

From Amy Hess,
Your Guide to Conservative Politics: U.S..
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Pro-choice advocates have long painted abortion as a woman's health and freedom issue. However, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand in 1972, it opened millions of women to the heavy realities of the issue. Legalized abortion comes at a price; a host of dangers and heartbreaks that fail to make the headlines.
Short Term Physical Dangers: An abortion is an unnatural, invasive act on the female body. The cervix is not meant to be forced open. The uterus is not meant to be scraped and vacuumed empty. Women can experience immediate physical problems related to their abortions.

.........................................................................

http://www.lifestar.com/Pages/mythofmedicine.html

TRADITIONAL MEDICINE IS UN-NATURAL MEDICINE.

If one accepts that the body's design and it's potential for health is a product of nature and nature's design, then Traditional Medicine is Unnatural Medicine. This is the form of medicine that has overwhelmingly dictated medical practices and enlisted the exclusive support of medical insurance companies, the American Medical Association, legislators, government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, special interest groups, and most of society persuaded by an array of marketing techniques that is essentially akin to brain washing. There are ongoing attempts to suppress or eradicate almost all forms of natural healing using intimidation, threats, peer pressure, legislation and by outright brute force. Many a practitioner utilizing means other than "traditional" in their support of healing have found themselves arrested, prosecuted, discredited and barred from practice. Some have had their offices invaded by gun-carrying SWAT teams or federal or state marshals, terrorizing doctors, patients and staff, violating patient privacy and confidentiality, and confiscating the doctor’s entire records of practice. In a free society espousing the best health care system in the world, this is a travesty of epoch proportion and it is legal. In fact, there is currently a growing attempt by multinational pharmaceutical companies to spread their markets by influencing international law through the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the United States Legislative system. The strategies appear as subtle attempts to eventually bring all healing modalities under government control including herbal, vitamin and mineral supplementation categorizing them as prescribed drugs, unfortunately putting them into the domain of the least qualified "health" professionals: licensed medical doctors. In fact, the pharmaceutical drug orientation of Traditional Medicine today so limits the most effective resources available to the physician that the system invites mistakes, abuse and fraud. The ever threatening litigious climate in the United States creates an incentive to suppress the truth regarding the very subject.

Protecting the most profitable and only trillion dollar per year industry on our planet, what we are seeing is a marketing strategy designed to expand and maintain the influence and control of drug companies over the health and well being of the general population of the planet. In the United States we observe a blatant conflict of interest by the Food and Drug Administration in its ongoing attempts to protect the drug industries and their development of new drugs, while at the same time suppressing anything representing a natural approach to addressing the same health problems. While the Food and Drug Administration has a formidable task, it makes one ask just what is the FDA's priority when it comes to peoples health, and what is the priority of the legislators who create laws supporting such endeavors? As it turns out, most of the medical experts in charge of these dangerous impositions, are the least qualified to deal in matters of health. Their very education excludes even minimal inquiry into what makes a person healthy. They specialize almost entirely in disease and its management, and generally speaking, their own state of health is an overwhelming testament to their own lack of expertise. In most cases, their very education has become their greatest limitation to making a difference. Laced with the most covert of superstitions, so called modern medicine in the United States is responsible for almost four times more deaths in one year than the total of all American troop fatalities in the entire 13 years of the Viet Nam war. The questions are; can the profit and survival orientation of this type of medical system afford for people to be healthy and are the people managing this type of system the people we want exercising absolute control over our well being?

...

 

[nightandday]

...and more...


http://www.saskworld.com/holistic/book.htm

UNANI - The science of Graeco-Arabic Medicine
Author: Prof. Jamil Ahmad & Hakim Ashhar Qadeer
Reviewed by Janice Mierow
[email protected]


The system of Unani medicine is based on the principles of diagnosis and treatment of diseases laid down by Greek philosophers and physicians - Hippocrates (460-370 BC) and Galen (AD 131-210). This system was later adopted by the Arabs, who enriched and advanced it through scientific methods and inclusion of what was best in the traditional medicine of the Arab world. The Arabs then introduced the system to India where it was further enriched by the drugs and remedies from the indigenous system.

According to the theory of Unani medicine, tabiat is a mysterious power all living beings possess to maintain good health. Tabiat ensures all bodily functions are performed smoothly and fights against disease during illness. The concept of tabiat was laid down by Hippocrates who said, "Nature heals, the physician is only nature's assistant."

Unani works with the elements of fire, air, water and earth as the building blocks of all substances in nature, including the human body. Unani medicine believes in preventative measures rather than curative. The factors which support good health include air, food and drink, body movement, mental movement, sleeping habits and retention and evacuation.

The Unani physician follows four methods of treatment: regimental therapy, diet-o-therapy, pharmaco-therapy and surgery. The physician prefers the line of treatment closest to nature with surgery as a last resort. Surgery is considered the most unnatural form of treatment.

Unani medicine seems to be gaining popularity in the Western world as the drugs prescribed are made of natural products with no toxic side-effects.

This book provides all the features of the Unani art of healing. It includes a historic background, the concept of the human body, maintenance of health, concept of diseases, laws of treatment and home remedies for many conditions from common fever to toothache to baldness.

 

[nightandday]

I think it was enough, I don't want to continue torturing you all in this unnatural (or natural?) way.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

I think it was enough, I don't want to continue torturing you all in this unnatural (or natural?) way.

Why are you making these posts? All you're proving is that you can effectively use a google search engine, along with a simple cut and paste mechanism which has been in place since the birth of Windows. You haven't proven anything else, and the dictionary still only has one definition of 'natural', and one definition of 'unnatural'.

Lord, I am tired.

 

[half a person]

I am a sort of partial vegetarian, I avoid meat wherever possible, and I never eat it at school (they only serve halal meat, it's even worse than ordinary- they make sure that the animal is fully concious when they kill it) I never buy meat, so when I finally move out I can fully convert.

 

[kingdai]

Kindly do not make assumptions about me. It was my interest in animal rights which got me into Morrissey/The Smiths, not the other way around. Though why I'm having to justify my reasons for doing something to someone who doesn't even know me is anyone's guess.

"I eat meat cos' I like it" is the same crap I always hear from carnivores and roughly translated it means "I am a human being, therefore I consider it my god-given right to behave like a complete and utter shit."

The disregard of animals does stem from arrogance and smug superiority. You are no doubt convinced that humans are the most superior life form on the planet. Well, this may come as quite a shock to you, but there are lots of people out there who find this view deeply hilarious.

And by the way, stop using the same hackneyed cliches that all meat-eaters use, i.e. implying that someone has only become a vegetarian because they are copying someone. It's pathetic and tired. Someone simply wouldn't last if they became a vegetarian because Morrissey did. You might live your life by those kind of pathetic, silly, feeble-minded standards, but I sure as hell don't. If you don't like what I have to say, tough. Not everyone wants to be a nice, obedient, masses-driven little flock-follower.

Calling people who eat meat pathetic, silly, feeble-minded etc. just proves that you're a nutter

 

[nightandday]

Why are you making these posts? All you're proving is that you can effectively use a google search engine, along with a simple cut and paste mechanism which has been in place since the birth of Windows. You haven't proven anything else, and the dictionary still only has one definition of 'natural', and one definition of 'unnatural'.

Lord, I am tired.

Tired of what? Certainly not of thinking, you don't seem to do much of that.

Do you really need to have everything spelled out TWICE?!

"It's not natural" - that's one of the most irritatingly nonsensical "arguments" that can be (and has been) used to justify just about anything.

 

[Walkers Crisp]

Am I the only overweight vegetarian on here?

Must be my age...

 

[CharethCutestory]

Am I the only overweight vegetarian on here?

Must be my age...

Nah, there's loads in here.

 

[the more you explore me!]

Am I the only overweight vegetarian on here?

Must be my age...

or too many walkers crisps, i always prefered Golden Wonder

 

[HIM]

It's not my vegetarianism that makes me a non-comformist, it's my complete disdain and disgust for the majority.

good god, do you ever pause for a moment and think about the things that you type into your computer keyboard?

do you actually say things like this, out loud, in the presence of other people (in the real world, i mean)? please, god, i hope so!

perhaps you're 14-and-a-half?

does "the world make [you] puke", too? i can see that your outlook on the world has definitely not been shaped by profit-driven popular culture and that there's nothing hackneyed about you, at all...

...or something.

The fact that everything you do is a cliche must trouble you [...].

not at all, dear. i think i have sufficient insight into the nature of society to appreciate that social action (i.e. almost everything you and i and everybody else does, in the course of everyday life) relies on co-operation with, and acceptance of, society in all it's facets. i appreciate, of course, that you're, clearly, a pretty rad chick, 'n' all, but, let's face it, pretty ineffectual, by dint of that fact.

are you into body piercing and tattoos?

Certainly being a vegetarian is not a cliche, because it's still minority. Nothing which is minority can be cliche, you do know that, don't you? You do understand the meaning of the word cliche, don't you?

having given due consideration to my abject failure to be "an Individual" (your posts are so educative, to one as ignorant as i), i did consult the "oxford english dictionary" (tenth edition: pp. 266-267) in order to ascertain the meaning of "cliche" and "cliched". it reads - in part - as follows, "a very predictable or unoriginal person" ("cliche") and "showing a lack of originality" ("cliched"). you'll note that neither of these definitions allude to belonging to a majority subculture.

we can see, then, that one does not, in fact, have to invest oneself in a minority subculture in order to escape the label "cliche". moreover, it is arguable that participants in some subcultural communities are, perhaps, more likely than others to present themselves and their values in a cliched manner as they try to assert those aspects of their social identity which differentiate them from wider society, in an attempt to broaden membership of their particular subcultural group/community. on the other hand, those who are less "revolutionary" than you are unlikely to feel it necessary to make the same assertions, on the same subject, again and again and again.

Unthreatening? Er, no. I was threatening enough, and I am threatening enough, to consistently provoke snide, arsey, boring reactions in cavemen like you. If I'm so 'unthreatening', you wouldn't even have bothered replying to any of my posts in the first place.

of course, the converse is actually the case, my darling: if you did not feel threatened, then you wouldn't be replying to my posts. i feel no compelling motivation to argue that eating meat is desirable and/or ethically "correct" (nor have i sought so to do). in fact, my first contribution to this thread pointed out that, whilst i do eat meat, i am open to persuasion that i should not. as such, i extended an open invitation, to anybody interested, to convince me that i should stop eating meat etc.

The fact of the matter is, animal rights activists like me are as threatening to you as the abolitionists were to people like you, or the suffragettes were to people like you.

is your much-vaunted capacity (see post #79) to argue your case, in favour of vegetarianism, so overstated that you feel it neccesary to inappropriately attribute, to me, objectionable characteristics for which you have no evidence?

You can choose to believe that vegetarians and animal rights activists are just another subculture, but it patently isn't the case. These are people who have changed laws through campaigning and extensive direct action. Hardly a subculture, is it?

plainly, you do not understand the concepts of culture and subculture. further, for someone who purports to have such "complete disdain and disgust" for society, you place enormous faith in capitalist democracy.


toodle-oo, for now.


ps. do you enjoy the music of "rage against the machine"? (i reckon they'd be right up your street.) they recorded for the sony corporation, you know.



anyway, i love you.

 

[The Crime Of The Century!]

are you 14? does "the world make [you] puke", too? i can see that your outlook on the world has definitely not been shaped by profit-driven popular culture and that there's nothing hackneyed about you, at all...

...or something.

In case basic mental arithmetic escapes you, as well as basic english, such as knowing the meaning of 'natural', ask someone to have a look at the date of birth on my profile and get them to tell you my age. It's quite a bit older than fourteen.

not at all, dear. i think i have sufficient insight into the nature of society to appreciate that social action (i.e. almost everything you and i and everybody else does, in the course of everyday life) relies on co-operation with, and acceptance of, society in all it's facets. i appreciate, of course, that you're, clearly, a pretty rad chick, 'n' all, but, let's face it, pretty ineffectual, by dint of that fact.

are you into body piercing and tattoos?

I have a couple of tattoos but no piercings. This means what? That therfore I conform to societal norms and I am, at the end of the day, just like everyone else? Actually, no. Like most humans, you are clearly guilty of judging on the outer rather than inner, the appearance rather than the substance. A person's individuality is not gauged in terms of what they wear, or adorn themself with, or what colour of hair they have. Their individuality is determined by how they live their life, their social and political beliefs, their attitudes, opinions, behaviours and practices. As such, I do not look particularly unusual, nor do I have any tattoos which read 'f*** conformity' or any other such infantile rendering. I merely go about my life attempting to bring as little harm to any living being as possible. If you find this a source of mockery, I pity you. When I was 14, I used to ridicule people who had minority views, too. Then I grew up.

having given due consideration to my abject failure to be "an Individual" (your posts are so educative, to one as ignorant as i), i did consult the "oxford english dictionary" (tenth edition: pp. 266-267) in order to ascertain the meaning of "cliche" and "cliched". it reads - in part - as follows, "a very predictable or unoriginal person" ("cliche") and "showing a lack of originality" ("cliched"). you'll note that neither of these definitions allude to belonging to a majority subculture.

Fine. Nothing you've said here has surprised me. In fact, I've heard it all before, many times. So it isn't particularly original either. Neither are my beliefs, admittedly, but they're certainly a lot fresher and more innovative that being a carnivore, which has been in place since the dawn of mankind.

we can see, then, that one does not, in fact, have to invest oneself in a minority subculture in order to escape the label "cliche". moreover, it is arguable that participants in minority subcultural groupings are, perhaps, more likely to present themselves and their values in a cliched manner as they try to assert those aspects of their social identity which differentiate them from wider society, in an attempt to broaden membership of their particular subcultural group/community. conversely, those who are less "revolutionary" than you are unlikely to feel it necessary to make the same assertions, on the same subject, again and again and again.

That's because they have no assertions to make, they're simply living their lives on primitive, in-built instinct. They challenge nothing. I'm not arguing in terms of appearance, either, because a teenager in a 'Korn' hoodie is just as pathetic as a trendy who visits the shops every week to buy clothes which some megabucks fashion CEO says are fashionable. No, I speak of actions. Do you have any comprehension of how difficult life is for someone who spends their life in the public eye, voicing opinions on animals rights which get him despised by the majority? Do you, for one single second, think it is easy for an individual to a live a life which is 100% devoted to a minority cause, facing one life-long uphill struggle, in the small hope that one day, change will be made and animals might just be afforded the respect they so clearly deserve? Intellectuals and academics the world over, who have a great deal more enlightenment than either you or I, have spoken eloquently about how animals exist for their own reasons. I trust the judgement of these people, such as Alice Walker, who asserted that: "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They do not exist for humans any more than women exist for men or blacks exist for whites." Trying to live my life by this kind of rationing does not make me a cliche. It makes me a decent, enlightened individual, who, at some point in their life, attempted to open their mind and let the wisdom of other enlightened individuals seep in. If you do not believe passionately in any neglected causes, then what have you got to strive for?

of course, the converse is actually the case, my darling: if you did not feel threatened, then you wouldn't be replying to my posts. i feel no compelling motivation to argue that eating meat is desirable and/or ethically "correct" (nor have i sought so to do). in fact, my first contribution to this thread pointed out that, whilst i do eat meat, i am open to persuasion that i should not. as such, i extended an open invitation, to anybody interested, to convince me that i should stop eating meat etc.

Well, myself and various others on this thread made various attempts to try and persuade you, and I'm willing to bet it hasn't made a blind bit of difference. If you want one last bit of persuasion, ask yourself whether the thought of improving your health dramatically for the rest of your life and knowing that you have played no part in the painful deaths of animals who exist for their own reasons appeals to you? Alteratively, try visiting a slaughterhouse.

is your much-vaunted capacity (see post #79) to argue your case, in favour of vegetarianism, so overstated that you feel it neccesary to inappropriately attribute, to me, objectionable characteristics for which you have no evidence?

No. I was merely trying to illustate the fact that once, the suffragettes and the abolitionists were also minority groups, and labelled by many as extreme. Many carnivores/supporters of vivisection are fond of labelling anyone interested in animal rights as an 'extremist', but it only seems that way because they are mentally incapable of empathy.

plainly, you do not understand the concepts of culture and subculture. further, for someone who purports to have such "complete disdain and disgust" for society, you place enormous faith in capitalist democracy.

There is no evidence to support any of these claims. Furthermore, spouting faux-sociological pap and attempting to assume the sneering tone of a young, naive sociology student does not mean you have any greater an understanding of cultures and subcultures than I do. It's all man-made, so why would I have faith, or even any interest in any of it? You're being guided by man-made logic, which isn't even logic at all, instead of doing the one thing which so many humans aren't very good at doing: listening to your heart/inner conscience.

toodle-oo, for now.
ps. do you enjoy the music of "rage against the machine"? (i reckon they'd be right up your street.) they recorded for the sony corporation, you know.



anyway, i love you.

I can only wonder at this last section. I listen to a wide variety of music from bands and artists signed to both major and independent labels. Rage Against the machine are only one of the bands I enjoy. You are doing what most people are very guilty of doing: judging conformity/non-comformity in shallow terms. It doesn't matter whether I listen to the Sex Pistols, or RATM, or The Beatles, or what way I cut my hair, or how many really rebellious slogan T-shirts I own. What matters is that I was uncompromising in being my own person, speaking up for my views without fear of reprimand or being ostracised. Believe what you will, but there are few people who truly don't care about the approval of others.