In my previous post I asked very clear and pertinent questions which you chose to ignore. Instead you carry on with personal attacks and insults, when I've shown no disrespect to anyone. There's no point engaging in conversation while you're talking at me, not to me. I've updated the original post with your new insults.
(my interpretation of thenewgreen) Be proactive, not reactive. Become a positive role model, not just in veganism, but in life, so that others respect the way you conduct oneself and are drawn to follow your way and voice because they look up to you, and not because you have browbeaten them. I mean, sorry eightbitsamurai, but if we're going to bring up the metaphor that came up earlier: Be fuckin' MLK, don't be Malcolm X. (It's pretty extreme, I know. But MLK inspired people who had never experienced racism to join his cause because they respected and admired him; Malcolm X intimidated people who could have been his allies and drove them away.) Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
(from Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People) The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
Buddy, seriously, you're doing 2-3 of these, they're the last 2-3, and you need everything else that comes first. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
Begin in a friendly way.
Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
Appeal to the nobler motives.
Dramatize your ideas.
Throw down a challenge.
Please can you show me where I have: Disrespected anyone's opinions.
Where have I been "wrong"? And who defines what "wrong" means?
Where have I started in an unfriendly manner?
Where have I stopped anyone from doing a lot of the talk?
Where have I stopped people from feeling their idea?
What makes you think that I'm not seeing things from a meat eater's point of view? I was a meat eater, I know how I used to think. Was anyone ever a vegan to understand how I feel?
I'm sympathetic with meat eaters desires to a certain extent but I cannot in any way endorse it or there would be no disagreement.
What more noble motive than wanting to reduce cruelty, suffering and death do you want?you're doing 2-3 of these, they're the last 2-3, and you need everything else that comes first.
OK. You wanted an analysis, you're getting an analysis. 1. This post is begun by casting yourself as an outsider of society. You paint yourself as apart, maligned, different. What is friendly about that? It alienates everyone, including you. 2. The below quotes are not friendly. They do not respect others' opinions. You do not try to see alternative points of view. You are not sympathetic. These quotes are representative of your entire tone. Your entire exchange with 8bit exhibits all of these issues, rampantly, throughout. You never say "you're wrong," but you imply that your way is the only correct way, the moral high path, and all other paths are wrong and should be held in contempt. 3. Here's my favorite point. Y'know that whole "If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically" ? Well, multiple times in this thread multiple users have tried to share with you their opinion that while your motives are understandable (that would be them showing respect for your opinion), they don't agree with how you are carrying it out. Now, I get ignoring ONE person who tells you you are doing something in a way that not only turns others off, but doesn't help you. I don't get ignoring THREE, or FOUR, or FIVE. Considering the number of people in this thread you've got a majority that disagree with your methods (though they aren't arguing much about your ethics because we're willing to leave that alone) and instead of hearing, "Hey, maybe you are going about things wrong," you thrust your fists against the posts and still insist you see the ghosts. In other words when faced with a commonly held reality you stand there and go "NO! NO THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IS!" How many people need to tell you you are coming across as aggressive before you believe it? - Wait - I am pretty sure you will never believe it, or never care. That's the thing. No one who really cared how they were coming across would demand, insist, even, that other people demonstrate and explain exactly why they are coming across that way without pausing and examining their own behavior, preferably first, at least at the same time. You know you are being antagonistic and you don't give a shit because you think it's worth it for your Cause, while at the same time you hide behind faux innocence and martyred airs. "This thread became about veganism when it didn't have to!" WELL WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASK "HOW DID YOU FIND YOURSELF' AND THEN POST A RANT ABOUT HOW VEGANS ARE OUTSIDERS? You literally laid bait for this discussion. If you had even simply told the story of how you decided to become vegan, a) you would have been a shit ton more sympathetic to us because we could've related to you, and b) a metric SHIT TON LESS of users would have commented on it (veganism, how you practice it, etc). But no - you set up a fake post designed as an arena upon which you could play out your fantasies of martyring yourself, at least among our public opinion, for your Cause. 4. The other half of this statement is implied. If you allow another person to talk, that means you are supposed to listen. Moreover, if you listen to people, you will better learn how to appeal to them and their personal foibles/strengths/weaknesses/passions/whatever, thus making a more effective argumentative attack. However, a person who has spent an entire thread denying that their conversational techniques are offensive/irritating/ineffective despite being told the contrariwise, over and over again, clearly isn't listening to his audience. 5. That means you should have tried to lead us to the concept that veganism is better. You could have found out which one of us is staunchly concerned with climate change and begun slowly, inexorably, reasonably built on that concern and lead us to the conclusion that it is better to eat less meat due to methane emissions and so on. You could have found the person who cares about heart health and slowly brought them to the conclusion that eating less meat might be a good way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and trim waistline. You never brought a single person to the conclusion that veganism/vegetarianism might be better because - to put it in a metaphor from your perspective - we are all at the starting line and you are at the finish. Instead of heading to meet us, at the start, or half way through, and helping us run the race by pacing us, pointing out pitfalls, and offering us water, you have stood at the finish line this entire time screaming about "Why aren't you guys here yet the finish is clearly here and that's the only place anyone in their right mind would want to be!" _ - Brah you ain't interested in a discussion and after collecting these quotes I ain't convinced you're really sane. Bet you a dollar you refuse to see the truth in any of the statements I make in this post. I see straight through your "oh who me? I'm going to argue what 'aggressive' really is because I can derail this conversation via SEMANTICS instead of acknowledging that I railroad conversations in order to jam my big fat dick of a personal mission down people's throats while they're talking." I will tell you one thing - I AM THE DARKNESS I AM THE NIGHT AND I DEFINITELY AM EATING MORE STEAK TONIGHT BECAUSE OF YOU Also, I'd totally try horse some time, if I could.By the way, do you have a valid argument to justify the billions of animals currently being cruelly imprisoned, abused, rapped, mutilated and murdered for no other reason than human enjoyment?
Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?
this has become an ego battle but not just mine.
you carry on with personal attacks and insults,
I shall add this one to my list of insults. What have I done that is so repugnant?
I'm sorry if you find me inconvenient, but that's not going to make me stop.
Where have I stopped anyone from doing a lot of the talk?
Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
Lovely ending, I hope you let it all out of your system.
It's hard to listen to other people when you don't like what they say.
Well, sure. OrganicAnt, for example, will steer any discussion towards "meat is murder" within 500 words and then steadfastly refuse to acknowledge or entertain any other aspect of the discussion (even if it's about Smash Bros). One can safely ignore anything and everything he has to say even if you agree that meat is murder for the simple reason he's adding nothing to the discussion. HOWEVER you need to listen to him enough to appreciate he's got fuckall to say before you can go about your business ignoring him (like I did about four months ago). It's like the first time you get a new HD tuner. You need to flip through the channels at least once to determine which ones show old TV shows you like and which ones are nothing but the Home Shopping Network overdubbed in Korean.
I think you're confusing this entire thing as a conversation about veganism vs. meat eating. It's not, it's a conversation about how to have social etiquette, about how to best convey your thoughts and ideas in a way that will garner the most favor and effect your desired outcome. For someone constantly asking people to "listen," you ought to try it too.
We're going around in circles. I already explained what I thought about social etiquette: I don't have anything new to add.I won't apologise for not respecting the animal rights taboo. If I'm going to wait to discuss animal rights when I'm given a window by those abusing animals, I'll be waiting forever. Social etiquette does not trump discrimination in my books and I will be breaking social etiquette for as long as there is animal abuse.
Remove the words "social etiquette" from my last comment and then reply. Your motive is sound but your methods suck. EDIT: So what I'm asking is this: Do you actually think that the best way to help get people to become vegan, or to become more sympathetic towards your beliefs is to post cartoons and videos in comment threads that you're not participating in and that have nothing to do with the topic of health, diet or animal rights?
No one is forcing you to put up with my "obnoxious" and "lazy" rudeness. If you or anyone feel so strongly against my methods why don't you ignore me, block me? That's what kleinbl00 did. It'd be a lot easier and healthier than having both our blood pressures raised. And when you finally decide to block me, ask yourself if you're doing it to avoid me or the subject at hand which deep down actually troubles you. Edit:
My honest answer to your edit is, YES, I do think this is the best way of calling attention to a crucial subjected that is regularly ignored, dismissed, smacked down. If nothing else for the historical record. When future generations researching the internet archive can see that not everyone stood placidly by while billions, BILLIONS of creatures were being abused just because, well they taste nice. Because let's be honest that is what it stems down to, putting our own pleasure ahead of another species well being and the stubbornness of the human ego to admit it. And then I'm the unreasonable, inconvenient one. Let the future judge that.
ANSWER THE QUESTION: Do you actually think you are changing hearts/minds when you do that? If not, what is the motivation? Attention? Do you think there are better ways to achieve your ends? If you don't answer the actual questions above, it will speak volumes.
_refugee_'s analogy is pretty spot on. I'm not trying to insult you, and I'm not kidding when I say this, I'm trying to help you. It's obvious that you care deeply about this, and there is some truth in what you say and it can be hard for some people to hear. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be saying it, in fact it probably means the opposite. But it's all in how and when. Try a new approach. There's more than one way to skin a cat. -sorry, I couldn't resist. --what an odd phrase though, does anybody know the origin?
Stackexchange also wonders. Best guess: cat skinning (alive v. dead) was the subject of popular horror in 1832. It was used in Westward Ho! in 1840 for shock value as a consequence, then used by Mark Twain in 1890 as a conscious or unconscious homage/allusion. Connecticut Yankee is very much a downy-homey adventure in Camelot and Twain probably liked the shock comparison. Meanwhile, most readers of Twain didn't know his allusions and references but he was much beloved during his lifetime, so he gave the term legitimacy, much like Li'l Wayne and "no homo." Meanwhile the original meaning was lost. This is how people think "calling a spade a spade" is a racist comment, despite dating back to Plutarch.