User talk:Repeat2341

Welcome!

Hello, Repeat2341, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Skinwalker 16:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Spam
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the Feedlot (diff), Factory farming (diff diff), Vegetarianism (diff diff), and veganism (diff diff) articles do not comply with our guidelines for external links, and furthermore have misleading edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Slashme 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Boo. You won't let me add any kind of alternative or opposing viewpoint to these articles. This encyclopedia is a primary source of information for many people, and dietary choices are major lifestyle decisions that should be made with balanced information. Please quit deleting my attempts to balance these articles. Repeat2341 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't insert your personal opinion into articles. It's a form of disruption, and your accounts may blocked if you continue to insert it. Try discussing the issue on the talk page instead. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This really is total bull. You won't give me any way to balance these articles. What in the heck am I supposed to do, if you won't let me add philosophical content or links to counterarguments? Repeat2341 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep inserting the same pointless paragraph in numerous articles. There may be a place for your comments but it isn't in the definition of the topic being discussed. Look for a controversy section, or a section for alternative views - then post what you want to put up if you can document it. Thanks. Bob98133 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't pointless at all. The information - the point of view - I am trying to provide would have helped me enormously; I would still have many friendships I have lost, still have my mental and physical health. I think it's very important. And documenting it is impossible; there is no research available. I am doing wikipedia a favor and being treated like a child for my trouble. This is a primary resource, and many other articles (for instance, the Animal Rights article) explicitly discuss counterarguments in their headers. You editors are being short-sighted and unreasonable, sticking to the letter of your limited authority instead of considering my point.

If I try to add an opposing viewpoint section to any of these articles, you'll just delete that too. This is the problem with the internet. A primary resource being edited by sticklers who can't contribute or edit, and just delete anything that isn't arbitrarily academic enough. But all the academics on this topic are shallow, ivory-tower vegans. I have put this whole matter up for mediation; if I lose, wikipedia will be responsible for failing to adequately inform people on a very serious, life-altering subject, a subject at least as serious as drugs. You're being, in a word, vain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is not a primary source at all. It's very much a tertiary source.  We base everything in Wikipedia on reliable secondary sources.  And talking about what you're experiencing as being "the problem with the internet" shows a lack of understanding of how the internet works.  If you just want to sound off about what you consider to be important, there are many forums on the internet for you to do that, including Usenet News (see Google Groups for a web interface), free hosting websites (of which you already have one) and web discussion forums.  Remember also, that Wikipedia is based on consensus.  Here, the consensus is clearly not in favour of your recent edits.  You might find the list of what Wikipedia is not instructive in this regard - Especially, take note of the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Slashme 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; Wikipedia is very much a primary source of information for an increasingly large number of people.


 * OK, we might be talking at cross purposes here. When I said that Wikipedia is not a primary source, I meant that we do not intend to be the first place that information is presented.  The idea is to give a synthesis of information that can be found in other sources. Slashme 09:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving an article like this imbalanced to uphold the one-dimensional principles you're talking about ought to be a crime. I hope you'll be ashamed of yourself when the time comes, at least.


 * Actually, it's your opinion that the article is unbalanced, and you're in the minority, which brings us to the next point:

And as to the matter of consensus, this issue has a name, the "problem of democracy" or the "tyranny of the majority."


 * On Wikipedia, we have a few tyrannies to worry about. Not least being the tyranny of the vocal minority.  If we tried to accommodate every fringe viewpoint in each article, we'd be writing a pretty bad encyclopedia.  If your point of view is so important and correct, go get some suitable references to support it, and build some consensus.

If you had a bit more objectivity about the role wikipedia is playing in contemporary culture (replacing all other references?), you'd take seriously the idea of "letting one slip through the gate" to be sure this article was not a danger to children.


 * We definitely do not want to "replace other references". We want to be a place where people can come to get information on a topic, with good-quality references to back it up.  If your investigation of a topic ends with the Wikipedia article, and you don't check out the references, you're completely missing the point.  And as for being "a danger to children", I'm not sure what you're implying.  If you mean that children are going to read the article about feedlots, turn vegetarian and damage their health, you might have some serious research ahead of you before you can convince any of us to take you seriously.

But you're all too proud of your little editing 'careers' to see that. It's a crying shame. Repeat2341 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we're all just trying our best to make this a great source of information, and we'd love it if you would help. Remember:  Get your sources together and get your references in line, and when you edit an article, ask yourself whether your contribution looks like a marginal note in a book  or like part of the text.  Your contributions are far more likely to be accepted if you can incorporate them properly into the flow of the text. Slashme 09:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hi further to your input on the Animal Rights project talk page, it might perhaps help you if you read the Talk page guidelines. And specifically these points -


 * Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. A quick way to do this is to use the + tab next to the edit button on the talk page you are on. 


 *  Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes ( ~ ), and they will be replaced with your username and time stamp, like this: Eloquence 03:44 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC). Please note that it is impossible to leave an anonymous comment because your user name or IP address is recorded in the page history.


 *  Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.

Thanks. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 02:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for third opinion
Hi Repeat2341, I found your request for a third opinion, and I hope to offer useful insights into the dispute resolution process.

Third opinions are intended for disputes involving only two editors. The histories of Veganism and Talk:Veganism show at least four editors in this dispute: you, Rockpocket, SlimVirgin, and Kellen`. Requests for comment are a better way to get help with disputes involving muliple editors.

When you do have a dispute involving one other person, please request a third opinion again. When you do, it would help if you follow the guidelines carefully to format the request. Requests should provide a short, neutral description of the disagreement; a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page; and no discussion. Unfortunately, your request did not match that format.

Next time you need dispute resolution, you might get better results by choosing one method at a time instead of several methods at once. In this instance, Requests for comment seems to be the best alternative.

I hope these thoughts are useful in your future requests for help. Charm &copy;&dagger; 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas
Let me apologize that no one has formally welcomed you to the project. I put a variety of links on the top of your talk page - please read them. Not all editors of veganism or animal rights pages necessarily support those topics, but by and large we are all committed to putting forth these topics in a neutral and verifiable fashion. There is room for criticism in these articles, if it is well-sourced, neutral, and represents a significant view. The problem with the link and material you've been trying to add is that it fails Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and external links. Self-published sources are typically frowned upon. Also, since it is your personal website you've been adding and describing, it can be perceived as a conflict of interest. I hope this summarizes the objections people have had to your edits. Please read all of these links, and ask me if you have further questions. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism
Please stop adding notices in the article declaring that it is unbalanced. Also, please do not attack other users in your edit summaries. Both of these are liable to get you warned and blocked for a period of time as a vandal. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever
And why should there not be any indication that the article is completely imbalanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 21:05, July 3, 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel the article does not maintain a neutral point of view, actually take a stab at getting rid of emotive language and 'weasel' words and phrases such as 'clearly' or 'it is obvious', if such things exist. At the moment, your edits are entirely unconstructive, at best. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How can it be that it maintains a neutral point of view,if it doesn't contain any of the counterarguments at all? Repeat2341 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is true, is that it doesn't seem to provide much criticism of veganism (although, in fairness, the introduction stays mostly to facts, and pretty much everything is properly referenced). So, if you can find such criticism from a reliable and verifiable source, feel free to integrate it into the article. Try to avoid antagonising the other editors, though. If you can do this, discussing on the talk page where appropriate, I'll support you. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed the empty opposing section is because it was added flippantly to make a point which is frowned upon, in addition to the fact that it made the page look incomplete. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not true. I added it because there was no other option left open to me.  The page should have such a section.  The page IS incomplete, and this at least points that up.Repeat2341 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the edit summary was, "Added Opposing and Alternative POV section, but no content, since there are no opposing or alternative points of view, at all, in the entire world." it is quite clear, no matter how much you claim otherwise, that you were using the edits to make a point otherwise you would not have included the sarcastic comment "since there are no opposing or alternative points of view, at all, in the entire world." and added the section blank. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, only the edit summary was intended as a jab; I hoped it might put some sense into the editor reading it and get it past the goalline. I guess I was wrong.  You're not acting impartially at all.  An empty section is better than no section at all.  You won't LET me add any content that would of any use to anybody to the page.  So what am I supposed to be doing here?  You won't edit my edits, you just delete them.  You won't give me any options at all to improve the balance of these pages without becoming an animal law professor and getting a book published - all to prove the obvious, obvious, obvious fact that animals in feedlots do nothing but eat all day.

Isn't there some rule about not having to provide references for 'well-known' facts? Even in academic circles, this is common practice; logic is treated as a separate source of information from facts. Repeat2341 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not on the contrary, as using the edit summary to, as you put it, have a jab, is still using wikipedia to make a point, which by your own admission (by stating that you did use the edit summary as a jab) you have just done. Some times it is best to perhaps not post on here for a couple of days especially when things seem to get heated, then come back on again and try again. Maybe go and find some reliable sources as has been suggested to you, and then coming back and editing articles with reliable sources. Just a thought. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Signatures
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Repeat, I'm going to regard your edits &mdash; that factory-farm animals have it good because all they do is sit around eating, and what they really need is some feedlot music, which you're willing to provide &mdash; as vandalism from now on, and I'll be rolling them back without further comment. If you continue for much longer, it's likely that someone will block this account, so if any part of you is serious about becoming an editor, please read our content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR) and start editing in accordance with them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're a serious partisan, so I honestly think you should resign your position. Repeat2341 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Go find some high quality, reliable sources that can be used to verify this position as a significant, widespread idea and then you can discuss what might reasonable done much better. Editing in line with policy and in accord with the principles of Wikipedia is likely to make you friends and be productive - the opposite actions are likely to have the opposite effects. Wily D  21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, my entire point is that a simple, logical fact that might escape people when terms like CAFO, factory farm and intensive farm are used (rather than feedlot) - the one fact that escaped me for many years - does not need to be referenced to anything. It's the definition of such an operation that the animals do nothing but sit around and eat. Why can't something like that be pointed out, to help people think about the issue in more than one way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs)

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack&#32;as you did at User talk:SlimVirgin, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Will (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on This user is a serious partisan who won't consider balancing animal rights articles., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Momusufan 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This page was added by mistake, due to a misleading box at the talk of SlimVirgin's talk page. I am sorry about it. Repeat2341 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as This user is a serious partisan who won't consider balancing animal rights articles., you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Momusufan 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You've been blocked for disruptive behaviour. You can place the on your userpage to have this block reviewed, if you wish. Once your block expires, please reconsider your behaviour and the principles of civility here on Wikipedia - otherwise you're likely to find yourself facing increasingly long blocks. Cheers, Wily D 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for harassment. Please focus on editing, not on attacking or harassing fellow editors or admins. Crum375 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair. I wasn't harassing anyone. I'm trying to open a discussion, and every avenue is blocked to me. You should read through this thing more.


 * You can discuss your issues without harassing fellow editors. You are free to post your grievances here, and when your block expires, at other dispute resolution locations. If you persist in harassing other editors, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods. Crum375 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't harassing anyone. I don't see why I was blocked. So far, my attempts to make any use of any of the avenues of dispute resolution have been totally blocked. I'm stymied and frustrated and tired of hearing the same spam from every editor that looks over one of the half dozen posts relating to this matter. I wish I could get somebody with some senior authority here to evaluate the matter, as it is quite serious.

I am not alone in thinking that SlimVirgin is abusing her power to bias the animal rights pages toward her own point of view; there are numerous mentions of this in the talk pages. Adding this to her talk page is in NO WAY inappropriate. Deleting it is inappropriate. Otherwise, how do we check someone once they've become an administrator? Repeat2341 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Repeat, you are spending your efforts in the wrong direction, and getting yourself and others frustrated in the process. What you need to do is:
 * Find reliable sources that back up your views
 * Refrain from attacking or harassing editors - focus on the message, not the messenger


 * Specifically, go to the talk page of the article you want to edit, find good solid reliable published sources, and present them in a professional manner. You will be able to insert them into the article if they are relevant and of good quality. Conversely, if you can't find good sources and are just hand waving, or if you attack or harass other editors, you will eventually be blocked from this site. So make up your mind and decide on your course of action. Crum375 06:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What articles should be
I'm not actually sure that this is a particularly mainstream view on my part, but I will say this - most articles should have very little "pro" or "con" in them - they should be, for the most part, neutral descriptions of the thing. Veganism should devote very little (if any) space to whether it's good or bad, and just say what it is. Heroin shouldn't spend very much time saying it's great or it's lousy - it should say neutral things about Heroin and let the reader decide whether it's great or it's lousy. Veganism should consist mostly of what veganism is, where veganism comes from, what the history of veganism, and so on - not whether it's good or bad. Anyways, I will caution you that if you try to "fix" the culture or purpose of Wikipedia, you're unlikely to be successful - you need to work within the rules and customs here. That does usually mean starting with reliable sources and working from there - and despite common objections, widely held viewpoints are usually easy to source - and I've spent time digging up "obvious facts" from reliable sources. If you feel the article is unbalanced, that can probably be addressed, but how to address it is something that you'll have to learn. Anyways, it's pretty late, but I'll see if I can't give you some better advice about where to start tommorow. Cheers, Wily D 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you...
Look, I understand where you're coming from, that's the thousandth time one of you has said 'you need reliable sources.' I'm a college graduate; I'm not doing this for my health.

What I feel you're not getting is, there's NO WAY to 'reliably source' something like 'animals in a feedlot do nothing but eat all day.' That's what a feedlot is. That's the entire concept behind CAFOs, but this fact eluded me for years because of the way vegans present the issue and the whole concept that it is a scary, evil-spirited 'factory farm.' Without getting in to the larger moral opposition to veganism, as a plague on the hard working's mental health, can you or anyone else give me some idea how I can have this fact, which would have changed my life, included in the new 'paper of record?'

Otherwise, I must say, I'm quite disappointed in what I thought was a process that was fairly functional. I'm also quite upset that you have so little interest in the effect a poorly written expose on a subject as serious as heroin can have on kids. A 'purely factual' story can be a de facto endorsement. This isn't kids' stuff; you're in the process of effecting the education of a generation, whether you'll admit it or not.

The article on heroin absolutely does contain a variety of information on the harmful effects of heroin. The veganism article contains only mentions of health risks that all vegans I've met know to counteract with multivitamins. That's like only talking about how sharing dirty needles is unsafe, and not mentioning that heroin addicts have no place in the work world. These are things people need to know; it's unfair to the community and dishonest of you not to have such important articles presenting the full range of relevant information, whether scientific or logical. Which is another point that's being ignored in favor of mentioning, again, that 'all your sentences must be from textbooks.'

I am a busy person. I work and have other things in my life. I am serious about making this happen, because I feel you are dispensing rat poison with a 'just following orders' mentality, and it's truly unfair. But I have only limited resources. I don't know HOW to research something like this. The entire concept that I should research it, as I've already said, is a bit absurd to me; it's not a researchable thing.


 * sigh* I guess I'll just have to console myself with having tried to make any kind of difference. Not even one link in a long list of pro-veganism websites can be an anti- or alternative site, just because I'm the one who wrote it.  I mean, what if I went to a different IP, signed up for wiki and posted the link?  You know?  This is all fairly asinine; you've wasted my whole weekend over refusing to add even ONE link to an alternative point of view, and you're telling me I'm the one who doesn't get wikipedia.

Yuck. Repeat2341 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

... as an aside, the original link was removed before anyone even asked me if I _was_ the author. And I've never said, before this post, that I am. So where did that arbitrary decision come from? I smell bias, whether it's in favor of not changing articles, for experienced editors' decisions (irregardless), against links, or for veganism. And I am, with apologies, fairly upset that I've been given no actual recourse to address this.

If you'll review the links that ARE on the veganism page, you'll find that nearly all of those sites are not so much informational as polemical. Almost every single one is a classic, verified, long-standing pro-vegan site. I had to write my own opposition. So what the heck am I supposed to do now, if there's no way and no where to spread any kind of balance on this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeat2341 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 July 2007


 * Please remember to sign at the bottom of each talk page comment.


 * I just noticed the Factory farming article includes the following cited quote in the Characteristics section:




 * Veganism has a prominent link to Factory farming, right at the top of the Ethical concerns section. Isn't this pretty much what you're working to have included?  Charm &copy;&dagger; 09:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason we require sources for all information is because that's the only effective way to come to agreement on issues we disagree about. You may think factory farms are idyllic, the body of editors at veganism may think they're horrific, and I may not give two shits - but we can all agreed about what other people are saying about it, even if we don't agree on what the truth is.  And finding sources isn't really that hard - This paper, which appeared in Science mentions offhand the difficulty in assessing animal welfare conditions on farms and points to several other references which probably explore the issue in more depth.  The real reason that sourcing is not negotiable is that we're all aware that it's completely impossible to write an encyclopaedia article otherwise.  This is what makes Wikipedia popular - there are plenty of other wikis where you can publish original research or thoughts - and they're unpopular because the method for writing you're talking about simply doesn't work.  Jumping in and learning the system is easier if you try to start at less contraversial articles --- this much is true.  Look, things work best, and articles end up best when editors of all different viewpoints work on them - it would be unfortunate for both you and Wikipedia if you gave up because you got off on the wrong foot.  If you don't care - then I can't make you care.  But if you do care, there are ways you can try to address the issue - people keep pointing you to finding sources because this is the easiest and most effective way to influence Wikipedia articles.  Wily D  13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Charm - thanks for pointing that out; that is the sort of thing I want to be sure is included. Could that quotation be copied into the veganism article?

My only problem there is that it's industry sources, whereas I'm a former vegan. You need to understand, these are kids who still think of capitalism is a bogey-man and are likely to discount something like that, whereas it might help to hear that it was a critical factor from a former vegan.

Wiley, I appreciate your comments; that issue has been on my mind. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel; I want to respect that kind of boundary. I am just very concerned that rigid rules will keep this page from being safe enough for kids.

I still don't understand why an opposing/alternative points of view section can't be added to that page, even if it's empty, for now. The content charm pointed to could go right there, although I'm not going to be the one to try it, since SlimVirgin has declared her intention to roll back all of my edits without comment.

I also still think that a link, any link, to an alternative point of view in the links section is almost required for this article to be deemed neutral, considering the list of provegan sites currently included. I would also be happy if you removed all of those links, but that seems less sensible. Repeat2341 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In general industry sources can be reliable (depends), and cannot be wholesale excluded from the discussion. If you want to get other editors on your "side", digging some up is a good start. Wily D  16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I also still feel, strongly, that the header of the article should make some mention of there being counterarguments. It already mentions health concerns. Most articles on wikipedia mention and briefly describe alternative viewpoints in their headers. Repeat2341 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, one step at a time. Really, the header shouldn't do anything but summerize the main article.  Wily D  17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Onechectomy
I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the and w/o the   to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Veganism
So where you a vegan before? And I need to get to sleep so I'll answer a little vague.

Thats because the extremists who become vegans don't have anyone fluent in the matter to guide them. Like how many of your vegan associates have Doctors or Chiropractors? They probably were only told that they only need to eat protein and calcium, the only reason nutritionists say that you need a lot of calcium is because the meat kills a lot of that calcium. Most animals sit around eating, thats all they can do is eat, sleep, and mate. Why is cow manure used? It means that before we started herding cows they helped replenish the soil, not onyl with fetal matter but also when they cough up things from their first and second stomachs.

And thanks for posting right people are finally getting the hang of that.

-PatPeter 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, PatPeter... I didn't really understand most of your reply...

So where you a vegan before?

Yes, I was for six years or more. I pamphleted and picked fights and made it into a deal-breaker for meeting new people, like every vegan I know... After meeting several former vegetarians and vegans who had a bit more spiritual understanding of the real world than me, and realizing that I was trivializing the difficulty of human life, I decided to reevaluate the matter. I realized I was being kind of shallow. I eventually realized that feedlot animals lead better lives than the people they're feeding, by and large. I could go on about the psychological reasons people get into all this, but I don't care to sound speculative.

Thats because the extremists who become vegans don't have anyone fluent in the matter to guide them.

On the contrary, I think the problem is very much that vegans ignore and disrespect all forms of influence except older vegans. It's very imbalanced, very 'ego,' to think that everyone else is so stupid. All this mental material, the whole matter, is common knowledge in the mainstream. It's the same way that state communism sounds flat-out ignorant to anyone who understands about human motivation.

Like how many of your vegan associates have Doctors or Chiropractors?

I guess I don't understand the question. Every vegan I know is very (I would say, even exclusively) into the issues of vegan health. They just don't know for hard work or the real emotional health people who work like dogs 50+ weeks a year have to be concerned with. It's a bit... ivory-tower.

Most animals sit around eating, thats all they can do is eat, sleep, and mate.

Sounds sweet to me. I work my ass off just to scrape by.

Why is cow manure used?

So what? There are 6 billion people in the world. Things have gotten to where small-time methods are simply ineffective. If we can't, financially, feed (emotionally and physically) this population with cows in fields (instead of loafing around, eating rich food), why not fertilize the fields ourselves? What's the big deal?

It used to be a natural balance, but frankly, I like the 'artificial' balance better. 'Artificial' doesn't mean unnatural, I don't think. I think it means 'experimental.' And from the perspective of people who enjoy the culture, the fashion, the comfort, the schools and everything else there is in modernity, all these experiments are smashing successes. I personally agree with that. I wouldn't like to live in the hot, stinky, bug-riddled, dangerous outdoors, with jack beans to do all day.

Not that animals couldn't have it better. I have a little website, http://www.feedlotradio.org, to put radios in feedlots. I like the idea of giving animals outdoor time for play and to make the experience nicer. But I wouldn't enforce it. The $1 McDonald's cheeseburger literally kept me from starving for a period of weeks once, and much better than I could have felt (emotionally or physically) on Ramen or whatever. The real, human world is very much harder and more complicated than most vegans seem to think.

It's just... vegans are so impractical. If you want to be vegan for environmental or health reasons, I can understand that, but for purely ethical reasons... and especially to be political about it... to be honest, it makes you sound like a sheltered kid who's never really had it hard enough to need a hot sandwich or a perfect milkshake or whatever.

That's as best as I can explain things right now. I don't mean to preach; do whatever you want. I just think... what's the big deal, honestly, about indoor cats being declawed under anaesthesia? Where did you get the idea that this practice was completely, totally horrible? A declawed cat can lead a nice, comfy indoor life with all the luxuries, with a family who otherwise couldn't have a cat. Know what I mean?

You've got to learn to pick your battles. You're hurting the left, hurting the environmental cause, and probably hurting your own mental and emotional development much more than you realize, barking at the moon like this. - Just an opinion. - Repeat2341 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply in a sec if you get this right after I post, or I might have to attend to something urgent and not reply as soon. -PatPeter 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)