- McSpotlight -

speaking as a liberal, college-educated, tree-hugging, short-haired, anti-nuke vegetarian

Posted by: Gideon Hallett ( n/a, UK ) on October 07, 1997 at 19:14:13:

In Reply to: Tree-hugging, anti-nuke, long-haired, liberal college educated vegetarians posted by Richard McFarland on October 06, 1997 at 03:04:33:

: Looks like the lack of good, cholesterol laden animal protien has again prooved the old addage, "A steak a day, keeps the dumbass away".
Please look at your followup and pay close attention to your attack on the grammar of the post to which you are responding.

OK. Let us check _your_ grammar. That's three obvious spelling mistakes, two missing hyphens, two mangled clauses and sundry smaller warts. Not to mention the fact that, in terms of style and layout, your post approaches the average standard of an 11 year old.

: You have misspelled words, neglected to capatilize in the correct places and just generally prooved a point I've tried to make for years:

Add two more typos and another horribly botched clause.

: Tree-hugging, anti-nuke, long-haired, liberal college educated vegetarians would be much better served by consuming complete protiens instead of trying to "get it right" by mixing rice and tofu.

Funnily, I wouldn't count any of those monikers as abusive.

The reason to hug trees is that it makes them much more difficult to cut down, thus preserving them. (It's also quite nice, but that's beside the point.)

The reason for being anti-nuke is that it's very hard to tell which pile of smoking ashes "won" a nuclear war.

Long hair is utterly irrelevant. If you had short hair in the C18th, it would be because you were a criminal. Every person who signed the Declaration of Independence had hair at least 6 inches long...(unless they were balding, when they wore a wig).

Liberal (n.) - Free-thinking, unbound by orthodoxy or society.

College-educated - Yup. I enjoyed university. I learnt a lot. So?

"would be much better served by" - would you care to provide any evidence to back up that wishy-washy statement? It's so fuzzy and unspecific it could have been produced by an advertising agency.

: Have a burger and shut up. It ain't any of your damn business if I like a little (or a lot) of sausage on my pizza!

So, your "argument" (to overstate the case) is that it's not a damn veggie's business if you want to eat meat, and that veggies should have a burger and shut up.

Brilliant. Hypocrisy in two short sentences.

(In case you didn't realise it, attacking someone for "telling you how to live" and then telling them "how to live" is flagrant and obvious hypocrisy...)

(Before anyone posts back saying "nyah, you did it first", may I point out that I've never told people _not_ to eat burgers. I've said that _from my point of view_ it's unhealthy and bad for the world at large, but I've never told people point blank _not_ to. Indeed, I think coercing people into vegetarianism would as deplorable as coercing them into meat-eating. That's what makes me different from this guy.

I'd never tell someone how to live. I might not stand by and watch them kill themselves without asking them if they knew what they were doing, but it's ultimately their responsibility. Hope that explains.)

Unless I've read McSpotlight horribly wrong, no one has said "DO NOT EAT BURGERS" (apart from some of the posts here, which are individuals). What McS (and London Greenpeace) have said is "This is what they don't tell you when they sell you a burger". In my own opinion, you'd be nuts to eat at McD's having read the site, but it's your choice...

Of course, that's speaking as a liberal, college-educated, tree-hugging, short-haired, anti-nuke vegetarian.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup