Geraldine

Vegan Style and beautiful women

43 posts in this topic

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2015 at 5:40 PM, PaulJustPaul said:

B-12 doesn't come strictly from meat. It comes from bacteria in the soil that nonhuman "farm animals" ingest as they consume the crops they do.  That's why they get it and we don't - we wash all our produce.
 

That's what I've learned, but I could be wrong. And physiologically, yes, we were meant to eat meat - if by that, we agree that we mean we have omnivorous digestive systems. But if we can get B-12 from cleaner sources, and ones that don't involve harming, exploiting, and/or killing innocents, why the heck not? :) I'd always rather be compassionate than eating tasty food. Eating tasty helps me. Being compassionate helps others.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvpePfC9hh8&index=6&list=PLmIqdlomtuStz4uRepEBw2w0SgWNPSWDV

 

And calcium is found plenty in green vegetables. We think of all these nutrients we can only get from other animals. But ask: HOW DO THESE ANIMALS GET THESE NUTRIENTS?! Any nutrients you're getting from eating other animals (I say "other" animals because we always forget WE are animals) are second-hand. Either you make it in your own body (like creatine), or get it from plants (protein, calcium, etc.). As do the animals we eat.

And, again, why not get nutrients from a better source?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ANCusVd_Kk

 

We're not carnivores, we're omnivores. But we can survive and thrive on a plant-based diet. We may be healthier, but more importantly, the planet, and the beautiful innocent creatures that live on it, will benefit from it.

Honestly, I love sharing all this, because everything changes as a vegan. Everyone is more important and special in your eyes, and you feel amazing (provided you have decent nutrition).

 

Something else that's important to really hit home is this: We can't bash the "vegan diet" (which is sort of a misnomer - veganism is an ethical philosophy; what we really mean is a plant-based diet, or strict vegetarian diet) as inherently unhealthy when most of us eat like crap anyways! It's hilarious to hear people saying that a plant-based diet has its limitations and ultimately isn't healthy when we all eat like garbage. If you meet a long-term vegan, chances are they are much healthier than someone who eats other animals.

This is my experience. I was expecting to feel really crappy as a vegan, but did it anyways - I wasn't going to have more blood on my hands. But once I became vegan, I did not need to take daily allergy medication anymore. My immune system is astonishingly better - if I get sick, it's very brief and mild, whereas I used to get sick a lot and stay that way for a long time.

And this is the case with many others, too.

And we can't use the "ex-Vegans" as examples. If you ask them about how they ate, they probably just stopped eating certain things, while not taking into account the nutrients they were missing by cutting out meat and how to replace them with plants.

You can be a (physically) healthy meat-eater, for sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But you'd be surprised how many people stick with veganism and show profound health improvements.

 

Last order of business: If you eat fish, you're not a vegetarian!!!! Fish is meat! It's flesh! If you eat fish, but no other animal-based meat, you eat a semi-vegetarian diet, technically. Vegetarians don't eat any animal flesh. Strict vegetarians eat only plants, no animal products whatsoever. Vegans are strict vegetarians who are motivated out of ethical principle to do so.

 

Done.

*mic drop*

Yes, you are right about B12 not being that accessible in food: http://veganhealth.org/b12/plant but neither is it for those who choose to eat animal flesh!  In fact, flesh-eaters are more likely to have a B12 deficiency than vegetarians/vegans because putrefication (which happens when you eat animal flesh since it is difficult on the digestive system, and humans are actually herbivores, not omnivores by nature's design which I will get to later.  Hopefully you are just an uninformed vegan and not a "vegan" troll, dear God...)  slows down the production of B12 and interferes with the secretion of "the intrinsic factor."  B12 is produced actually from within our bodies by the bacterial flora in our intestines and transported by a stomach secretion known as "the intrinsic factor."  To the best of my knowledge, B12 levels reduce when we are stressed, so I suppose how much you need really depends on your stress level.  There are only small amounts needed of B12 that are measured in micrograms or nanograms; 1 milligram of B12 can last the average person over two years.  Healthy people usually carry around a five-year supply of B12.  But many people stress at one time or another, in fact some people are full of stress, so... this would deplete our B12 supply... which is why it should be taken daily, or at least twice a week.... this article explains also why you should supplement with the methylcobolamin version of B12 and not the cyanocobalamin version too, as well as B12 deficient symptoms....  http://www.naturalnews.com/032766_cyanocobalamin_vitamin_B-12.html

Also, it's pointless to have calcium, when one doesn't also have enough vitamin D so that your body can absorb the calcium, in other words actually make the calcium in your body usable.  In fact, it is common for people to have a vitamin D deficiency, regardless of their diet. 

In addition, no, we don't need protein!!! Grrrrr!!  We need AMINO ACIDS!!!!!  This is why I am disappointed in people like Brendan Brazier who sells vegan protein, because really we need amino acids from food!  It's all to make people buy their "health line" crap to make money!!  Protein in your body has to split into its component amino acids, which requires more energy for your body, because it takes energy for your body to break down and build up nutrients, because any chemical process to occur requires energy, duh.  But this requirement of energy of breaking down into the amino acid constituents makes it harder on the digestive system,  which makes it harder on your body overall as a result.  Especially since humans aren't meant to eat meat, no no no ,we are NOT omnivores, and I'll get to that later below in a chart of omnivore vs. herbivore.  Animal flesh is acidic to our body.  The more acidic we are, the more we are prone to disease and illnesses, a list of which is too long for me to list .  Why do you think alkaline water is good for humans?  Because our bodies are meant to be alkaline    And the more of a hard time you give your body, the more tired you become.  Even carnivores sleep a lot (almost all day) because the digesting process is still taxing on them too, despite them already being carnivores!  Plus when you cook animal flesh, the amino acids coagulate and/or are destroyed, so that they aren't available for your body to use anyway.  And plus, in addition, protein from animal flesh has to be broken down and reassembled into human protein, then again it has to be reassembled and broken down into amino acid constituents. 

Why?  Because heat alters the structure of protein, Chemistry 101 anyone?!  (That's why your hair straightens with a hair iron, your hair is protein ergo the heat is able to alter the structure of your protein, your hair.)    Nobody has a protein deficiency, there is no such thing!!!!  In fact, the problem is people having too much protein: linked to osteoporosis, heart disease, high blood pressure, arthritis, gout, increase in breast / liver/ bladder cancer, and the incident of leukemia just to name a few.  Also, humans can produce 10 of the essential 20 amino acids, so technically you only need 10 amino acids from food, which lentils contain all of the amino acids you need from food.  Beans, corn, and brown / red rice have amino acids too, etc. And plus animal flesh since it is acidic, will cause our bodies to be more acidic.  Human blood pH is typically normal within 7.35 - 7.40.  And animal flesh would lower our pH since it is acidic: even reaching a pH of seven is dangerous for the human body.

Okay, now for the carnivore vs. herbivore chart.... by the way we're herbivores....

  • Carnivore                                                                         ~ Herbivore
  • long, sharp, and pointed teeth                                        ~ molars for crushing and grinding
  • jaw moves up and down = tearing and biting   ~up and down AND side to side = grinding
  • no ptyalin for digestion of starch                          ~ ptyalin for digestion of starch
  • saliva is acid for digestion of animal protein         ~saliva is alkaline
  • stomach is a simple round sack                        ~stomach is oblong, complicated in structure
  • secretes ten times more hydrochloric acid         ~ stomach is convoluted with a duodenum
  • intestines three times as long as trunk = rapid food expulsion      ~ intestines twelve times as long as trunk = absorb nutrients
  • liver can eliminate ten to fifteen times more uric acid than of herbivore  ~ uric acid toxic to liver, only eliminates small amount
  • has enzyme to break down uric acid = uricase   ~ no enzyme to break down uric acid = no uricase
  • don't sweat through skin and has no pores              ~ sweat through skin and have pores
  • urine is acidic / saliva is acidic                              ~urine is alkaline / saliva is alkaline
  • tongue is rough                                                    ~ tongue is smooth
  • claws made for tearing out guts of the carcass of a dead animal        ~ hands made for plucking fruit off of a tree
  • psychological first instinct to eat animals out in nature        ~ NOT psychological first instinct to eat animals out in nature
  • hydrochloric acid for digesting carcass    ~ very little hydrochloric acid = not meant to break down and eat flesh!!

*In other words, as humans we have become highly adaptable so as to survive as a species.  To use an outlandish example, I could put dog s*** in my mouth and eat it, but does not mean that just because I can eat it, that I'm biologically meant to eat it.  The same can be said for innocent animal flesh.

   Also, just my opinion, yes veganism is a misnomer, but despite this, I think we should keep this as a diet label; this isn't a courtroom so there is no need to get caught up too much in semantics, especially when we are the creator of semantics to begin with!  Let me explain.  I absolutely hate the term "strict vegetarian" because it definitely does not create a friendly welcoming invite to those learning about veganism for the first time with the word "strict."  Most people are not into a disciplined lifestyle like myself, so I think the word "strict" would turn them off, as well as confuse them with the second part of the word "vegetarian."  I hate how sometimes the word "vegetarian" and "vegan" are used interchangeably.  Granted, I'm happy for anyone who takes any step, no matter how small, towards not exploiting animals.  However, let's be blunt: vegetarians still indirectly support exploitation, no offense to anyone who is a vegetarian on here.  Not to say vegans are perfect either, because some harm to the living on a daily basis indirectly is inevitable (i.e. accidentally step on an ant I couldn't see, buy vegetables from a grocery store that sells meat, kill microbes in the air when I breathe, etc...) but we do the best we can possibly do, no excuses. 

Also, I notice that the word plant-based diet is now being used by people who mostly eat plants, but still eat meat: in other words their diet is based mostly on plants, but.... not completely, it's just the basis.  So then there's that confusion.  And besides, every word in the English language is made up anyway, and words and meanings change, arrange, and rearrange all the time.  An example is when people say my "favorite quote is...." and it's accepted as grammatically correct, when originally "quote" was just a verb and it would have been grammatically correct to say my "favorite quotation is..." but too many people said it wrong, so then the wrong became accepted as right.  So why not do that with the word veganism?  Why not make the ethical philosophy a word that can also be used for the word diet?  After all, isn't that what's most important?  That we're not killing and exploiting the lives of sentient creatures with lives who have their own autonomy? 

And yes, you're right, most people who are vegan can't say they did it for health reasons, because if they even choose to eat like garbage for a couple seconds, the whole notion of going vegan for health reasons go out the window.  Although, not everyone eats like garbage, there are raw vegans who only eat whole-food non-processed stuff without exception, yes, they're out there.    As far as there being healthy meat-eaters, sure, our bodies can still be healthy, and grow accustomed to the toxins we place in our systems (i.e. Arsenic, sulfur, and high LDL cholesterol in eggs.  Antibiotics, pesticides,hormones, and pus in dairy.  blahblahblah.) and our body is resilient enough that our blood tests come out fine.  But I mean there are some people who live to be 100 and are smokers and eat bacon every day.  Is that person considered healthy because they lived just fine until 100 smoking and eating lots of bacon?  Then, you could have someone who lives until 70, but was a vegan and was born with type 1 diabetes.  Does that mean this vegan was less healthy than the 100 year old smoker who ate lots of bacon? 

Technically smoking does not cause cancer, because if it did without a doubt, then every smoker would have cancer / die from cancer.  But most people would not think eating lots of bacon and smoking is a healthy lifestyle.  It seems from my observations, some people are more sensitive to not eating healthy, and have to be very strict with themselves just not to gain one single pound and have illnesses / diseases.  Other people seem to eat like crap, not really exercise all that much and can seem to get away with a lot.  That's not the point.  What is "healthy" then?  Is it mentally healthy to think it's okay to eat exploited, scared, suffering animals?  It's definitely not physically healthy, whether or not this reflects on our blood test results or any other kind of medical diagnoses tools, as I just showed in the above carnivore vs. herbivore chart and everything I've explained so far.  Is it emotionally healthy to be consuming animals who are filled with fear, sadness, hurt, and desperation to live, and consume that energy and assimilate that energy into our own bodies?  Whether or not we "appear" to be healthy medically at one point or another, or whether we "appear" to be healthy by the way others judge us to be does not make a difference.  I think the question should be is not being a vegan objectively healthy?  Mentally healthy?  Physically healthy?  Emotionally healthy?  Psychologically healthy?  And the answer is no. 

*Mic drop.  Bash podium to shreds. Rip business suit to smithereens. Bash guitar to pieces.  Peace out imaginary audience.   If I'm wrong about anything, let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 9:13 PM, redgrapes said:

I follow a low fat whole foods vegan diet similar to the one Dr. McDougall recommends. I eat this way for my health, nonviolence towards animals, and due to ecological concerns.

If for no other reason, go vegan because of vanity!

 

While I think a lot of people are vain, and it is alluring for them to go vegan because they will still be "attractive" when they are old like Dr. McDougall, this is actually deceiving.  I mean, if you're not considered "attractive" as far as facial symmetry by society or whatever, it's not like veganism is going to turn you into a chiseled greek god / goddess automatically even when you reach the age of 92.  Yes, Dr. McDougall looks better than most people for his age, but he ain't looking attractive like a 25 year old, even if that 25 year old happens to be a meat eater, if you really do want to play the vain card.  But I don't.  I think a lot of vegans in an effort to try and convince people that veganism is great, exaggerate and mislead with their words, (like evangelical Christians trying to convince atheists to become Christian, no offense...) by saying stuff like, "the sky looks bluer, my eyes are prettier, people like me better, veganism gave me a job promotion, I'm cured of all diseases / illnesses and will never have one again!"  Okay, I exaggerate a bit so as to make a point, but you know what I mean.  I still think veganism should be related to animal ethics, and if people don't have any compassion for that, then say they can do it for health reasons.  But being healthier does NOT necessarily mean you will look more attractive.  Sure, you can become more physically fit if you also work and such, but that doesn't mean society will all of a sudden consider you a good-looker.  Let's stick to the facts, and stop trying to overdo the convincing to people who eat meat, because then we'll just be lying to them.  And if we lie / exaggerate / mislead, and then the meat-eaters find out through becoming vegan that what we said doesn't come true for them, then now we probably will have an "ex-vegan" on our hands. 

Okay, officially done, unless someone wants to challenge / debate me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thecatisback said:

While I think a lot of people are vain, and it is alluring for them to go vegan because they will still be "attractive" when they are old like Dr. McDougall, this is actually deceiving.  I mean, if you're not considered "attractive" as far as facial symmetry by society or whatever, it's not like veganism is going to turn you into a chiseled greek god / goddess automatically even when you reach the age of 92.  Yes, Dr. McDougall looks better than most people for his age, but he ain't looking attractive like a 25 year old, even if that 25 year old happens to be a meat eater, if you really do want to play the vain card.  But I don't.  I think a lot of vegans in an effort to try and convince people that veganism is great, exaggerate and mislead with their words, (like evangelical Christians trying to convince atheists to become Christian, no offense...) by saying stuff like, "the sky looks bluer, my eyes are prettier, people like me better, veganism gave me a job promotion, I'm cured of all diseases / illnesses and will never have one again!"  Okay, I exaggerate a bit so as to make a point, but you know what I mean.  I still think veganism should be related to animal ethics, and if people don't have any compassion for that, then say they can do it for health reasons.  But being healthier does NOT necessarily mean you will look more attractive.  Sure, you can become more physically fit if you also work and such, but that doesn't mean society will all of a sudden consider you a good-looker.  Let's stick to the facts, and stop trying to overdo the convincing to people who eat meat, because then we'll just be lying to them.  And if we lie / exaggerate / mislead, and then the meat-eaters find out through becoming vegan that what we said doesn't come true for them, then now we probably will have an "ex-vegan" on our hands. 

Okay, officially done, unless someone wants to challenge / debate me. 

I do not consider it "deceiving." I find validity in the scientific literature suggesting a vegan diet increases an individual's chance of being perceived as attractive. Many reasons were touched upon by Dr. McDougall in his lecture citing specific research studies. He is "sticking to the facts." These are not exaggerations, misleading claims, or lies. Veganism raises the odds of relative attractiveness with advancing age as that's when most lifestyle differences catch up with people and become increasingly notable in external appearance. Some variables highly correlated with diet and attractiveness are BMI, skin condition, fertility, body odor, and overall health, which are all touched upon in the video.

Since we can't opt out of aging, it's wise to take the route which will best preserve our health and physical appearance. It's not about competing with a 25 year old at any age but being your best self. It's not about comparisons. What someone else looks like is irrelevant to the results one receives. Also, not everyone subscribes to the youth equals beauty paradigm. I think a healthy man at almost any age with a low body fat percentage and healthy hormone profile, both easier achieved on a vegan diet, would be infinitely more appealing than an obese man at 25 years of age. You are correct that adopting a vegan diet in adulthood will not improve facial symmetry and bone structure, though I'm not aware of any vegans making claims at that level. The right tool for the job must be used, diet being wholly inappropriate in such a case- facial symmetry can be improved by getting certain orthodontic appliances, aimed chiropractic care, or simply by improving tongue position and use.

I stated if for no other reason go vegan because of vanity. I consider it best to attract people to veganism in diverse ways regardless of the most superior reason. Vanity is an acceptable driving force for dietary change because the outcome is the same: less animal product consumption, less suffering and loss of life, less damage to habitats and peripheral species. Ideally everyone would be less vain and more compassionate, but we have to work realistically within the present image-obsessed culture for effective change. I am not as concerned with losing vegans (ex vegans) as I am introducing and educating people on the diet and having them develop a taste for it. A new albeit vain vegan may start developing compassion they lacked at the start- sometimes it happens out of order but the goal is achieved nevertheless. Young people (teens, twenties) are most inclined to adopt a vegan diet for vanity purposes of any age group, and I'd argue they're the most valuable conversion to veganism. If converted successfully for life, even for vanity initially, each person makes a tremendous difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 7:54 PM, redgrapes said:

I do not consider it "deceiving." I find validity in the scientific literature suggesting a vegan diet increases an individual's chance of being perceived as attractive. Many reasons were touched upon by Dr. McDougall in his lecture citing specific research studies. He is "sticking to the facts." These are not exaggerations, misleading claims, or lies. Veganism raises the odds of relative attractiveness with advancing age as that's when most lifestyle differences catch up with people and become increasingly notable in external appearance. Some variables highly correlated with diet and attractiveness are BMI, skin condition, fertility, body odor, and overall health, which are all touched upon in the video.

Since we can't opt out of aging, it's wise to take the route which will best preserve our health and physical appearance. It's not about competing with a 25 year old at any age but being your best self. It's not about comparisons. What someone else looks like is irrelevant to the results one receives. Also, not everyone subscribes to the youth equals beauty paradigm. I think a healthy man at almost any age with a low body fat percentage and healthy hormone profile, both easier achieved on a vegan diet, would be infinitely more appealing than an obese man at 25 years of age. You are correct that adopting a vegan diet in adulthood will not improve facial symmetry and bone structure, though I'm not aware of any vegans making claims at that level. The right tool for the job must be used, diet being wholly inappropriate in such a case- facial symmetry can be improved by getting certain orthodontic appliances, aimed chiropractic care, or simply by improving tongue position and use.

I stated if for no other reason go vegan because of vanity. I consider it best to attract people to veganism in diverse ways regardless of the most superior reason. Vanity is an acceptable driving force for dietary change because the outcome is the same: less animal product consumption, less suffering and loss of life, less damage to habitats and peripheral species. Ideally everyone would be less vain and more compassionate, but we have to work realistically within the present image-obsessed culture for effective change. I am not as concerned with losing vegans (ex vegans) as I am introducing and educating people on the diet and having them develop a taste for it. A new albeit vain vegan may start developing compassion they lacked at the start- sometimes it happens out of order but the goal is achieved nevertheless. Young people (teens, twenties) are most inclined to adopt a vegan diet for vanity purposes of any age group, and I'd argue they're the most valuable conversion to veganism. If converted successfully for life, even for vanity initially, each person makes a tremendous difference.

  I am not arguing that there isn't a correlation between being vegan and being more attractive, because obviously there is.  However, correlation, NOT causation.  But I think it's harmful when people have the stereotype that all vegans are Aphrodite and Adonis.  After all, most people are always trying to argue their way out of being vegan, even from the most stupid reasoning.  And so if they can judge you not to be the Aphrodite/Adonis they consider, they could possibly stupidly reason veganism is not the lifestyle for them.  I think it's helpful to have all kinds of vegans, a variety of what vegans do, say, are, and look like because that means a more variety of people (and therefore hopefully that would equate to more people in general,) can relate themselves to someone who is a vegan.  Granted, I wish every vegan was a healthy vegan, but I understand not everyone is into that, so maybe it's helpful to have unhealthy vegans who attract those unhealthy people that can see themselves maintaining their unhealthy lifestyle as a vegan as well.  Also, some people have hormonal skin conditions, genetic issues which may be helped with a vegan diet, but I'm not about to say that veganism is going to cure them of it.  (i.e. stressed out vegan breaking out into hives)  Also, BMI is a bunch of bullocks, especially for those men who are especially fit with lots of muscle because they often will appear "overweight" on the BMI scale.  Fertility is definitely helpful with a vegan diet, but there are vegans who still aren't able to have children, or even those born without the ability to have children.  As far as body odor, the vegans who eat onions and garlic, especially the ones who use them a lot in their cooking, don't smell so wonderfully in my opinion, lol.

       And yes, I'm not arguing with you that we should be the best version of ourselves, no matter what age.  But no matter what you say, it's apparent from psychological, sociological, and statistical studies as well as what's portrayed in the media, many are indeed into the youth beauty paradigm.  Sure, a healthy-looking older vegan man would probably be more desirable than an unhealthy bummin' 25 year old man, but this is a matter of comparison, not that most people would automatically be into the older vegan man without any comparison of someone deemed less attractive in general.  I think society is a bit ageist unfortunately.  And I wasn't trying to say vegans are making any argument about veganism improving their facial symmetry, lol, thankfully pro-vegan argruments haven't become that pathetic and stupid (yet). 

      I understand you emphasized that if for no other reason, go vegan to satiate one's vainglorious-ness.  Still, I'm going to argue this is a harmful thing to do.  Besides, I don't think we need to tell people this, they can see the results for themselves in the actual living examples of people who are vegans.  They can come to their own conclusions.  I don't know if you know anything about narcissists and people with those tendencies, but I highly highly doubt that once they go vegan, these kinds of people are going to start giving a s*** about animals all of a sudden.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying vanity isn't an acceptable reason to go vegan in itself, but I am concerned with the backfiring consequences of explicitly stating this as a reason to go vegan.  I find there is no problem with showing this through the way us vegans look and take care of ourselves, but not to explicitly state this to omnivores and the rest of the world aloud.  Why?  Well, some people already look "good" though not on a vegan diet, let alone a diet near the healthier side of an omnivore diet.  And I find it's these kinds of people who could make good money scamming people by saying, "Yes, you can eat eggs and bacon and dairy, I mean look at me, I look good and I eat these foods and exercise!  Look how good my skin and body looks!"  To me, that's exactly what vegans who make the "appearance" reason sound like, although I do know the vegans are actually speaking truth, but to an omnivore, this is only a confusing reason because both sides are making this point, you see.  I mean, most people don't follow a vegetarian, let alone vegan diet, but I don't find most people to be "ugly" or whatever, then again, I don't really judge by appearance but by their character / morals.  There are a lot of fitness instructors, (as in most,) who are not vegetarian/vegan but they "look good." 

         In either case, it's still a moot and confusing point because there are vegans who don't "represent" a healthy-looking appearance, and there are omnivores who appear to do so, and vice versa.  What if there are some people who never personally experience seeing a vegan who looks good?  It doesn't matter what Dr. McDougall is saying to them, they are probably only going to trust their own personal experience.  Here is a visual example of what I'm talking about: http://jinjeetalifero.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-shot-2012-02-10-at-2.21.05-AM.png  Just look at veganism now, it's like a battle of who looks the best / who is the most fit, instead of vegans banding together for the original cause of caring about the animals.  How can vegans be taken seriously by the world at large when we are fighting between ourselves, ("we" as in vegans in general,) like different sects of Christians fighting within their own religion?  This and many more other reasons is why I think a lot of people consider veganism to be a religion or like a religion nowadays, which obviously I think is a bad thing that people would think of veganism.  I mean, being vegan in itself is already not taken seriously, what more when we fight amongst ourselves, or vegans trying to persuade others to go vegan for asinine / irrelevant reasons that are not exclusive to being vegan anyway.  Though not religious, I observe how Christians for example are trying "to fit in" and how ridiculous they look trying too hard.  I mean, this is an extreme example, but if society was really into wearing potato sac dresses and eating dog crap, should we do the same just to gain society's attention and "work around" what society is into?  It's like some vegans are so desperate to get the message across, they kind of contradict their own message in the process, and end up doing more damage than benefit in the name of veganism.

    And besides, why do we have to mold how we go about being vegan and talking about being vegan around society's values?  I mean, being vegan to begin with is not society-friendly, and I understand you think the vain card would be a good way to make vegan seem more accessible.  But, I already gave my reasons why this isn't an advantageous reason (in the above two paragraphs,) in the long-term.  Short-term yes, but not long-term.  Look at stupid PETA.  They try to make vegan seem "accessible" and try to blend in with the image-obsessed culture.  There are women covered scantily in lettuce leaves, men barely censored with a pineapple or banana or whatever, and sexually suggestive, "beautiful" celebrities and non-celebrities, "all in the name of veganism."  Please, entertain me by trying an argument that all these "beautiful" people actually encouraged a significant number of people, let alone any number of people to go vegan because they played the vain card.  What person is actually thinking, "Gee, that person is hot, and I could be hot for my age if I go vegan too, I'm totally going to try it out despite all the culturally, sociologically psychologically, social media programming I've had my whole life that is instilled in me, that I'm completely unaware of.  And I'll just dismiss the fact that there are many 'attractive' people who aren't vegan, and still go vegan anyway, despite this is one of the reasoning of why someone should go vegan.  Makes sense."  LOL. 

     In short, there are better and less contradictory reasons why to go vegan than playing the vain card.  I mean duh, of course I know each person who goes vegan contributes, no matter the reason for it.  But I'm looking at the long-term consequences of the reasoning and arguments we use as vegans for why people should go vegan.  And plus the vain card too much emphasized, often takes out the health factor. Being healthy is what will make people change long-term, not how "attractive" they are.  People want lots of money, to look good, etc. because they believe all these things will make them happy... but you have nothing unless you have your health.  Health is wealth.  And usually a side effect of being healthy is appearing good, because at the very least you feel good, even if your face is asymmetrical.  Plus the factor of health is one reasoning that can't be used on the side of the omnivores.  Hands down, as I explained in response to PauljustPaul's post, veganism is the healthiest lifestyle, even if there are "healthy" omnivores.  (Read my post response to him for more details.)  It doesn't make logical sense to pitch veganism for a reason, that someone could achieve by other means, (i.e. caffeine pills for weight loss, cosmetics to cover up signs of aging, prescription pill for health problems, etc.) especially since many people want immediate gratification, not to go through the longer, but more healthy process long-term.  In addition, too much appearance on the outside sometimes is deceptive.  There are many skinny/thin people who look good, but are a walking heart attack inside.  This is why, if someone is truly a narcissist, ironically in some ways it would be more appealing to them to go vegan for health reasons... after all, they'll probably be able to live longer if they're in good health, which means a longer time to prim and preen over their appearance and ruin other people's lives, lol. 

    Also, out of all the vegan doctors, I kind of dislike Dr. McDougall.  Honestly not sure if he really is a vegan (don't know about currently, but I remember him saying that he would eat some turkey at Thanksgiving and meat during other holidays...) and while I would be appreciative of people he did turn towards veganism,. I think there are better / less confusing examples of vegans out there.  I think he's more interested in selling his books and promoting a starch diet, than using the term vegan diet.  Here are some links that further expound why I don't particularly like him as a vegan resource: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKG496C9fU    As far as ex vegans, why the heck would you not be concerned about them?!  It's not like they keep their mouths shut about once being a vegan anyway.  Do you know about that vegan who wrote the book "Breaking Vegan" and how much attention she received from it?  (Granted, she had an eating disorder basically and blamed veganism on it, although many people believed her b.s. nevertheless about veganism being simply an option / unhealthy for some, etc.)  Ex vegans have major influence no matter what you say.  It can stop someone from ever trying or looking more into veganism.  And to be honest, I partly blame vegans who don't do well enough with the education of being a healthy vegan.  No, most of y'all are more interested in focusing on how it makes you look good and that vegetarians/vegans have higher IQ's and how we taste better.  Meanwhile, the appearance of people's internal body organs and the appearance of their health from the inside, as well as the screams of crying animals, are left to the wayside as a second priority of vegan conversation topics.  Ex vegans when they have children, do not raise vegan children, nor most likely children who will grow up to have an open mind about veganism.  How is this not a concern of yours?!  And yes, young people / college -aged people are the most willing demographic to be interested in and/or turn veganism, but I don't get your point.  What does that fact have to do with anything?  I mean, that is the demographic that is being targeted already, so it's not like we as vegans in general aren't taking advantage of this already.  And plus, like I mentioned, how can we have open-minded college-aged people as much, when they were potentially raised by an ex vegan, (which some vegans like you are not concerned about addressing and helping as much it seems,) who obviously would affect the way they look at veganism to some extent? 

 

    I've written a lot, and I feel like this thread has gotten a little off topic, or maybe not, I don't know at this point, but if you have anything else to say, that I already haven't addressed, you can pm me... or I guess we can continue to debate on here.  I guess it could be informative to those thinking about veganism... who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2016 at 8:27 PM, thecatisback said:

I am not arguing that there isn't a correlation between being vegan and being more attractive, because obviously there is.  However, correlation, NOT causation.  But I think it's harmful when people have the stereotype that all vegans are Aphrodite and Adonis.  After all, most people are always trying to argue their way out of being vegan, even from the most stupid reasoning.  And so if they can judge you not to be the Aphrodite/Adonis they consider, they could possibly stupidly reason veganism is not the lifestyle for them.  I think it's helpful to have all kinds of vegans, a variety of what vegans do, say, are, and look like because that means a more variety of people (and therefore hopefully that would equate to more people in general,) can relate themselves to someone who is a vegan.  Granted, I wish every vegan was a healthy vegan, but I understand not everyone is into that, so maybe it's helpful to have unhealthy vegans who attract those unhealthy people that can see themselves maintaining their unhealthy lifestyle as a vegan as well.  Also, some people have hormonal skin conditions, genetic issues which may be helped with a vegan diet, but I'm not about to say that veganism is going to cure them of it.  (i.e. stressed out vegan breaking out into hives)  Also, BMI is a bunch of bullocks, especially for those men who are especially fit with lots of muscle because they often will appear "overweight" on the BMI scale.  Fertility is definitely helpful with a vegan diet, but there are vegans who still aren't able to have children, or even those born without the ability to have children.  As far as body odor, the vegans who eat onions and garlic, especially the ones who use them a lot in their cooking, don't smell so wonderfully in my opinion, lol.

       And yes, I'm not arguing with you that we should be the best version of ourselves, no matter what age.  But no matter what you say, it's apparent from psychological, sociological, and statistical studies as well as what's portrayed in the media, many are indeed into the youth beauty paradigm.  Sure, a healthy-looking older vegan man would probably be more desirable than an unhealthy bummin' 25 year old man, but this is a matter of comparison, not that most people would automatically be into the older vegan man without any comparison of someone deemed less attractive in general.  I think society is a bit ageist unfortunately.  And I wasn't trying to say vegans are making any argument about veganism improving their facial symmetry, lol, thankfully pro-vegan argruments haven't become that pathetic and stupid (yet). 

      I understand you emphasized that if for no other reason, go vegan to satiate one's vainglorious-ness.  Still, I'm going to argue this is a harmful thing to do.  Besides, I don't think we need to tell people this, they can see the results for themselves in the actual living examples of people who are vegans.  They can come to their own conclusions.  I don't know if you know anything about narcissists and people with those tendencies, but I highly highly doubt that once they go vegan, these kinds of people are going to start giving a s*** about animals all of a sudden.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying vanity isn't an acceptable reason to go vegan in itself, but I am concerned with the backfiring consequences of explicitly stating this as a reason to go vegan.  I find there is no problem with showing this through the way us vegans look and take care of ourselves, but not to explicitly state this to omnivores and the rest of the world aloud.  Why?  Well, some people already look "good" though not on a vegan diet, let alone a diet near the healthier side of an omnivore diet.  And I find it's these kinds of people who could make good money scamming people by saying, "Yes, you can eat eggs and bacon and dairy, I mean look at me, I look good and I eat these foods and exercise!  Look how good my skin and body looks!"  To me, that's exactly what vegans who make the "appearance" reason sound like, although I do know the vegans are actually speaking truth, but to an omnivore, this is only a confusing reason because both sides are making this point, you see.  I mean, most people don't follow a vegetarian, let alone vegan diet, but I don't find most people to be "ugly" or whatever, then again, I don't really judge by appearance but by their character / morals.  There are a lot of fitness instructors, (as in most,) who are not vegetarian/vegan but they "look good." 

         In either case, it's still a moot and confusing point because there are vegans who don't "represent" a healthy-looking appearance, and there are omnivores who appear to do so, and vice versa.  What if there are some people who never personally experience seeing a vegan who looks good?  It doesn't matter what Dr. McDougall is saying to them, they are probably only going to trust their own personal experience.  Here is a visual example of what I'm talking about: http://jinjeetalifero.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-shot-2012-02-10-at-2.21.05-AM.png  Just look at veganism now, it's like a battle of who looks the best / who is the most fit, instead of vegans banding together for the original cause of caring about the animals.  How can vegans be taken seriously by the world at large when we are fighting between ourselves, ("we" as in vegans in general,) like different sects of Christians fighting within their own religion?  This and many more other reasons is why I think a lot of people consider veganism to be a religion or like a religion nowadays, which obviously I think is a bad thing that people would think of veganism.  I mean, being vegan in itself is already not taken seriously, what more when we fight amongst ourselves, or vegans trying to persuade others to go vegan for asinine / irrelevant reasons that are not exclusive to being vegan anyway.  Though not religious, I observe how Christians for example are trying "to fit in" and how ridiculous they look trying too hard.  I mean, this is an extreme example, but if society was really into wearing potato sac dresses and eating dog crap, should we do the same just to gain society's attention and "work around" what society is into?  It's like some vegans are so desperate to get the message across, they kind of contradict their own message in the process, and end up doing more damage than benefit in the name of veganism.

    And besides, why do we have to mold how we go about being vegan and talking about being vegan around society's values?  I mean, being vegan to begin with is not society-friendly, and I understand you think the vain card would be a good way to make vegan seem more accessible.  But, I already gave my reasons why this isn't an advantageous reason (in the above two paragraphs,) in the long-term.  Short-term yes, but not long-term.  Look at stupid PETA.  They try to make vegan seem "accessible" and try to blend in with the image-obsessed culture.  There are women covered scantily in lettuce leaves, men barely censored with a pineapple or banana or whatever, and sexually suggestive, "beautiful" celebrities and non-celebrities, "all in the name of veganism."  Please, entertain me by trying an argument that all these "beautiful" people actually encouraged a significant number of people, let alone any number of people to go vegan because they played the vain card.  What person is actually thinking, "Gee, that person is hot, and I could be hot for my age if I go vegan too, I'm totally going to try it out despite all the culturally, sociologically psychologically, social media programming I've had my whole life that is instilled in me, that I'm completely unaware of.  And I'll just dismiss the fact that there are many 'attractive' people who aren't vegan, and still go vegan anyway, despite this is one of the reasoning of why someone should go vegan.  Makes sense."  LOL. 

     In short, there are better and less contradictory reasons why to go vegan than playing the vain card.  I mean duh, of course I know each person who goes vegan contributes, no matter the reason for it.  But I'm looking at the long-term consequences of the reasoning and arguments we use as vegans for why people should go vegan.  And plus the vain card too much emphasized, often takes out the health factor. Being healthy is what will make people change long-term, not how "attractive" they are.  People want lots of money, to look good, etc. because they believe all these things will make them happy... but you have nothing unless you have your health.  Health is wealth.  And usually a side effect of being healthy is appearing good, because at the very least you feel good, even if your face is asymmetrical.  Plus the factor of health is one reasoning that can't be used on the side of the omnivores.  Hands down, as I explained in response to PauljustPaul's post, veganism is the healthiest lifestyle, even if there are "healthy" omnivores.  (Read my post response to him for more details.)  It doesn't make logical sense to pitch veganism for a reason, that someone could achieve by other means, (i.e. caffeine pills for weight loss, cosmetics to cover up signs of aging, prescription pill for health problems, etc.) especially since many people want immediate gratification, not to go through the longer, but more healthy process long-term.  In addition, too much appearance on the outside sometimes is deceptive.  There are many skinny/thin people who look good, but are a walking heart attack inside.  This is why, if someone is truly a narcissist, ironically in some ways it would be more appealing to them to go vegan for health reasons... after all, they'll probably be able to live longer if they're in good health, which means a longer time to prim and preen over their appearance and ruin other people's lives, lol. 

    Also, out of all the vegan doctors, I kind of dislike Dr. McDougall.  Honestly not sure if he really is a vegan (don't know about currently, but I remember him saying that he would eat some turkey at Thanksgiving and meat during other holidays...) and while I would be appreciative of people he did turn towards veganism,. I think there are better / less confusing examples of vegans out there.  I think he's more interested in selling his books and promoting a starch diet, than using the term vegan diet.  Here are some links that further expound why I don't particularly like him as a vegan resource: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSKG496C9fU    As far as ex vegans, why the heck would you not be concerned about them?!  It's not like they keep their mouths shut about once being a vegan anyway.  Do you know about that vegan who wrote the book "Breaking Vegan" and how much attention she received from it?  (Granted, she had an eating disorder basically and blamed veganism on it, although many people believed her b.s. nevertheless about veganism being simply an option / unhealthy for some, etc.)  Ex vegans have major influence no matter what you say.  It can stop someone from ever trying or looking more into veganism.  And to be honest, I partly blame vegans who don't do well enough with the education of being a healthy vegan.  No, most of y'all are more interested in focusing on how it makes you look good and that vegetarians/vegans have higher IQ's and how we taste better.  Meanwhile, the appearance of people's internal body organs and the appearance of their health from the inside, as well as the screams of crying animals, are left to the wayside as a second priority of vegan conversation topics.  Ex vegans when they have children, do not raise vegan children, nor most likely children who will grow up to have an open mind about veganism.  How is this not a concern of yours?!  And yes, young people / college -aged people are the most willing demographic to be interested in and/or turn veganism, but I don't get your point.  What does that fact have to do with anything?  I mean, that is the demographic that is being targeted already, so it's not like we as vegans in general aren't taking advantage of this already.  And plus, like I mentioned, how can we have open-minded college-aged people as much, when they were potentially raised by an ex vegan, (which some vegans like you are not concerned about addressing and helping as much it seems,) who obviously would affect the way they look at veganism to some extent? 

 

    I've written a lot, and I feel like this thread has gotten a little off topic, or maybe not, I don't know at this point, but if you have anything else to say, that I already haven't addressed, you can pm me... or I guess we can continue to debate on here.  I guess it could be informative to those thinking about veganism... who knows.

 

I understand not wanting to pollute a movement with potentially erroneous reasoning and superficiality, distracting from the moral foundation of veganism. Honestly, I dislike overt vanity messages under most circumstances but I value animal life and balanced ecology far more. And besides, my initial comment about vanity was primarily in jest. The thread title and original post, along with several other comments, were about physical appearance so I mentioned it as a potential reason. However, I still think vanity should be included as a benefit directly in connection with health, and correlation with attractiveness is good enough for most people. The reasons I provided were not only connected with health, but inseparable from it. I mentioned the young demographic because most of them would rather be attractive than healthy (not saying they're separate), so vanity would be an effective "card" to play. I'm trying to cover a lot of points briefly here. A lot of people come to the vegan diet because they are unhealthy, so this unfavorably skews the perception of vegans being considered attractive. Ex-vegans can always be re-educated. Any increase in awareness is excellent, celebratory, and often a catalyst for a massive awakening, which could propel anyone into compassionate living.

I don't understand how you are a proponent of unhealthy veganism to draw in more people while being dismissive of vanity for the same purpose. It seems if you accept the "all kinds" diversity approach, you would also accept the "all reasons" approach. I would rather have vanity tied to veganism than poor health and "vegan" junk food. It is always a shame to see people neglecting their health regardless of animal product consumption. If I recall correctly, vegetable oils have been found more carcinogenic than lipids from animal products. Why should junk food veganism be promoted when whole and healthy vegan food is already so tasty and satisfying? Is your answer not the same as mine was for vanity? Are you not concerned these unhealthy vegans will destroy veganism over the long term? It sounds more damaging to the name of veganism than vanity promotions. Intentionally unhealthy vegans undermine one of the top reasons people become vegan in the first place.

This junk food eating, unhealthy veganism is precisely why Dr. McDougall does not label himself "vegan." As soon as he does, people just assume that's all his dietary recommendations are. He claims (I think he even lies about this) he eats less than a deck of cards worth of turkey every other year at Thanksgiving (Happy vegan Thanksgiving by the way :)) just so people will understand he is not eating an anything-goes vegan diet but a complex carbohydrate diet free of vegetable oils and processed food in addition to no animal products. He is a practicing medical doctor so his priority is naturally with health over other reasons. Being more scientifically inclined than most, more stable in his dietary recommendations, and more accessible makes him an easy recommendation to the types of people I interact with regularly. And my posting a video of him does not give my full endorsement of everything he has ever said or done- that's quite an extrapolation. I was merely recommending the content of the video for those interested in this particular thread.

Also, I don't think a reason must be exclusive to veganism in order for it to be legitimate, as you seem to suggest with vanity. Let's take those who are vegan for environmental reasons- they could contribute to their impact in various ways: recycling, investing in clean energy, donating to charities that stop rain forest destruction, etc. Veganism is just one means to an end. There are ways to stop animal cruelty outside of the vegan diet too- boycotting the fur industry, not buying leather products, donating to animal protective services, etc. I don't understand why the reason is "irrelevant" just because improvement in appearance can be achieved by other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 6:25 PM, redgrapes said:

 

I understand not wanting to pollute a movement with potentially erroneous reasoning and superficiality, distracting from the moral foundation of veganism. Honestly, I dislike overt vanity messages under most circumstances but I value animal life and balanced ecology far more. And besides, my initial comment about vanity was primarily in jest. The thread title and original post, along with several other comments, were about physical appearance so I mentioned it as a potential reason. However, I still think vanity should be included as a benefit directly in connection with health, and correlation with attractiveness is good enough for most people. The reasons I provided were not only connected with health, but inseparable from it. I mentioned the young demographic because most of them would rather be attractive than healthy (not saying they're separate), so vanity would be an effective "card" to play. I'm trying to cover a lot of points briefly here. A lot of people come to the vegan diet because they are unhealthy, so this unfavorably skews the perception of vegans being considered attractive. Ex-vegans can always be re-educated. Any increase in awareness is excellent, celebratory, and often a catalyst for a massive awakening, which could propel anyone into compassionate living.

I don't understand how you are a proponent of unhealthy veganism to draw in more people while being dismissive of vanity for the same purpose. It seems if you accept the "all kinds" diversity approach, you would also accept the "all reasons" approach. I would rather have vanity tied to veganism than poor health and "vegan" junk food. It is always a shame to see people neglecting their health regardless of animal product consumption. If I recall correctly, vegetable oils have been found more carcinogenic than lipids from animal products. Why should junk food veganism be promoted when whole and healthy vegan food is already so tasty and satisfying? Is your answer not the same as mine was for vanity? Are you not concerned these unhealthy vegans will destroy veganism over the long term? It sounds more damaging to the name of veganism than vanity promotions. Intentionally unhealthy vegans undermine one of the top reasons people become vegan in the first place.

This junk food eating, unhealthy veganism is precisely why Dr. McDougall does not label himself "vegan." As soon as he does, people just assume that's all his dietary recommendations are. He claims (I think he even lies about this) he eats less than a deck of cards worth of turkey every other year at Thanksgiving (Happy vegan Thanksgiving by the way :)) just so people will understand he is not eating an anything-goes vegan diet but a complex carbohydrate diet free of vegetable oils and processed food in addition to no animal products. He is a practicing medical doctor so his priority is naturally with health over other reasons. Being more scientifically inclined than most, more stable in his dietary recommendations, and more accessible makes him an easy recommendation to the types of people I interact with regularly. And my posting a video of him does not give my full endorsement of everything he has ever said or done- that's quite an extrapolation. I was merely recommending the content of the video for those interested in this particular thread.

Also, I don't think a reason must be exclusive to veganism in order for it to be legitimate, as you seem to suggest with vanity. Let's take those who are vegan for environmental reasons- they could contribute to their impact in various ways: recycling, investing in clean energy, donating to charities that stop rain forest destruction, etc. Veganism is just one means to an end. There are ways to stop animal cruelty outside of the vegan diet too- boycotting the fur industry, not buying leather products, donating to animal protective services, etc. I don't understand why the reason is "irrelevant" just because improvement in appearance can be achieved by other means.

   Dear God, you did not actually read my post, as in, understand what I actually was trying to say, did you?  Currently I have a terrible cold / flu, but this post when I read it made me feel even more physically ill.  So please, if you want to respond to this post, I beg you to take some time before replying until I can get better, because I don't want to get any sicker and have a bigger headache than I already do have from reading your posts, no offense.  :wacko:  (Apparently I wasn't around when God was handing out patience, as some people would say.)

   Yes, I am not a retard.  I do know what the original purpose of this thread was addressing, which was geared towards more of physical appearances.  Redgrapes, believe it or not, I can read.  That didn't mean I couldn't add any extra thoughts regarding this topic that were somewhat related, and maybe could give a bigger picture to those who are reading these posts and are thinking about going vegan.

    Yes, I am not dumb and understand that younger people want to be attractive... do you think I live in a cave or something?!  Please stop explaining things to me that are "common knowledge," as it comes across quite condescending, and is just making me look unnecessarily like a dumb***, (maybe this is your intention?)  And I have no patience for anyone, and I mean anyone, explaining stuff I already know and that they would know I know.  Now, with that said, if you actually understood my post, you would understand I NEVER said that the vanity card shouldn't be played, but that it would be better for the benefit of veganism long-term, if it was explicitly shown instead of explained.  Refer to the third paragraph, end of the fifth paragraph, and the sixth paragraph from my previous post, as I am hella not going to try and explain what you may not interpret correctly again anyway.  Or somehow twist my words and/or create a red herring fallacy argument, which is what seems to have been done.  Indeed, many people come from an unhealthy lifestyle, which is why they are interested in veganism and a lot of the time become vegan after their initial interest.  Yes, I understand that, but can't that support my point and not yours, about how healthy living should be the focus, and how the vanity card can be played but it should be shown rather than explicitly explained?  Lol, I think you accidentally made a statement that could actually support my point not yours.  And yes, I know healthy living and appearance are correlated, not necessarily a cause-and-effect, so what's your point?  That doesn't make healthy living any less important... again, please re-read certain paragraphs of my previous post that I already have pointed out. 

   LMAO, I am not "promoting" the junk food vegan lifestyle, rofl.  (In fact, I'm in the process of trying to figure out more about being raw vegan.  I don't consume gluten, white flour, salt, refined sugar, etc. unless I had to have it as a last resort in some hypothetical situation.)  What I'm trying to say is that unlike the reason for going vegan to become more "attractive," which again, I never said wasn't an applicable reason, (and I would argue correlation is not enough, when people are attracted to veganism as a potential direct cause not correlation for becoming "attractive,") the reality is some people don't and will never become healthy.  I live in reality.  This is the reality.  Maybe you have been spared the experience of meeting such people where their indulgence preferences and/or lack of self-care for themselves will (probably) forever outweigh the desire and therefore the outcome of them ever being a healthy vegan, let alone healthy.  So... might as well let them know they can continue their "junk food" lifestyle without having to kill animals.  I find it's easier for some people to care about others more than themselves.  I am not going to pretend that I live in some frickin' utopia where everyone is going to go vegan and be healthy; that doesn't mean that therefore I'm promoting a "junk food vegan" lifestyle.  This would be like saying because I acknowledge that murder exists, and some people won't stop murdering, that I am supporting murder by suggesting that the only legally available weapons to citizens should be the type that don't cause physical pain / cause very little physical pain to victims when used if it were possible. 

     However, the outcome with encouraging vegan for attractive reasons, don't necessarily fulfill the expectations for why that person went vegan.  (Although again, I do think going vegan for "attractive" reasons is fine, as long as we aren't explicitly explaining this, but rather showing this through our actions.  Although not all vegans are healthy and attractive, there is still enough in the media and whatnot to make their presence known.)  They won't necessarily become "attractive" after going vegan, and plus like I said it IS a big deal that there are other ways to achieve this "attractiveness," because they probably are a lot easier to do and much more of a quick fix, which is what most people want, since they have the inability to think of long-term negative / positive consequences.  But with becoming a junk food vegan, (again, I'm not promoting this lifestyle at all, lmao,) the outcome is exactly what they're expecting, you see?  They expected to eat junk food as a vegan, and they got what they were expecting.  Though the same can not be said for expecting to "look good" as a vegan, there are so many variables factoring into a holistic health (i.e. mental health, social support, stress levels and attitude towards stress, financial health, etc.) that the outcome won't necessarily be what they thought.  THIS IS WHY I WANT TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE IT WILL DIRECTLY POINT TO A VEGAN DIET!!! (I'm not yelling, I'm just emphasizing, though at this moment I want to yell and bounce off the ceilings, because I'm pretty much being a broken record as I'm basically re-explaining everything I said in my last post, which you didn't comprehend the way I meant it.)

   I never tried to imply you were or weren't promoting Dr. McDougall 100%, I'm not very stupid, I understand this.  And no f***ing duh, I know he is a medical doctor ... I mean, DR. MCDOUGALL is pretty self-explanatory.  I don't appreciate these condescending explanations you are giving me, whether they are unintentional or not! :angry:  I am scientifically inclined as well, and by the way I hope you're not using an appeal to authority fallacy as a logical argument.  As I would think you would know, or hope you would know, just because someone is a doctor, the president, or whatnot, doesn't mean they are always correct in their thinking, for instance medical doctors who are pro-paleo diet.  After all, they went through the same medical school application process as Dr. McDougall, did they not?  So I don't give a flying frisbee who is telling me the information, whether it is a ghetto gangbanger or Leonardo DiCaprio, as long as the information is true, is fact.  Honestly, I think / wouldn't be surprised if Dr. McDougall is a government shill for the meat and dairy industry posing as promoting a "vegan" diet.  Who the f*** cares if labeling yourself vegan will make some people errantly think you are also promoting a junk food vegan diet; he can always clarify and say that he promotes a healthy vegan diet full of whole fruits and vegetables, and no processed / refined sugar saturated hydrogenated oil salt fat crap!!  I mean, how difficult would it be for him to say that?  Not very, just one sentence that could take less than literally eight seconds to do.  LMAO, oh, so it's okay that he eats less than a deck of cards of turkey every other year?  What if I decided I wanted to eat less than a deck of cards of your body every other year, that would be okay too, because I promote a healthy vegan diet anyway, right?  :)

   Darn son of a biatch, I was not trying to make an exclusive reason for going vegan!!!  (*migraine increasing*) I was just pointing out more beneficial / "legitimate" reasons for going vegan, but I'm not trying to limit the reasons,(no matter how stupid or not they are,) for going vegan.  Whatever floats your boat, ain't my life anyway, I say.  Yes, going vegan for environmental reasons is pretty sound reasoning.  But, I would just like to point out, for the sake of being devil's advocate, that it would be even possibly more environmentally friendly if someone shot themselves so as to deteriorate, and become healthy mulch / fertilizer for the soil without continuing to leave a carbon footprint on this earth.  But you don't see me promoting such kind of thinking, do you?  My point that I'm making (which I already made in my last post,) through exaggerated facetiousness, is that if there are more appealing alternatives that are short-term and not as difficult, people will take that probably rather than becoming vegan.  But there is no alternative when it comes to a healthier lifestyle than veganism.  Short-term and easier alternatives maybe, but they will never be healthier.  This is why although I'm not trying to act like the social police, and tell people why they should and shouldn't do things, it can't be argued that going vegan for health reasons and for the animals have no other better alternative for these reasons.  Period! (Yes, people can be against seal skinning, against fur, etc. , but it doesn't beat going completely vegan, does it?  In other words, no better alternative other than becoming vegan for this reason.) 

  Now, if you actually want to address my actual arguments, instead of making arguments for things I'm not even addressing or making a conclusion from, then feel free to respond.  Otherwise, if you make another post that has nothing to do with what I'm actually trying to say, I will just respond with a "smiley face" as I do not have nor want to have the time to reiterate myself for a third time.  Please make sure you actually understand what I was trying to say before you make arguments, unless you realize that I'm right in what I'm saying, and just don't have any comebacks, and therefore go off on a tangent arguing about something I wasn't even addressing because it would make no logical sense to do so.  Okay goodbye... time for some chamomile tea and a nap.  :) Oh, and happy belated vegan thanksgiving to you, but I don't celebrate any holidays on purpose because I think they're all stupid, so... yeah, once again, thanks for assuming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thecatisback said:

Dear God, you did not actually read my post, as in, understand what I actually was trying to say, did you?  Currently I have a terrible cold / flu, but this post when I read it made me feel even more physically ill.  So please, if you want to respond to this post, I beg you to take some time before replying until I can get better, because I don't want to get any sicker and have a bigger headache than I already do have from reading your posts, no offense.  :wacko:  (Apparently I wasn't around when God was handing out patience, as some people would say.)

   Yes, I am not a retard.  I do know what the original purpose of this thread was addressing, which was geared towards more of physical appearances.  Redgrapes, believe it or not, I can read.  That didn't mean I couldn't add any extra thoughts regarding this topic that were somewhat related, and maybe could give a bigger picture to those who are reading these posts and are thinking about going vegan.

    Yes, I am not dumb and understand that younger people want to be attractive... do you think I live in a cave or something?!  Please stop explaining things to me that are "common knowledge," as it comes across quite condescending, and is just making me look unnecessarily like a dumb***, (maybe this is your intention?)  And I have no patience for anyone, and I mean anyone, explaining stuff I already know and that they would know I know.  Now, with that said, if you actually understood my post, you would understand I NEVER said that the vanity card shouldn't be played, but that it would be better for the benefit of veganism long-term, if it was explicitly shown instead of explained.  Refer to the third paragraph, end of the fifth paragraph, and the sixth paragraph from my previous post, as I am hella not going to try and explain what you may not interpret correctly again anyway.  Or somehow twist my words and/or create a red herring fallacy argument, which is what seems to have been done.  Indeed, many people come from an unhealthy lifestyle, which is why they are interested in veganism and a lot of the time become vegan after their initial interest.  Yes, I understand that, but can't that support my point and not yours, about how healthy living should be the focus, and how the vanity card can be played but it should be shown rather than explicitly explained?  Lol, I think you accidentally made a statement that could actually support my point not yours.  And yes, I know healthy living and appearance are correlated, not necessarily a cause-and-effect, so what's your point?  That doesn't make healthy living any less important... again, please re-read certain paragraphs of my previous post that I already have pointed out. 

   LMAO, I am not "promoting" the junk food vegan lifestyle, rofl.  (In fact, I'm in the process of trying to figure out more about being raw vegan.  I don't consume gluten, white flour, salt, refined sugar, etc. unless I had to have it as a last resort in some hypothetical situation.)  What I'm trying to say is that unlike the reason for going vegan to become more "attractive," which again, I never said wasn't an applicable reason, (and I would argue correlation is not enough, when people are attracted to veganism as a potential direct cause not correlation for becoming "attractive,") the reality is some people don't and will never become healthy.  I live in reality.  This is the reality.  Maybe you have been spared the experience of meeting such people where their indulgence preferences and/or lack of self-care for themselves will (probably) forever outweigh the desire and therefore the outcome of them ever being a healthy vegan, let alone healthy.  So... might as well let them know they can continue their "junk food" lifestyle without having to kill animals.  I find it's easier for some people to care about others more than themselves.  I am not going to pretend that I live in some frickin' utopia where everyone is going to go vegan and be healthy; that doesn't mean that therefore I'm promoting a "junk food vegan" lifestyle.  This would be like saying because I acknowledge that murder exists, and some people won't stop murdering, that I am supporting murder by suggesting that the only legally available weapons to citizens should be the type that don't cause physical pain / cause very little physical pain to victims when used if it were possible. 

     However, the outcome with encouraging vegan for attractive reasons, don't necessarily fulfill the expectations for why that person went vegan.  (Although again, I do think going vegan for "attractive" reasons is fine, as long as we aren't explicitly explaining this, but rather showing this through our actions.  Although not all vegans are healthy and attractive, there is still enough in the media and whatnot to make their presence known.)  They won't necessarily become "attractive" after going vegan, and plus like I said it IS a big deal that there are other ways to achieve this "attractiveness," because they probably are a lot easier to do and much more of a quick fix, which is what most people want, since they have the inability to think of long-term negative / positive consequences.  But with becoming a junk food vegan, (again, I'm not promoting this lifestyle at all, lmao,) the outcome is exactly what they're expecting, you see?  They expected to eat junk food as a vegan, and they got what they were expecting.  Though the same can not be said for expecting to "look good" as a vegan, there are so many variables factoring into a holistic health (i.e. mental health, social support, stress levels and attitude towards stress, financial health, etc.) that the outcome won't necessarily be what they thought.  THIS IS WHY I WANT TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE IT WILL DIRECTLY POINT TO A VEGAN DIET!!! (I'm not yelling, I'm just emphasizing, though at this moment I want to yell and bounce off the ceilings, because I'm pretty much being a broken record as I'm basically re-explaining everything I said in my last post, which you didn't comprehend the way I meant it.)

   I never tried to imply you were or weren't promoting Dr. McDougall 100%, I'm not very stupid, I understand this.  And no f***ing duh, I know he is a medical doctor ... I mean, DR. MCDOUGALL is pretty self-explanatory.  I don't appreciate these condescending explanations you are giving me, whether they are unintentional or not! :angry:  I am scientifically inclined as well, and by the way I hope you're not using an appeal to authority fallacy as a logical argument.  As I would think you would know, or hope you would know, just because someone is a doctor, the president, or whatnot, doesn't mean they are always correct in their thinking, for instance medical doctors who are pro-paleo diet.  After all, they went through the same medical school application process as Dr. McDougall, did they not?  So I don't give a flying frisbee who is telling me the information, whether it is a ghetto gangbanger or Leonardo DiCaprio, as long as the information is true, is fact.  Honestly, I think / wouldn't be surprised if Dr. McDougall is a government shill for the meat and dairy industry posing as promoting a "vegan" diet.  Who the f*** cares if labeling yourself vegan will make some people errantly think you are also promoting a junk food vegan diet; he can always clarify and say that he promotes a healthy vegan diet full of whole fruits and vegetables, and no processed / refined sugar saturated hydrogenated oil salt fat crap!!  I mean, how difficult would it be for him to say that?  Not very, just one sentence that could take less than literally eight seconds to do.  LMAO, oh, so it's okay that he eats less than a deck of cards of turkey every other year?  What if I decided I wanted to eat less than a deck of cards of your body every other year, that would be okay too, because I promote a healthy vegan diet anyway, right?  :)

   Darn son of a biatch, I was not trying to make an exclusive reason for going vegan!!!  (*migraine increasing*) I was just pointing out more beneficial / "legitimate" reasons for going vegan, but I'm not trying to limit the reasons,(no matter how stupid or not they are,) for going vegan.  Whatever floats your boat, ain't my life anyway, I say.  Yes, going vegan for environmental reasons is pretty sound reasoning.  But, I would just like to point out, for the sake of being devil's advocate, that it would be even possibly more environmentally friendly if someone shot themselves so as to deteriorate, and become healthy mulch / fertilizer for the soil without continuing to leave a carbon footprint on this earth.  But you don't see me promoting such kind of thinking, do you?  My point that I'm making (which I already made in my last post,) through exaggerated facetiousness, is that if there are more appealing alternatives that are short-term and not as difficult, people will take that probably rather than becoming vegan.  But there is no alternative when it comes to a healthier lifestyle than veganism.  Short-term and easier alternatives maybe, but they will never be healthier.  This is why although I'm not trying to act like the social police, and tell people why they should and shouldn't do things, it can't be argued that going vegan for health reasons and for the animals have no other better alternative for these reasons.  Period! (Yes, people can be against seal skinning, against fur, etc. , but it doesn't beat going completely vegan, does it?  In other words, no better alternative other than becoming vegan for this reason.) 

  Now, if you actually want to address my actual arguments, instead of making arguments for things I'm not even addressing or making a conclusion from, then feel free to respond.  Otherwise, if you make another post that has nothing to do with what I'm actually trying to say, I will just respond with a "smiley face" as I do not have nor want to have the time to reiterate myself for a third time.  Please make sure you actually understand what I was trying to say before you make arguments, unless you realize that I'm right in what I'm saying, and just don't have any comebacks, and therefore go off on a tangent arguing about something I wasn't even addressing because it would make no logical sense to do so.  Okay goodbye... time for some chamomile tea and a nap.  :) Oh, and happy belated vegan thanksgiving to you, but I don't celebrate any holidays on purpose because I think they're all stupid, so... yeah, once again, thanks for assuming. 

thecatisback,

I am sorry my posts have bothered you. :( I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part; they were not intentional. I will refrain from responding for an interval so as not to further affect your health condition. I wish you a speedy recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@thecatisback It seems you have returned to the forum. I hope you are well. :)

I had plenty of points I wanted to address but due to increased apathy with elapsed time as well as desire for closure (preferably without further discord), I will reduce my response to two main points (I can elaborate my other points if you desire, though I doubt either of us would prefer that ;)):

On 11/30/2016 at 10:42 PM, thecatisback said:

   Now, with that said, if you actually understood my post, you would understand I NEVER said that the vanity card shouldn't be played, but that it would be better for the benefit of veganism long-term, if it was explicitly shown instead of explained.  Refer to the third paragraph, end of the fifth paragraph, and the sixth paragraph from my previous post, as I am hella not going to try and explain what you may not interpret correctly again anyway.  Or somehow twist my words and/or create a red herring fallacy argument, which is what seems to have been done.  Indeed, many people come from an unhealthy lifestyle, which is why they are interested in veganism and a lot of the time become vegan after their initial interest.  Yes, I understand that, but can't that support my point and not yours, about how healthy living should be the focus, and how the vanity card can be played but it should be shown rather than explicitly explained?  

On 11/30/2016 at 10:42 PM, thecatisback said:

Maybe you have been spared the experience of meeting such people where their indulgence preferences and/or lack of self-care for themselves will (probably) forever outweigh the desire and therefore the outcome of them ever being a healthy vegan, let alone healthy.  So... might as well let them know they can continue their "junk food" lifestyle without having to kill animals.  I find it's easier for some people to care about others more than themselves.  I am not going to pretend that I live in some frickin' utopia where everyone is going to go vegan and be healthy; that doesn't mean that therefore I'm promoting a "junk food vegan" lifestyle. 

On 11/30/2016 at 10:42 PM, thecatisback said:

     However, the outcome with encouraging vegan for attractive reasons, don't necessarily fulfill the expectations for why that person went vegan.  (Although again, I do think going vegan for "attractive" reasons is fine, as long as we aren't explicitly explaining this, but rather showing this through our actions.  Although not all vegans are healthy and attractive, there is still enough in the media and whatnot to make their presence known.)  They won't necessarily become "attractive" after going vegan, and plus like I said it IS a big deal that there are other ways to achieve this "attractiveness," because they probably are a lot easier to do and much more of a quick fix, which is what most people want, since they have the inability to think of long-term negative / positive consequences.  But with becoming a junk food vegan, (again, I'm not promoting this lifestyle at all, lmao,) the outcome is exactly what they're expecting, you see?  They expected to eat junk food as a vegan, and they got what they were expecting.  Though the same can not be said for expecting to "look good" as a vegan, there are so many variables factoring into a holistic health (i.e. mental health, social support, stress levels and attitude towards stress, financial health, etc.) that the outcome won't necessarily be what they thought.  THIS IS WHY I WANT TO PROMOTE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE IT WILL DIRECTLY POINT TO A VEGAN DIET!!! (I'm not yelling, I'm just emphasizing, though at this moment I want to yell and bounce off the ceilings, because I'm pretty much being a broken record as I'm basically re-explaining everything I said in my last post, which you didn't comprehend the way I meant it.)

(1). Perhaps I misunderstood you, but this seems contradictory: you say you want attractiveness on a vegan diet to be shown instead of explained while simultaneously suggesting junk food veganism is acceptable (for others- I understand you are not one yourself, and that you do not promote/advocate it over healthy eating) because the outcome is expected. Are these not conflicting ideals? Wouldn't junk food veganism compromise any real world demonstration of healthy attractive vegans?

(Feel free not to respond by the way, as I also recognize this conversation has become rather circular and repetitive.)

 

On 11/30/2016 at 10:42 PM, thecatisback said:

Yes, I am not a retard. 

(2). Please refrain from using the term "retard" in such a manner (not for my own sake). It is very disrespectful about something outside of one's control. Thank you.

 

As far as the misunderstandings go, I think many arose from my not quoting specific lines from your post to show exactly what I was responding to (which is why I quoted certain elements this time). I read what you wrote (it's true ;)) and everything I said was an attempt to respond to something in particular you asked or said. My statements were directly connected with aspects of your preceding post and were intended to be read with that context in mind. However, I believe the biggest misunderstanding has been the illusion of overarching disagreement; I too am advocating long-term improved health and attractiveness through a healthy vegan diet same as you, and have all along, from my first post until now. We both promote a healthy lifestyle through a vegan diet as well as compassionate living, and actually agree on most points.

I'd like to conclude this discussion on amicable terms. Once again, my apologies for frustrating you previously and potentially, prospectively.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 6:34 PM, redgrapes said:

@thecatisback It seems you have returned to the forum. I hope you are well. :)

I had plenty of points I wanted to address but due to increased apathy with elapsed time as well as desire for closure (preferably without further discord), I will reduce my response to two main points (I can elaborate my other points if you desire, though I doubt either of us would prefer that ;)):

(1). Perhaps I misunderstood you, but this seems contradictory: you say you want attractiveness on a vegan diet to be shown instead of explained while simultaneously suggesting junk food veganism is acceptable (for others- I understand you are not one yourself, and that you do not promote/advocate it over healthy eating) because the outcome is expected. Are these not conflicting ideals? Wouldn't junk food veganism compromise any real world demonstration of healthy attractive vegans?

(Feel free not to respond by the way, as I also recognize this conversation has become rather circular and repetitive.)

 

(2). Please refrain from using the term "retard" in such a manner (not for my own sake). It is very disrespectful about something outside of one's control. Thank you.

 

As far as the misunderstandings go, I think many arose from my not quoting specific lines from your post to show exactly what I was responding to (which is why I quoted certain elements this time). I read what you wrote (it's true ;)) and everything I said was an attempt to respond to something in particular you asked or said. My statements were directly connected with aspects of your preceding post and were intended to be read with that context in mind. However, I believe the biggest misunderstanding has been the illusion of overarching disagreement; I too am advocating long-term improved health and attractiveness through a healthy vegan diet same as you, and have all along, from my first post until now. We both promote a healthy lifestyle through a vegan diet as well as compassionate living, and actually agree on most points.

I'd like to conclude this discussion on amicable terms. Once again, my apologies for frustrating you previously and potentially, prospectively.

     Yes, I am completely recovered from my flu.  LOLOL, seriously you did not understand what I was saying even though you say you do, because clearly you don't, if you still have questions to ask me and think I was being contradictory, lololololol. Otherwise you wouldn't see my point as contradicting.  (Feel free to PM me if you really want to try and understand my point.  I will do my best not be so irritated, lol.)  Bottom line: we both think having a healthy vegan lifestyle is the most ideal, the end,  lolololololol. 

      As far as using the word "retard," I was not referring to the demographic of people, others often associate with the word "retard."  No one on this earth is "retarded," regardless of their abilities and cognitive levels.  I suppose our lexicons are different for the use of this word, but I just use it as a word meaning a really, really dumb person who is dumb on purpose.  Yes, I know this is not the definition in the dictionary probably, but that is how I use this word.  If anything, I should be offended by YOU (though I'm not, because I'm not easily offended lol,) for linking the word "retard" to any demographic of people.  I think higher of people, such as those with down's syndrome, than to call them / refer to them as a "retard," so I would suggest you rethink associating the word "retard" with any demographic of people.  Because everyone at the end of the day is smart and stupid in one way or another, whether or not societal values perceive it this way.

       I'll have you know that a girl and her family at my high school only allowed me and no else at the school, let alone anyone else that wasn't family, to come to her house.  They said they could tell before they even invited me over to their house that I was a compassionate and understanding, non-judgmental person who would not be mean to this girl's two handicapped children who also had some linking behavioral problems.  Her parents commended me for how I interacted with them, and how I treated them the exact some way as their non-handicapped daughter, and didn't act "extra nice" because they were handicapped, but just treated them like any other person, because I feel this is the way they should be respectfully treated.  I even told her parents not to call their own children "retarded," (although of course they love their two handicapped children, they didn't mean it in a condescending way,) because I don't see anyone as "retarded," and told them I only use the word "retarded" to refer to people who are purposefully stupid / foolish.  There are people in my biological family who work with handicapped people as well.  So once again, thanks for assuming. :) Have a good day.  Please don't respond on this thread, if you want to further this conversation PM me, but I don't know if you'll ever comprehend what I'm trying to say, especially since you're so set on believing that you understood what I was trying to say, roflololololol. 

    Oh redgrapes, you know me so well, yes, you prospectively frustrated me, lol. Well one thing we do have in common is that we're both apathetic about this conversation at this point, although I already was by the second time I posted a message on this thread, lol. 

*And they all lived happily ever after, kiddos.  The end.  La Fin.* 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thecatisback said:

Yes, I am completely recovered from my flu.  LOLOL, seriously you did not understand what I was saying even though you say you do, because clearly you don't, if you still have questions to ask me and think I was being contradictory, lololololol. Otherwise you wouldn't see my point as contradicting.  (Feel free to PM me if you really want to try and understand my point.  I will do my best not be so irritated, lol.)  Bottom line: we both think having a healthy vegan lifestyle is the most ideal, the end,  lolololololol. 

I'm glad your health has been fully restored. :)

Where did I claim to completely understand what you have said? You keep repeating this, but I have been apologizing for any misunderstandings on my part and have been trying to rectify my apparent lack of comprehension you keep pointing out.

21 hours ago, thecatisback said:

As far as using the word "retard," I was not referring to the demographic of people, others often associate with the word "retard."  No one on this earth is "retarded," regardless of their abilities and cognitive levels.  I suppose our lexicons are different for the use of this word, but I just use it as a word meaning a really, really dumb person who is dumb on purpose.  Yes, I know this is not the definition in the dictionary probably, but that is how I use this word.  If anything, I should be offended by YOU (though I'm not, because I'm not easily offended lol,) for linking the word "retard" to any demographic of people.  I think higher of people, such as those with down's syndrome, than to call them / refer to them as a "retard," so I would suggest you rethink associating the word "retard" with any demographic of people.  Because everyone at the end of the day is smart and stupid in one way or another, whether or not societal values perceive it this way.

       I'll have you know that a girl and her family at my high school only allowed me and no else at the school, let alone anyone else that wasn't family, to come to her house.  They said they could tell before they even invited me over to their house that I was a compassionate and understanding, non-judgmental person who would not be mean to this girl's two handicapped children who also had some linking behavioral problems.  Her parents commended me for how I interacted with them, and how I treated them the exact some way as their non-handicapped daughter, and didn't act "extra nice" because they were handicapped, but just treated them like any other person, because I feel this is the way they should be respectfully treated.  I even told her parents not to call their own children "retarded," (although of course they love their two handicapped children, they didn't mean it in a condescending way,) because I don't see anyone as "retarded," and told them I only use the word "retarded" to refer to people who are purposefully stupid / foolish.  There are people in my biological family who work with handicapped people as well.  So once again, thanks for assuming. :) Have a good day.  Please don't respond on this thread, if you want to further this conversation PM me, but I don't know if you'll ever comprehend what I'm trying to say, especially since you're so set on believing that you understood what I was trying to say, roflololololol. 

Regardless of individual lexicons, language is inherently based on the collective agreement on the meaning of words; otherwise it doesn't work. Language is defined (by Oxford dictionaries) as "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way." If you decide "nincompoop" is a compliment in your "personal lexicon" and greet people as such, they will be offended- you're selfishly disregarding their more accurate interpretation of the word. And I am not personally linking the word "retard" with any demographic, but am acknowledging the way others perceive it and how they may be offended if used the way you did initially. Here is the actual definition: 

Quote

retard

VERB- Delay or hold back in terms of progress or development

NOUN- informal, offensive A person who has a mental disability (often used as a general term of abuse).

source: Oxford dictionaries

I believe using the term "retard" as a verb is perfectly appropriate. As a noun, I cannot imagine any situation in which it would be the best option available. I recommend finding a more fitting word to express a "really, really dumb person who is dumb on purpose" or "purposefully stupid / foolish" as you seem to feel the need to pronounce you are not those things. I guarantee there are plenty of replacements to select from.

21 hours ago, thecatisback said:

I was a compassionate and understanding, non-judgmental personal

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but the phraseology in your posts comes across drastically different from this description of you.

21 hours ago, thecatisback said:

Oh redgrapes, you know me so well, yes, you prospectively frustrated me, lol. Well one thing we do have in common is that we're both apathetic about this conversation at this point, although I already was by the second time I posted a message on this thread, lol. 

This seems inconsistent. How are you apathetic when you've been utilizing strong rhetoric throughout this thread and have made an addendum to your post readily admitting I frustrated you?

21 hours ago, thecatisback said:

*And they all lived happily ever after, kiddos.  The end.  La Fin.* 

:)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 5:10 PM, redgrapes said:

I'm glad your health has been fully restored. :)

Where did I claim to completely understand what you have said? You keep repeating this, but I have been apologizing for any misunderstandings on my part and have been trying to rectify my apparent lack of comprehension you keep pointing out.

Regardless of individual lexicons, language is inherently based on the collective agreement on the meaning of words; otherwise it doesn't work. Language is defined (by Oxford dictionaries) as "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way." If you decide "nincompoop" is a compliment in your "personal lexicon" and greet people as such, they will be offended- you're selfishly disregarding their more accurate interpretation of the word. And I am not personally linking the word "retard" with any demographic, but am acknowledging the way others perceive it and how they may be offended if used the way you did initially. Here is the actual definition: 

I believe using the term "retard" as a verb is perfectly appropriate. As a noun, I cannot imagine any situation in which it would be the best option available. I recommend finding a more fitting word to express a "really, really dumb person who is dumb on purpose" or "purposefully stupid / foolish" as you seem to feel the need to pronounce you are not those things. I guarantee there are plenty of replacements to select from.

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but the phraseology in your posts comes across drastically different from this description of you.

This seems inconsistent. How are you apathetic when you've been utilizing strong rhetoric throughout this thread and have made an addendum to your post readily admitting I frustrated you?

:)

"As far as the misunderstandings go, I think many arose from my not quoting specific lines from your post to show exactly what I was responding to (which is why I quoted certain elements this time). I read what you wrote (it's true ;)) and everything I said was an attempt to respond to something in particular you asked or said. My statements were directly connected with aspects of your preceding post and were intended to be read with that context in mind. However, I believe the biggest misunderstanding has been the illusion of overarching disagreement; I too am advocating long-term improved health and attractiveness through a healthy vegan diet same as you, and have all along, from my first post until now. We both promote a healthy lifestyle through a vegan diet as well as compassionate living, and actually agree on most points."

That paragraph to me sure sounded like you think you knew what you were talking about and understood what I said.  I'm not trying to change the whole English language, just the definition of the word "retard."  I would never call someone I like a "nincompoop" because the word "nincompoop" isn't directly tied to any demographic of persons as a way to slander / condescend towards anyone who doesn't deserve to be called by such a label.  I pretty much, like 99% of the time use words as they mean in the dictionary.  In fact, I'm helping people who have disabilities (I have ADHD myself which some would see as a disability but I don't, whatever,) by using the word "retard" as a word that does not mean and refer to any demographic of people for something that they can't help but be born with.  There is nothing wrong with doing that; imagine if the way I use the word "retard" caught on, then the rightful people who should be considered dumb, (those who are PURPOSEFULLY dumb,) would have that label instead of innocent people.  Please refer to what I responded to with PauljustPaul's post about the term "vegan;" and "quote" vs. "quotation."  English is not a set-in-stone language.  Look at the word "gay."  If I said I was gay, most people would not assume that I just meant I was happy that day, lol.  But, in the dictionary that is what it would say.  But times are a' changing just like Bob Dylan said, and it seems like you're one of the people who wants to be pedantic and sink like a stone.  Language, like culture, is alive and ever-changing, and if we can change it for the good, then why not.  Get with the program Redgrapes.  Or not.  Whatever.  And plus I usually tell people what I mean by the word "retard" before I say it, but it seems this time I impulsively did not mention what I meant by it this time, because I was just typing away in an annoyed fluster due to your condescending posts. 

As far as my phraseology, I suppose the way I word things may come across a little harsh to some people than I actually mean them, but not everyone sees me as that, the way you do.  This is only your perspective, though it seems you're trying to psychoanalyze a blanket statement about my personality, and therefore my character.  But logically speaking my personality does not necessarily reflect upon the kind of person I am.  Some of the rudest, meanest people I have ever met say things "nicely and politely" and have a "nice personality," but their actions say otherwise.  They can fool people in the beginning with the notion that they are actually nice because of the way they seem to be on the surface.  The way you act, or how you word words, does not speak of your inner character and the kinds of actions you show towards others.  I'm not the most lovey dovey person in the way I speak, nor my personality, but my actions show I'm compassionate and caring towards loved ones, strangers, and innocent animals who don't deserve to die and be exploited.  You care too much about appearances it seems just based on your posts, not only vegan people's appearances, but the way my personality appears to be.  You don't care to look deeper than that, what lies beyond the surface.  And I'm also more kind to people who don't talk down to me I'll have you know.  If someone is disrespecting me, (aka like you,) I will give them a little taste of their own medicine back, and usually such people don't like that, as it seems to be the case with you.  I don't tolerate disrespect: Don't judge me until you know me, don't underestimate me until you challenge me, and don't talk about me until you've talked to me.  If you can't even clearly understand my posts, there is no way you should be making judgment statements about the kind of person I am, especially without any evidence to back you up.  The judgment statements I've made about you has evidence to back me up at least. 

As far as being apathetic, I mean I'm apathetic about the whole trying to explain the vegan-related topics.  But I'm not apathetic about standing up for myself when people are condescending, unnecessarily judgmental, and making me look like a rude person when they are the ones being rude, aka using psychological projection onto me.  Yes, I use strong language, but it's because I'm passionate about being vegan and everyone being treated fairly, including myself.  And I don't hide the way I feel about people, especially when I feel disrespected.  Maybe you are not used to people being honest, as your passive-aggressive quips about me seem to be more in your comfort zone.  As one song says, "true friends stab you in the front," not the back.  While you're not my friend, I still choose to give you this respect. 

Now, please, stop adding messages to this forum.  This has been old for sometime.  If you have any (vegan) beef with me, then PM me, although I hope you do not.  Please.  Stop.  Leave me alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add that oreos are vegan, and that will be all I'm eating. Can't wait for the health benefits associated with veganism.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 1:55 PM, Ringer said:

I just wanted to add that oreos are vegan, and that will be all I'm eating. Can't wait for the health benefits associated with veganism.

*facepalm*

Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 8:03 PM, thecatisback said:

*facepalm*

Fail.

I have noticed a sharp rise in energy after each oreo meal... it has made me more energetic. Is this the beginning of veganism?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2017 at 4:55 PM, Ringer said:

I just wanted to add that oreos are vegan, and that will be all I'm eating. Can't wait for the health benefits associated with veganism.

On 1/21/2017 at 10:47 PM, Ringer said:

I have noticed a sharp rise in energy after each oreo meal... it has made me more energetic. Is this the beginning of veganism?

Alright, I'll admit these were really funny. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not purposefully wanting to throw in a wrench, but how about raw veganism?  With all this discussion about veganism being healthy, or at least the potential to be healthier than an omnivore lifestyle, where do we draw the line between what is healthy, healthier, and healthiest?  Would raw veganism be the healthiest, and therefore make non-raw veganism seem no longer that healthy?  I suppose I'm getting philosophical here, but that's what I do. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2017 at 3:55 PM, Guest said:

I just wanted to add that oreos are vegan, and that will be all I'm eating. Can't wait for the health benefits associated with veganism.

On 1/21/2017 at 9:47 PM, Guest said:

I have noticed a sharp rise in energy after each oreo meal... it has made me more energetic. Is this the beginning of veganism?

lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happily munching away on chicken as I read this post.  Eat what you want, but clearly it's not "holier" to be a vegan, since Jesus ate meat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now