Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 I agree with part of what you say , but I can't agree with all. It's nice to be able to discuss it though. > > We use labels to communicate our ideas, feelings, > and beliefs. All of our > labels are but words for each of those ideas, > feelings and beliefs we sense > within ourselves. Without words, we have no common > vocabulary with which to > speak, and where does that leave us? > > I only see a problem when we cannot agree on the > label's meaning. > Exactly: I believe you were the one who posted this: http://rense.com/general34/orwell.htm > > For me, vegetarian has only one meaning, " a person > who does not eat meat. " > If you eat fish occasionally and prefer the balance > of your diet to be > veggie, there's another label describing that diet, > and it's not vegetarian. There you go- thats not my defintion of vegetarian, and I would never use that definition- my definition of vegetarian is 'someone who recieves the majority of their protein directly from a plant based diet'. Now, again, my point is, we can do the chicken dance all we want providing sources to back our beliefs and prove how 'our' defintion is right. I'd rather follow my heart, because I know I'm not forcing people to adhere to my view of things, and thus I incur less karmic damage and cause less suffering. your view is your view, thats cool. In fact, the more confusion/ less dogma is better IMHO... which one of you is spartacus? i am spartacus... no i am... no, the guy in the volvo is... etc. lol. > What's the problem with calling " a duck, a duck? " > Words only have > usefulness if they are used to mean what the speaker > intends. If you don't > know the meaning of a word, then that's a totally > different problem to be > resolved. > My point before... 3 different dictionaries will give you 3 different defintions. No point in worrying about. > > >>...because any vegetarian who condemns another > vegetarian for perhaps > eating a fish once a week; or having turkey on > thanksgiving once a year; is > laughable to someone who is a vegan;...<< > No, you cut off the end of the statement to twist the meaning of it, either you didnt read it all or I wrote it improperly. My intent was to show that anyone can judge anyone else as impure- there's always one more step to take and always someone else who is taking it- better to look forward to them and learn than to look back and consider yourself better than those who aren't as far as you along the path. Vegetarians who condemn others based on their perceptions, are just as annoying and anal as vegans who judge vegetarians as impure. Thats what I meant; if i failed to convey that, I apologize. > I add that any veggie who eats fish or turkey > occasionally, ought to > reconsider their commitment to their diet and their > " loose " usage of the > vegetarian label. > not loose at all; not by my definiton. To me its a mindset, not a cult. If i live for ten years as a vegan, then one day have a hotdog (aside from becoming violently ill) and some snotty little holier than thow puke tells me im impure, i'll pee on his leg. like I said, most people here have probably been eating meat for much longer than they were veggies- so.. on the right timeline, their lives, too, consist of a non vegetarian lifestyle. Why not simply promote the idea positively and help that person who does eat one salmon steak a week feel like its ok to next the next step and stop the salmon? Why do people have to be so insecure they need to force others into their narrow mental confines? Falling back on the defintion thing is already moot... it doesnt work unless you are willing to force the entire world into wone framework. And im not into facism. Most people I know stopped eating meat gradually, and they had to fight society the entire way- who the hell are we to judge them and have them fight us too? If they want the vegetarian ideal, and have the mindset, they are vegetarians, to me. Because they have a way of life to strive for, and thats all... and if they go a certain way, or stumble, or make exceptions, Im not gonna judge them. Im not that insecure. > Here's where I agree with LISA. Labels have meaning > that we all rely on in > our daily lives. > > To use such labels without regard for their > communicative value to the > people around you is akin to suddenly deciding to > say " red " when you really > mean " green. " Who benefits from this communication? depending on the conditions of your diet, your biology and your place in life- two people looking at one rose will see two different colours, or shades. its a proven fact. every individual is unique, and therefore trying to herd them is no different than factory farming ideas, to me. > > > IMHO, we already have too much doublespeak and > distortion in our > communicative tools. Why do specific words exist > for the various levels of > a veggie diet even exist, if you're going to be so > cavalier as to ignore > them. > people like to label things as a method of finding security and controlling what they dont understand. words are powerful. in the medievil times, if someone knew your full name, they were considered to have an almost magical power over you- or at least access to your soul. > Describing this particular person by an appropriate > veggie label is not > " judgmental. " It is simple a accurate reflection of > the diet that person > chooses for themselves every time they put a bite of > salmon steak in their > mouth. Unless this nonveggie person is ashamed of > what they've eaten, > what's the problem with calling their diet what it > is? I see it as a simple > exercise in personal honesty. > > more like an excercise in mental facism, to me. but hey, thats just me. my version of vegetarian is different than yours, and since yours is different, its obvious you must be wrong because you dont have the same view as me.... sigh. that was sarcasm. please don't start posting links.. they are moot at best. > > Words are not evil anymore than a gun is evil. In > the wrong hands, both can > become incredibility destructive. A person who has > learned to use a gun is > less likely to have a accident with it. > We insist as a matter of law that gun users > demonstrate a certain level of > care with the application of their " handheld > uniquely shaped metal > appliances. " Is it really judgmental to insist that > certain words be > clearly applied in a public dialogue with their > normal and intended usage? > > I conclude by adding that " evil words originate only > from evil people. " > > DaveO > actually the 'words are evil' part comes from an obscure reference to a beautiful speech in the climax of the film Human Nature, where the main character elucidates about how the insistence of enforcing vocabulary on people creates a duplicity within themselves and others and further serves to isolate them from their connection with nature and other beings by trapping them in walls of definitions. but i digress. i dont even believe in evil- i was just hoping that someone would catch the reference. i do think that enforcing labels on people serves to isolate and create division and enforce ego and judgement in people. if we are all jews, nobody can really persecute the jews. if we are all on the path to becoming vegetarians, and subsequently vegans- even the people who eat meat five times a day, but one day will understand and realize, and be part of this wonderful change of lifestyles... then Im fine with calling everyone a vegetarian, or aspiring one. Its a lifestyle of awareness to me, and not someone else's cultlike definition or rules to live by. And i have faith in people. But, thats just me. ===== Where is this beauty? I search and search and then find, We are the lotus. Om Mani Padme Hum Send Flowers for Valentine's Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Where's your discussion of " labels are racist, " or is that what the Orwellian link is all about? That's a trick **someone else** used to change the subject and destroy any meaningful hopes of discussion on issues he didn't want to face. Are you two related? There's more comments below... Mr.Graves [sleepingtao] >>Exactly: I believe you were the one who posted this: http://rense.com/general34/orwell.htm<< Sorry...it didn't come from me. I found Orwell's work interesting, but I never elevated him to cult status as **someone else** in the group did. > > For me, vegetarian has only one meaning, " a person > who does not eat meat. " > >>...my definition of vegetarian is 'someone who recieves the majority of their protein directly from a plant based diet'.<< In 1839 or thereabouts, when the word vegetarian was first recorded as being used, the word protein had not yet been invented. So, it appears that your " redefinition " is predated by a considerable amount of " prior usage. " Sorry...that's not how the world of words works. Your saying it just don't make it so. >>...Now, again, my point is, we can do the chicken dance all we want providing sources to back our beliefs and prove how 'our' defintion is right.<< NOT!!! You can do whatever chicken dance you want to make your " whatever " point, but the historical usage of the word " vegetarian " speaks for itself. >>I'd rather follow my heart, because I know I'm not forcing people to adhere to my view of things...<< Let me be clear here...you can hold " whatever " view your heart chooses. However, if your view is to " redefine " something that's already well understood by many generations of vegetarians, then a more tactful approach is kindly suggested (for your benefit and ours). DaveO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 Mr.Graves [sleepingtao] > >>...because any vegetarian who condemns another > vegetarian for perhaps > eating a fish once a week; or having turkey on > thanksgiving once a year; is > laughable to someone who is a vegan;...<< >>No, you cut off the end of the statement to twist the meaning of it, either you didnt read it all or I wrote it improperly.<< Okay, Keith--here's what was earlier excluded-- " ...and I don't know any vegetarians who welcome being judged by vegans as unenlightened or impure.... " I twisted nothing, pal!! I responded to what I thought the message was about. It appears to me that the only " judging " being done here is coming from a particular " vegan " on this group. My message is not about " enlightenment, purity, or the lack therof, " it's only about the " meaning of words. " Civilized men use words. They agree that " dog " has a particular meaning. When the number of dogs exceeded that usage, they derived new labels like Collie and, well...you know all of this. >>My intent was to show that anyone can judge anyone else as impure...<< Maybe you can...I assume you are speaking for yourself and not making some " general statement " about reality. >>...better to look forward to them and learn than to look back and consider yourself better than those who aren't as far as you along the path.<< You keep turning this into a philosophical rant rather than a discussion of word definitions. What are you really trying to say? >>Vegetarians who condemn others based on their perceptions, are just as annoying and anal as vegans who judge vegetarians as impure. Thats what I meant; if i failed to convey that, I apologize.<< What condemning are you talking about? This is all about calling the veggie who eats fish by the proper veggie name. Calling a German Shepard by that name should not be considerd condemning or judgemental, it's simply a fact of life. > I add that any veggie who eats fish or turkey > occasionally, ought to > reconsider their commitment to their diet and their > " loose " usage of the > vegetarian label. >>not loose at all; not by my definiton.<< Sadly, Keith, I don't remember that you were put in charge of setting those definitions or changing them. You're choosing to not agree " based on the agrument you present " brings nothing to the table. >>...To me its a mindset, not a cult.<< I can certainly see that. It would be nice if that mindset also allows you to continue communicating with those around you. You redefine enough words and no one will know what you're talking about. >>If i live for ten years as a vegan, then one day have a hotdog (aside from becoming violently ill) and some snotty little holier than thow puke tells me im impure, i'll pee on his leg.<< If I were to see that happen, I'd question your usage of the vegan label, and I'd have a camera ready for the " photos at 11 " part of the news. >>...most people here have probably been eating meat for much longer than they were veggies- so.. on the right timeline, their lives, too, consist of a non vegetarian lifestyle.<< Before I stopped eating meat, I did not call myself a vegetarian. What's this stuff about timeline mean? Are you smoking something funny? >>Why not simply promote the idea positively and help that person who does eat one salmon steak a week feel like its ok to next the next step and stop the salmon?<< It's okay to do that now, but the simple fact is that " vegetarian " is not the proper label for that person's diet. Nor is " vegan. " Taking the next step is a choice I'd rather not be involved in. I don't care if you sneak the occasional forbidden vegan item. Hell, it's none of my business. If your sense of inner honesty allows that, I'm fine with it. >>Why do people have to be so insecure they need to force others into their narrow mental confines?<< Again, I can only assume you are talking about yourself here. You don't like the definition of certain labels, and you visualize a prison. What's insecure about using words according to common practice? Who's being forced here? It's all about your seeking something that no one else has agreed with. DaveO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2003 Report Share Posted February 13, 2003 i almost feel bad now, because i feel like i started this whole confusion when i asked many days ago why is a person who eats fish sometimes called a vegetarian ? (i'd never heard the term pesco- vegetarian). but there really shouldn't be a dispute at all, daveo and keith are talking about two completely differently things. daveo is saying that people ought to use the official or recognized dictionary meanings of a word. keith is talking about ethics- how it seems elitist to say " you aren't worthy to call yourself a member of my group (vegetarian), because you don't make the same distinctions I do. " it would be nice if society could agree on a standard definition for vegetarian that would be understood by all so we all knew what the hell everyone is talking about. i was under the impression that dictionaries had agreed on a definition. but whether or not you can or cannot find a dictionary with 2 different definitions for " vegetarian " strikes me as almost irrelevant at this point, because, evidently, the colloquial definition for vegetarian may vary a great deal from person to person. It is confusing, no doubt about it, and I agree with dave-o that it would be impossible to communicate if we had no definitions which we could commonly agree upon. but what about homonyms or any word with multiple meanings? aren't they as confusing as hell too? granted you can usually rely on context to figure it out, but wouldn't the world be great if there were no misunderstandings? I'm not taking dave-o's side, or keith's side because really they're talking about two different things and they are both right. i just question what is the point of continuing this debate any further? people evidently don't agree on what " vegetarian " means. that creates confusion, but it's the way it is. , " daveo " <daveo@m...> wrote: > > > Mr.Graves [sleepingtao] > > > >>...because any vegetarian who condemns another > > vegetarian for perhaps > > eating a fish once a week; or having turkey on > > thanksgiving once a year; is > > laughable to someone who is a vegan;...<< > > >>No, you cut off the end of the statement to twist the > meaning of it, either you didnt read it all or I wrote > it improperly.<< > > Okay, Keith--here's what was earlier excluded-- " ...and I don't know any > vegetarians who welcome being judged by vegans as unenlightened or > impure.... " > > I twisted nothing, pal!! I responded to what I thought the message was > about. > > It appears to me that the only " judging " being done here is coming from a > particular " vegan " on this group. My message is not about " enlightenment, > purity, or the lack therof, " it's only about the " meaning of words. " > > Civilized men use words. They agree that " dog " has a particular meaning. > When the number of dogs exceeded that usage, they derived new labels like > Collie and, well...you know all of this. > > > >>My intent was to show that anyone can judge anyone else as impure...<< > > Maybe you can...I assume you are speaking for yourself and not making some > " general statement " about reality. > > > >>...better to look forward to them and learn than to look back and consider > yourself better than those who aren't as far as you along the path.<< > > You keep turning this into a philosophical rant rather than a discussion of > word definitions. What are you really trying to say? > > > >>Vegetarians who condemn others based on their perceptions, are just as > annoying and anal as vegans who judge vegetarians as impure. Thats what I > meant; if i failed to convey that, I apologize.<< > > What condemning are you talking about? This is all about calling the veggie > who eats fish by the proper veggie name. Calling a German Shepard by that > name should not be considerd condemning or judgemental, it's simply a fact > of life. > > > > I add that any veggie who eats fish or turkey > > occasionally, ought to > > reconsider their commitment to their diet and their > > " loose " usage of the > > vegetarian label. > >>not loose at all; not by my definiton.<< > > Sadly, Keith, I don't remember that you were put in charge of setting those > definitions or changing them. You're choosing to not agree " based on the > agrument you present " brings nothing to the table. > > > >>...To me its a mindset, not a cult.<< > > I can certainly see that. It would be nice if that mindset also allows you > to continue communicating with those around you. You redefine enough words > and no one will know what you're talking about. > > > >>If i live for ten years as a vegan, then one day have a hotdog (aside from > becoming violently ill) and some snotty little holier than thow puke tells > me im impure, i'll pee on his leg.<< > > If I were to see that happen, I'd question your usage of the vegan label, > and I'd have a camera ready for the " photos at 11 " part of the news. > > > > >>...most people here have probably been eating meat for much longer than > they were veggies- so.. on the right timeline, their lives, too, consist of > a non vegetarian lifestyle.<< > > Before I stopped eating meat, I did not call myself a vegetarian. > > What's this stuff about timeline mean? Are you smoking something funny? > > > >>Why not simply promote the idea positively and help that person who does > eat one salmon steak a week feel like its ok to next the next step and stop > the salmon?<< > > It's okay to do that now, but the simple fact is that " vegetarian " is not > the proper label for that person's diet. Nor is " vegan. " > > Taking the next step is a choice I'd rather not be involved in. I don't > care if you sneak the occasional forbidden vegan item. Hell, it's none of > my business. If your sense of inner honesty allows that, I'm fine with it. > > > >>Why do people have to be so insecure they need to force others into their > narrow mental confines?<< > > Again, I can only assume you are talking about yourself here. You don't > like the definition of certain labels, and you visualize a prison. What's > insecure about using words according to common practice? > > Who's being forced here? It's all about your seeking something that no one > else has agreed with. > > DaveO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 At 03:17 PM 2/13/2003 -0800, daveo wrote: >The process for determining the meaning of words was established long before >I was born. I grew into it and find it quite helpful. I've made my life a >success using it. It's tough hearing you complain about it not working, and >seeing how hard it is for you trying to explain another point of view. Thank you for your well thought out, intelligent response. I filtered the poster to whom you replied shortly after joining this list, so I didn't see the original diatribe. The use of labels carries no disapprobation with it -- it's simply useful to know what is and is not acceptable to any given individual. I request a vegan meal when scheduling a flight and, barring any unforeseen blunders, receive precisely that. As DT-R (registered dietetic technician) I'm responsible for planning special diets for patients at the hospital. To be effective, it's necessary to know whether the person wants Kosher, Halal, O-L veg, vegan, etc. meals. In addition, it's important to know if they're diabetic, hypertensive, etc. Labels all, and very useful. As regards diet, my husband is an omnivore, my sister, a pescetarian. Neither feels insulted by these definitions, nor do I love them any less for their choices. Throwing around inflammatory terms like " fascist " and " racist " only serves to muddy the definitions of those words as well, and says far more about the personal issues of the writer than the topic itself. If one chooses to write one's own dictionary, however, s/he is free to define black as white, even if no one else will understand. -N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 The term racist was a joke, a metaphorical parable, followed by the big smiley emoticon grin... sigh.. as in... im joking, but labels can be destructive. All of the rasict terms we use, are labels. Facism is the practice of enforcing a dogmatic state upon others regardless of their willingness. If one is not willing to adhere to strict confines of a label, and yet you demand they do so, or are not allowed to be accepted as an equal (which is exactly what was being propagated- call yourself this by my definition or you are not worthy of calling yourself this) that is a prime example of facism. Totalitarian rigidity, actually. I find it ironic that you would be so inclined to heap praise upon one part of a conversation after you felt inclined to inform everyone that you were not in full possession of the dialogue, and thus ignorant of many of it's nuances. If the product of the political correctness social revolution has been the abject fear of using such terms as facist and racist to extrapolate on philosophical points; it has failed in it's original intent- to eradicate those ways of thought as acceptable. I believe in discussing things- everything- and applying the dialectic method- which sometimes encourages outright confrontation over points, and not people- in order to hone the valid and logical parts of those thesis and antithises in order to facilitate the most purity in the inevitable synthesis. it is through this method we may advance not only ourselves, but our society, peacefully and together in willing consensus. Confrontation is not the enemy- attaching hostility to the individual, rather than the points that the individua has been shaped to espoused by their habitat and location in life- is. To cling dogmatically to one thesis, or antithesis, is not only a sign of academic immaturity, but social and intellectual irresponsibility. To repeatedly attack a person, rather than their points- or seek to find new reasons to attack a person based on previous dialectic clashes which not have ended favourably due to improper preparation for the experience- is anti-productive. More than anyone else, throughout this conversation, Dave4sale made the best point- that DaveO and I were both most likely very correct in what we were saying- but approaching the subject from two different points and discussing two different, but valid views of vegetarianism. I stand by my belief in the full context of what I have written, and feel unscathed by any commentary based in only a passing knowledge of what has transpired- but also am completely willing to say that once again, I have learned something new which has changed my view, from DaveO, and Allison (i think she actually brought it up initially), not to mention, once again being inspired to go learn and do some research myself. I do find the following to be somewhat of a veiled and either ignorant or malicious attack, however it is humourous at best. I studied both philosophy and political science in university, I assure you my definitions of the terms are quite valid; if perhaps used lightly, it is because I feel no need to cower around them. Conquering such ignorances means we must see them when they are everywhere- including inside ourselves. That takes a courage our society rarely conjures, in this day and age, but I have faith in people, overall. -K- --- " N. Braswell " <meritra wrote: > Thank you for your well thought out, intelligent > response. I filtered the poster to whom you replied > shortly after joining this list, so I didn't see the > original diatribe. > > Throwing around inflammatory terms like " fascist " > and " racist " only serves to muddy the definitions of > those words as well, and says far more about the > personal issues of the writer than the topic itself. > If one chooses to write one's own dictionary, > however, s/he is free to define black as white, even > if no one else will understand. > > -N > > ===== Where is this beauty? I search and search and then find, We are the lotus. Om Mani Padme Hum Send Flowers for Valentine's Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.