agitatedpotato @ agitatedpotato @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

450

Joined

2 yr. ago

I’ll reiterate my initial question: if this is the case, then what did you hope to get out of this discussion? Because as I’ve already said: either people agree with you or they don’t. There’s no wiggle room, here. The best course scenario was people going “I agree” or “I disagree” and then never talking to you ever again.

I thought this comment chain would go a lot like the other comment chain I made in this exact thread, where it was civil and constructive instead of targeted critique of the way I decide to present what I know without so much as attempting to offer things that could change my mind, because you so deeply think 'i wouldn't listen anyway' which to me sounds like you got nothing to say except you don't like how I speak, yet you choose to keep engaging which is the funny part to me.

and you responding with “yes, but I know a lot of vegans who have that as their definition, therefore it is more legitimate than your definition,

Never said it was more legitimate, only that it was legitimate. And as long as it's legitimate the qualified statements holds up. People even pointed out land clearing and we went back and forth on that, you make it sound like there was no argument to be had whatsoever but the thread tells a different story, and you sure don't suffer of picking out things that are unacceptable to you.

you believe the definition of veganism you are applying is valid, common, and, in some ways, universal.

Because any evidence anyone has given me to the contrary has been as worth, or worthless as the evidence I gave that it was. Would you like me to imagine a definition I haven't heard before on the basis that you don't like the one I'm using but refuse to supplant it? I really don't know what it is you want me to do with conflicting evidence of similar origin? I dismissed it as quick as you dismissed my anecdotal stuff, is that not fair? Especially when I qualified my whole comment on that definition. If you really think the premise is such an issue then challenge me to change it instead of just repeating it's an issue. I said what I said, within the bounds I said, because that's how I can be sure of my conclusion, within those conditions. Sorry you seem to take such offense to narrowly defined declarations on a hypothetical question online.

My entire argument is founded on two points: one is that the definitions of veganism are fluid and open to interpretation and that the particular definition of veganism to which you subscribe is so central to your hypothetical as to render the hypothetical largely pointless as a topic of debate.

If you really think the definition of vegan is so fluid then there's no answer to the question at all, because for some it will be and some it wont be. My narrow qualified statement pointed out a subset of Vegans for whom it wouldn't be okay, did it not? Then I proceed to defend it with things like how Vegans know land clearing kills animal, so in practice many make the choice to reduce animal suffering wherever possible, to imply that it logically follows that many vegans would not eat human farmed fly traps because that would almost necessarily imply they were human fed for disease control reasons. Even there I qualified my statements, at every turn I was acknowledging that there is no one way to be a vegan which you 'supposedly' agree with, but still think it's problematic when I talk about one of those definitions to analyze a hypothetical.

I just don't understand how if your premise is that veganism is fluid you'd have such an issue with a statement that outright says its not about every vegan. You already know, or claim to know, the definition is fluid, and you know my conclusion logically follows my premise, which is why you attack the premise. So let me ask you this, do you believe my premise, the definition of veganism I gave, somehow falls outside of your spectrum of veganism? Because unless you do, to me it seems the biggest thing your mad it is that I phrased a comment in a way that didn't invite argument or logical fallacy, but oh boy that didn't stop you now did it.

I made a narrowly defined claim and responded logically to counter arguments. Why are you so upset with my specificity? What does the thread gain from me making a claim that obviously overreaches and is not correct other than giving you an opting to say that it's wrong? Because for the life of me it doesn't sound like you want discussion, it sounds like you want to say someone else is wrong. If you wanted discussion I'd imagine we'd be talking about definitions of veganism in any capacity other than an anecdotal rebuttal of an anecdotal assertion, or that we'd be talking about the land clearing, how many flies these things actually eat, basically anything but what you're actually talking about. Instead, you refuse to give a definition even just as a framework to speak within, say the definition of veganism is fluid, however my definition which I from the start said was simply one way of many, is a problem and somehow outside your spectrum?

I can't in good faith believe you're upset that there's no discussion to be had, when your objection to my framework contradicts your supposed first point of your argument and you've been pulling discussion out of semantic and linguistic composition rather than focusing on any kind of substantive arguments about veganism and flytraps. The only inference I can walk away with is you have much more to say about semantics and linguistics than you have to say about veganism and flytraps which brings me back to the question what is you really want to talk about?

Self directed seems to be the answer to budget problems, but there should be pooled resources that all support staff can tap into if we want to even keep the same level of service we had pre pandemic, and honestly the disability community still deserves more than that bar. Hopefully we get there.

Im in the disability field and honestly I feel like we need something and need it bad. Not institutions, at least not like they were, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see some people in the disability community respond positively to this with the hopes that its different this time, lord know the people who like him don't believe his words at face value. I can also tell you thers definitely is a not insignificant amount of people in the community who have a neutral to faborable feeling on Trump.

The key here I think is that during the pandemic, even before mask mandates, we started seeing services get cut, orgs defunded, and staff reduced. So much of the disability community right now is relying on support staff and self directed program funding, which is essentially the disbursement of medicare and medicaid funding to one individual, not necessary with a medical background, to help the person with the disability with their day to day stuff and goals stated in their Individual Service Plan. The flexibility is great but its just one person at a time, they don't even get a budget to do things typically.

A lot of people with disabilities are missing the structure of actual organizations that has the resources to do more than what a one on one support worker can, and someone on Trumps team is either smart enough to know that, or quite lucky.

How does you ignoring my foundational premise make you the arbiter of whos talking in good faith and, but me refusing to justify points I didn't make makes me the bad guy? Perhaps I framed it the way I did because thats the way it made sense to me.

Of course im not moving beyond that definition because my whole premise was dependent upon that definition AS I SAID IN THE FIRST COMMENT COMPLETE WITH A BIG 'IF'. You're whole arguement is that it's wrong of me to not change the definition that I already stated my arguments depend on because then people either agree or won't. Thats probably because I did nothing but follow logical steps from a definition I know is still common. And I don't know how many times I have to say that I know and have spoken with plenty of vegans who use that definition so Im not really concerned that a handful of people on lemmy use a different one, especially when they go out of their way to continue ignore my premise, without proving any type of evidence that no vegans use the definition I've started with other that saying 'no they dont' after hearing that I've heard these definitions right from real people. Some I'm even related to. Or do you really think your definition is the only way someone can be a vegan? Because what I think is your definition is the only one where you can keep arguing. You even tacitly admited to that saying that within the framework I chose, one can only agree or disagree. No wonder you're so desperate to move away from that

No one forced anyone to respond to my comments but if I make a point completely within a common framework, the least one could do is not ignore the framework simply because it's easier to respond that way. Hell I'd even accept any kind of data on how people define their own veganism, but short of that my anecdotal evidence from the vegans I know is by definition just as good as any anecdotal evidence provided against it, and that's all thats been provided. Tell me if theres any things you've heard from people you trust that someone could change with anecdotal evidence online?

What kills me is you still won't even acknowledge theres not simply one type of vegan with only one definition despite the fact that its the first thing I did before making a point on a clearly defined subset of vegan. And if you look through my comments elsewhere on this post, not in this chain, youll also find me aknowledge a differnt definition of vegan and come to a different conclusion, so if thats all you wanted you've been wasting a lot of your own time. So only one of us is even stuck on there only being one way to be vegan. Thinking I haven't been the flexible one is hilarious.

Fox News was founded October 7th 1996, just over 27 calendar yesrs ago. Remember when all the racists were emboldened by Trump being elected, Imagine the slow and steady change after giving them their own justification media machine that spreads FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) for profit of everyone who pays them including weapons manufactureres.

The literal first thing I did was acknowledge that everyone has a different version of veganism, explained one I've heard from plenty of vegans I've spoken with, so your whole thing about foundational premises is pretty moot. I defined a clear scope of my arguement and stuck to it, most of that critique is you being mad I stayed within the scope I defined instead of letting off topic points detract from what I said and then the fact that I still don't buy your arguements. God forbid we don't agree on a hypothetical, sorry that upset you enough to want to be snide in your critique. I find your critisim to any lack depth or relevance to actual things I said, and contain little substance but veiled personal attacks about making everyone reading it dumber. Im sure it did make you dumber so at least we agree on that.

My first comment verbatim with emphasis added:

"If a plant has to eat animals to survive then that plant is a product of animal suffering. Thats why vegans don't drink milk or eat eggs too. So if that's the definition of vegan that someone subscibes to then the flytrap is not Vegan "

I set pretty clear conditions of my arguement, don't be upset I didn't let people detract from what I actually tried to argue instead of what they perceived I was arguing.

Nope. Been writing my senators and reps for years to do more than nicely ask for peace and hit them in the funding if you really care. Before this time, the last one I sent out was in 2021 around the sheikh jarrah attacks. My senator tells me he strongly condems what happens, but his budget vote disagrees.

Honestly I find him incredibly lucky because recently Ive seen US diplomats trying to actually have talks with China and under a different administration (cough cough this guys own party) this guy could become a bargining chip or PR example of US disrespect. HK could have made this a lot harder for him.

Crime statistics are literally just made up. Your local PD decided whats a crime and whats not, it could be the same exact thing but a crime one day and an incident the next. Fight at private high school? Not a crime. Fight at the low income area public high school? Crime.

And I think people have interpreted everything I've said as a personal attack against veganism despite the fact that no one really eats these plants. Id like to know what specifically you have issue with? Perhaps the one time I called someone obtuse for purposefully evading the point?

Or, hear me out, people shouldn't get defensive in a thread explicitly about a fabricated hypothetical. It's meant to be examined and I'm not sorry for examining it.

An Iranian informant who gets intel from Russia most likely. Not gonna make excuses for them, but they're clearly being played by Iran, and Iran got the flare up it wanted. The US is already retaliating on Iran so I'd imagine there's some credence that Iran was deeply involved.

humans didn’t kill any animals themselves; they’re just consuming something that did.

But wouldn't that argument only hold up for flytraps found in the wild? Any that have been cultivated by humans, especially for human consumption, would likely be fed by humans to ensure any food the plant gets is not going to negatively effect the quality of the food. But vegans also wouldn't eat eggs found in the wild, even if they could somehow know that they were unfertilized and abandoned. At the very least this is not a black and white case, I think it's very easy to imagine groups of vegans abstaining from these if they were a food product. Not everyone's definition of vegan is the same I've acknowledged that from the beginning, some vegans go as far as some Jainists do, breathing through cheesecloth to avoid killing as many microorganisms as they can. Everyone draws their own line somewhere, I'm just convinced that if people actually ate flytraps, plenty of vegans would abstain.

Then some plants would still be more carnivorous than others. When I hear someone talking about how clearing land for food kills lots of animal, the typical response I see is that Vegans know this, but try to avoid animal suffering whenever possible because its simply not always possible. I think that line of reasoning could easily be used to say well why eat a fly trap when theres other plants that don't cause as much harm to animals. Imagine if everyone started eating flytraps then they would need to be mass farmed, and mass fed, and I'd imagine they'd look a lot less vegan in that situation.

When you eat that organism, its cells that feed you were produced because it ate flies, those cells are not products of the flies death? No one said killing a plant was killing an animal, What I said was if you avoid products of animal suffering why would you not avoid the biological products of animal suffering? And if humans eating things that harm animals is saving animals then why don't vegans eat carnivorous animals? Because that not what veganism is about. Also the amount of animal death I cause has nothing to do with the debate at hand. One thing does not become vegan simply because something else causes more animal death, I don't even know what point you're trying to make talking about vehicles.

And those are both products of animal suffering, a common definition many vegans use. Come on, now you're just being obtuse on purpose.

There are plenty of vegans who would tell you they abstain from any products of animal suffering, otherwise they would use products that were tested on animals. Just because you test lipstick on animals, doesn't make the lipstick a product of animals, its a product of animal suffering. Your definition is not the only one and doesn't exclude animal tested products, which many vegans go out of their way to avoid.

Well the point of the post is to nit pick a hypothetical since I doubt many people, much less vegans are actually eating those plants, we're all casing judgement here. Especially since not everyone definition of veganism is the same. To me if its dietary and chemical then obviously it doesn't matter, but if the 'product of animal suffering' is someones black and white philosophy then to me Flytraps seem about as vegan as consuming the flies they eat (which is only like one month). While an insignificant amount, it is measurable is all I'm saying, literally a technicality but that's why its a basically hypothetical post online I suppose. In reality, everyone draws their own line somewhere, from the jainists who breath through cheese cloths to protect any microorganisms they can to the carnivours.