I eat anything. Make a conscious choice to eat healthy stuff and avoid junk food and simple carbs when convenient. Preferred eating pattern is to basically graze all day long. That, as well as a general indifference toward food (I find eating to be a bit of an irritating necessity, and never have cravings for anything) are enough to keep me trim. Probably worth noting that I wasn’t always this way; up through college, I loved eating crap foods, sweets, carbs, soda, etc. Permanent preference changes take time, but can happen.
Most vegetarians/vegans strike me as sanctimonious twits, who are more often than not no healthier than anyone else.
The poll did actually ask for people’s attitudes about others with different dietary policies. Are we trying to discourage people from answering honestly?
No, we’re encouraging people to express their opinions civilly rather than stick to cached insults. There are ways to criticize that actually contain information.
No, we’re encouraging people to express their opinions civilly rather than stick to cached insults. There are ways to criticize that actually contain information.
The survey asked for one’s attitude and opinion. If that’s AlexU’s actual attitude and opinion, watering it down conveys less information, since all answers will now be skewed towards some socially-acceptable mean. Bias towards “nice” is still bias.
Being civil does not mean watering down. It does involve specifying the actual problem one has rather than use a general insult like “twit”. The word “sanctimonious” is not helpful either, if the meaning is that vegetarians/vegans try to impose arbitrary moral standards on others, it is better to say so explicitly, so we know what the actual position is, and can respond to it. (It’s been my experience that vegetarians/vegans I read about in the news fit this description, but those I meet in person generally do not, and it is likely a minority of activists get most of the press.)
Being civil should convey more information. It communicates what in particular you don’t like rather than general contempt.
I don’t know what AlexU meant by “sanctimonious twits”… Like others on this thread, I have not encountered evangelical vegetarians. In fact, a lot of vegetarians don’t want to talk about it, for fear of getting criticized.
I admire the vegans: not sure that I could ever manage that! But nor do I see much of an ethical impulse to.
A lot of why people are vegetarians is to be admired for doing something difficult. It’s important that they have some kind of reason as an excuse for doing it—they can’t admit to showing off—but it’s impressive and admirable to people who think that it is pointless.
I eat anything. Make a conscious choice to eat healthy stuff and avoid junk food and simple carbs when convenient. Preferred eating pattern is to basically graze all day long. That, as well as a general indifference toward food (I find eating to be a bit of an irritating necessity, and never have cravings for anything) are enough to keep me trim. Probably worth noting that I wasn’t always this way; up through college, I loved eating crap foods, sweets, carbs, soda, etc. Permanent preference changes take time, but can happen.
Most vegetarians/vegans strike me as sanctimonious twits, who are more often than not no healthier than anyone else.
Can we please have a norm of not doing this?
The poll did actually ask for people’s attitudes about others with different dietary policies. Are we trying to discourage people from answering honestly?
No, we’re encouraging people to express their opinions civilly rather than stick to cached insults. There are ways to criticize that actually contain information.
The survey asked for one’s attitude and opinion. If that’s AlexU’s actual attitude and opinion, watering it down conveys less information, since all answers will now be skewed towards some socially-acceptable mean. Bias towards “nice” is still bias.
Being civil does not mean watering down. It does involve specifying the actual problem one has rather than use a general insult like “twit”. The word “sanctimonious” is not helpful either, if the meaning is that vegetarians/vegans try to impose arbitrary moral standards on others, it is better to say so explicitly, so we know what the actual position is, and can respond to it. (It’s been my experience that vegetarians/vegans I read about in the news fit this description, but those I meet in person generally do not, and it is likely a minority of activists get most of the press.)
Being civil should convey more information. It communicates what in particular you don’t like rather than general contempt.
I was inclined to agree with pjeby, but JGWeissman’s comment changed my mind.
Same here.
I don’t know what AlexU meant by “sanctimonious twits”… Like others on this thread, I have not encountered evangelical vegetarians. In fact, a lot of vegetarians don’t want to talk about it, for fear of getting criticized.
But consider what Emily said
A lot of why people are vegetarians is to be admired for doing something difficult. It’s important that they have some kind of reason as an excuse for doing it—they can’t admit to showing off—but it’s impressive and admirable to people who think that it is pointless.
Well that’s constructive.