Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
I see it does! Maybe we can move on to something else now!0
-
I see it does! Maybe we can move on to something else now!
wanna talk about diva cups?:laugh:0 -
I've had a hysterectomy, but for some reason I've joined that conversation!wanna talk about diva cups?:laugh:0 -
I'm not sure I want to know what "diva cup" is...
Patti--I'm glad I could help interest you in eating more chocolate bunnies. :laugh: I personally wait 'til the day AFTER Easter to buy mine...they're usually around 75% off then.
My boyfriend, I suspect, will never be a vegetarian. He is a butcher, and thus, we get meat very cheap and he brings it home a lot. I no longer buy any meat, since he just gets it at work, anyway, for a better price than I can (and he can get best quality, too). However, he definitely eats MORE meat than I do. For example, for him, every dinner MUST have meat, whereas I can most certainly have a meatless dinner. When I go to restaurants, I have no problem ordering a meatless meal, either. He will eat almost anything I make, and he'll try most anything new that I bring home or make, but I know he'd notice the first day I try to give him a meatless dinner. We tried those Morningstar Farm/Boca substitutes, and personally, I am not a fan of those. They're processed to hell and I got sick of them quickly. My boyfriend even tried those, and he wasn't fond of them, either...not to mention I had to live with the gas from him that resulted afterwards and that was lethal. :laugh: I guess what I'm saying is, for us, it'd be "baby steps." For me, it's easier, since for a short time, I was a vegetarian (a couple of months), and I don't feel the need to eat meat 24/7. I think he needs a substitute, though, and definitely not in the form of "fake" burgers and the like. We went to an Indian buffet the other day, and they have a lot of vegetarian dishes, and I was extremely shocked to see that he only had one piece of chicken, and the rest were rice, veggie, and tofu dishes. I never thought I'd see the day where he VOLUNTARILY ate a tofu dish, but he said it was really good, so I may have to learn how to cook it properly to try as a substitute sometime for him.
If any of you have tips on cooking tofu, do tell! 0 -
"So one of the many new devices I purchased for this trip was a Diva "Moon Cup". Since feminine hygine supplies would be hard to come by and waste-producing, I opted instead to buy a thing like a Barbie Deluxe Toilet Plunger, and stuff it up my hooha.
The theory is that the cup catches your pan drippings, and you empty it a couple times a day, washing it with hippy soap, and reinserting. It presupposes you are enough of an Earth Mother to be OK not only with your monthly outpourings, but also with generally fossicking around in your flaps. Now, I am no stranger to gore. Nor am I squeamish about my delicate rosje of delight, except that I have no such illusions about it and indeed am always reminded of nothing so much as stuffing an oddly-warm raw turkey. So, when after several weeks of teasing, the Period Fairy threatening to postpone the Communist Invasion until I was actually getting on the plane (I was about ready to scream and cry at some hapless unwary male just as a sacrifice to appease her) at last I greeted the rosy-fingered dawn and set about embarking on my new life as a eco-friendly Diva.
The Moon Cup comes in two sizes; Size A, for youthful nymphs under 30 who have never given birth and have silken tresses and tinkling laughs and are all size 0, and size B, for Big Ol' *****es like m'self, who have either spawned, or are so old (ie over 30) that they might as well have been poppin' them out like Duggar Donuts, because their sugar walls are now echoing corridors full of cobwebs and slackness. Of course the packaging phrases it more nicely, but I was miffed to see that despite having never replicated, I was still doomed to the Big Gulp size because of my age alone.
So, chalice in hand, fingers washed, and let's fold that thing like a taco (no, not THAT thing, the other thing!) and cram it up where only one man has gone before and even then not for a damn long time even when he WAS still around. I'm sure I imagined the rusty creaking sounds as I tried to shove something which was larger than anything previous (with the exception of various medical speculums which, I believe, were constructed by the same person who designed the Montlake Drawbridge)into the Gaping Maw.
Now, you're supposed to roll the cup up, smuggle it past the border, let it expand, then turn it clockwise (or counter clockwise, or then one way and another, stopping when you hear the click, or something...) anyway, you're supposed to be able to turn this thing like a dial in there."If the cup does not turn easily, you did it wrong" Oh, of course, I'll just grasp hold of a thing about the size, shape, and slipperyness of the pointy end of a peeled hard-boiled egg, which is now buried in the meaty folds of my innermost femininity, which, I may add, are well-sluiced with the special effects from a Quentin Tarantino film, and spin that sucker like a dredel.
There is, also, a small stem at the base of this cup, which, being made of the same slippery silicon and about a centimeter long, is about as helpful as providing a live, untrained earthworm for a handle. More on this later.
So, rotate this thing in situ, to ensure a good 'seal' and a comfortable fit.
Does. Not. Happen.
Ladies (and gentlemen, although I hope for your sake none of you gentlemen are reading this), I tried. I hauled that thing in and out of there more times, and with much less joy, than Eeyore with his birthday present, and not once could I get that thing to "turn easily". I finally gave up, since it seemed, at one point, to be "fully inflated" and more or less in the right place. Frankly I think that having left my furrow unplowed for so long, I'm not exactly the proper degree of hotdog-hallway that the instruction-writer was intending to address, but so be it. Let's give this thing a whirl, if we can't give it a twist.
Fast forward a few hours in which I've done nothing much. To its credit, I don't feel the presence of THE CUP at all, no discomfort, not even a vague sense of "eugh" as I sometimes have when knowing all that stands between me and my khakis is a small cottony Dutch boy. In fact, I'm getting rather concerned that the Diva Cup has wormed its way in like some form of parasitic jellyfish and is now eagerly migrating up my fallopian tubes, with me all unknowing. Time to go fishing.
And that is where I discover that, while it's difficult to try and 'turn' a Diva Cup newly lodged in your sanctum sanctorum, it's a freakin' log-fall compared to trying to recover said Cup after it has gotten comfortably settled in the downy folds of your blood-engorged tissues. Yes, indeed, if cram my fingers up there to the point of pain, I can just, tantilizingly, tickle the end of that goddamn silicone 'stem'. Grasp it? Not in hell.
Of course the instructions say, if this happens, DO NOT PANIC. Well, thank god for that, because I was already running through the list of people I'd trust with a flashlight, a set of forceps, and an experience that would scar both of us for the rest of our lives. There were instructions for different positions, and "bearing down" and so forth, which I tried, to no avail, and I was pretty sure that my ham-fisted efforts (ahem) were just making things worse on the "swollen" front, so Diva and I took a break, and retired to our respective corners for an hour or so.
Now I brought out my secret weapon: Beer. If, gods help me, I ever have to have a baby, I intend to be drunk off my *kitten* for the delivery, and I surely hope that the Fairy Prince Unicorn Elvis who is my chosen Babydaddy will provide a bedside IV of godly ambrosia, or at least Jim Beam. But anyway, two beers and I'm good to go spelunking in quest of the Holy Grail once more.
Either the beer, or the break, or the combination of all of these and squatting on the bathmat like a Neanderthal crapping, finally, produced enough of that goddamn 'stem' to grab (which was good, because I was dreading having use the kitchen tongs Up There or something) and, with a surprising amount of horrible suctioning "discomfort", the invader was routed! And, wonder of wonders, it was indeed partially filled. Not filled with DELICIOUS CANDY, no, but it did seem to have been, you know... -working-, before I so rudely dislodged it from its parasitic feeding. I felt a combination of grudging respect and intrigue, as one might upon meeting a foe worthy of their steel. Provided we could agree to disagree on the whole "turn 360 degrees in place" aspect, perhaps this could indeed be a workable partnership. Better than bleeding into the Rupununi and attracting every caiman, pirahna, and candiru fish for fifty miles.
But not without some boundaries first. I tied a ROPE to that stupid stem this time."0 -
"Of course the instructions say, if this happens, DO NOT PANIC. Well, thank god for that....."
HAHAHAHAHA!! Funny review.0 -
"To be honest, I didn't even read your last few posts because it's more of the same. Please give me Paul's quote again so I may address this for you. I'm not sure what "hard core philosophy" you're talking about, so perhaps you can tell me what that is as well. I'm afraid you're way out of your league here regarding theology and philosophy, but I'll be happy to reply to these final two points of yours."
MacPatti, don't bother replying. Your replies are all standard, and if I want to know what they will be, I can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia. That stuff is just garbage (e.g., "St Dominic didn't really take part in the Inquisition, and he really didn't kill anyone"- even the Singing Nuns knew that wasn't true.)
As for what is "hard core philosophy" in a classic setting of course read Plato and Aristotle. For early modern read Hume, Berkeley, Locke and Kant, and for modern read (if you like the linguistic approach) Ayer, Austin, Wittgenstein and Russell, the latter two also being a good choice for the mathematical approach. Nothing in any of them is remotely like the reasoning you have presented. You might also want to look at a contemporary writer, Korzybski, who lived near me in Connecticut.
Finally, I am most certainly not out of my league, but I am afraid you are. I am afraid you don't have the remotest idea of what philosophy is about, particularly modern philosophy based on Mathematics and Physics and Linguistic analysis to determine what we can know and how we can know it. It is a much different approach than Thomas Aquinas, or any of the "philosophers" you seem to admire.
Also, intellectual honesty is a good place to start. Do not just regurgitate what you have been told is true, but be willing to look at what you believe critically. Since Schweitzer, there has been an Historical Jesus Movement which you seem oblivious to. Much has been learned about Christ the man that very clearly contradicts what you have been taught by the Catholic Church.0 -
I knew I didn't want to know what diva cup is. :sick:0
-
As for what is "hard core philosophy" in a classic setting of course read Plato and Aristotle. For early modern read Hume, Berkeley, Locke and Kant, and for modern read (if you like the linguistic approach) Ayer, Austin, Wittgenstein and Russell, the latter two also being a good choice for the mathematical approach. Nothing in any of them is remotely like the reasoning you have presented. You might also want to look at a contemporary writer, Korzybski, who lived near me in Connecticut.
Finally, I am most certainly not out of my league, but I am afraid you are. I am afraid you don't have the remotest idea of what philosophy is about, particularly modern philosophy based on Mathematics and Physics and Linguistic analysis to determine what we can know and how we can know it. It is a much different approach than Thomas Aquinas, or any of the "philosophers" you seem to admire.
To assert that I am "out of my league" is not the same thing as proving it. Citing a series of names is not the same as demonstrating knowledge of what they wrote. If you know about all these thinkers, you might know that the kinds of arguments I was presenting actually grew out of reflection on the implications of Kant's "transcendentals," the relationship between the "objective" world and the constitutive participation of the mind in forming concepts, etc. If you know about Ayer then you know that his version of Positivism was long ago discredited since it was shown to be self-defeating (to claim "the only things that are true are those that can be demonstrated through the positive method of science" is to claim something that cannot survive its own test; some surface reading on positivism will show that). I'm not sure how you can claim to know much about Plato without knowing the mystical dimensions of his thought, the goal of knowledge being union with the "Good" from which all reality proceeds. Perhaps you know something about his later descendent, Plotinus, who developed these mystical dimensions of Plato's thought. And, of course, you conveniently left out St. Augustine's whose synthesis and development of Plotinus' thought (Neoplatonism) became the context in which philosophy was carried out in the western world for nearly a 1,000 years. If you know Aristotle then you should know that it was unsolved problems of his thought that inspired people like Aquinas and the major Muslim philosophers (Avicenna and Averroes). It was reflection on people like Aquinas and Kant and other modern movements in philosophy (especially Hegel) that led to major 20th century philosophical/theological movements that fit much of what I was talking about in prior emails (see Karl Rahner for instance).
So, your latest reply is nothing but a woefully inadequate and unimpressive argument "from authority." You are asserting your authority without offering a substantial reply to any of my points. Again, it is one thing to argue against your opponent in dialog by arrogantly asserting you have more knowledge but it is an entirely different thing to demonstrate your superior understanding. I am quite confident that anyone reading our correspondence will conclude that my arguments stand unanswered from your end. In fact, I suspect that what you are doing is exactly what the worst of the Inquisitors did. They likely simply asserted their position and declared that those they persecuted weren't "in their league."0 -
I missed the whole debate!
Now, whether I can be bothered to go back, find quotes I want to reply to and copy and paste them into this thread remains to be seen ...0 -
I'm quite bored with it myself!I missed the whole debate!
Now, whether I can be bothered to go back, find quotes I want to reply to and copy and paste them into this thread remains to be seen ...0 -
As for what is "hard core philosophy" in a classic setting of course read Plato and Aristotle. For early modern read Hume, Berkeley, Locke and Kant, and for modern read (if you like the linguistic approach) Ayer, Austin, Wittgenstein and Russell, the latter two also being a good choice for the mathematical approach. Nothing in any of them is remotely like the reasoning you have presented. You might also want to look at a contemporary writer, Korzybski, who lived near me in Connecticut.
Finally, I am most certainly not out of my league, but I am afraid you are. I am afraid you don't have the remotest idea of what philosophy is about, particularly modern philosophy based on Mathematics and Physics and Linguistic analysis to determine what we can know and how we can know it. It is a much different approach than Thomas Aquinas, or any of the "philosophers" you seem to admire.
To assert that I am "out of my league" is not the same thing as proving it. Citing a series of names is not the same as demonstrating knowledge of what they wrote. If you know about all these thinkers, you might know that the kinds of arguments I was presenting actually grew out of reflection on the implications of Kant's "transcendentals," the relationship between the "objective" world and the constitutive participation of the mind in forming concepts, etc. If you know about Ayer then you know that his version of Positivism was long ago discredited since it was shown to be self-defeating (to claim "the only things that are true are those that can be demonstrated through the positive method of science" is to claim something that cannot survive its own test; some surface reading on positivism will show that). I'm not sure how you can claim to know much about Plato without knowing the mystical dimensions of his thought, the goal of knowledge being union with the "Good" from which all reality proceeds. Perhaps you know something about his later descendent, Plotinus, who developed these mystical dimensions of Plato's thought. And, of course, you conveniently left out St. Augustine's whose synthesis and development of Plotinus' thought (Neoplatonism) became the context in which philosophy was carried out in the western world for nearly a 1,000 years. If you know Aristotle then you should know that it was unsolved problems of his thought that inspired people like Aquinas and the major Muslim philosophers (Avicenna and Averroes). It was reflection on people like Aquinas and Kant and other modern movements in philosophy (especially Hegel) that led to major 20th century philosophical/theological movements that fit much of what I was talking about in prior emails (see Karl Rahner for instance).
So, your latest reply is nothing but a woefully inadequate and unimpressive argument "from authority." You are asserting your authority without offering a substantial reply to any of my points. Again, it is one thing to argue against your opponent in dialog by arrogantly asserting you have more knowledge but it is an entirely different thing to demonstrate your superior understanding. I am quite confident that anyone reading our correspondence will conclude that my arguments stand unanswered from your end. In fact, I suspect that what you are doing is exactly what the worst of the Inquisitors did. They likely simply asserted their position and declared that those they persecuted weren't "in their league."
Macpatti for the win! Bravo!:drinker:0 -
To assert that I am "out of my league" is not the same thing as proving it. Citing a series of names is not the same as demonstrating knowledge of what they wrote. If you know about all these thinkers, you might know that the kinds of arguments I was presenting actually grew out of reflection on the implications of Kant's "transcendentals," the relationship between the "objective" world and the constitutive participation of the mind in forming concepts, etc.
Kant's ontology and epistemology involved the synthetic a priori, a synthesis of mathematics (a priori) and empiricism (synthetic). This was ultimately the philosophical basis for all modern science, the very science you eschew by denouncing the value of the standard model. As for the participation of the mind in forming concepts, I mentioned Korzybski, who discussed the limitations of our knowledge based upon both language and our nervous system.
If you know about Ayer then you know that his version of Positivism was long ago discredited since it was shown to be self-defeating (to claim "the only things that are true are those that can be demonstrated through the positive method of science" is to claim something that cannot survive its own test; some surface reading on positivism will show that).
If you have read Language, Truth and Logic, then you know there is no clearer definition of why language fails us in understanding the world. And you may have noted that I also referred to Austin whose Sense and Sensibilia was in fact the work that refuted Ayer. Austin pointed out all the difficulties with sense data, but offered no substitute. If you understand the concept of sense data, then you would understand why I think your philosophy lacks meaning. You are defining words and terms that have no correlate in reality.
I'm not sure how you can claim to know much about Plato without knowing the mystical dimensions of his thought, the goal of knowledge being union with the "Good" from which all reality proceeds.
I have read just about everything of Plato's and although I love him dearly, I do not believe his philosophy rises to the level that 20th and 21st Century Philosophy is at. Are you telling me you are seriously buying his concept of forms?
Perhaps you know something about his later descendent, Plotinus, who developed these mystical dimensions of Plato's thought.
And, of course, you conveniently left out St. Augustine's whose synthesis and development of Plotinus' thought (Neoplatonism) became the context in which philosophy was carried out in the western world for nearly a 1,000 years.
Plotinus was indeed mystical and not my cup of tea. Because of him, St Augustine and other mystical writers, civilization stagnated for 1000 years. If you want your way of thinking to take credit for that, so be it. Aristotle and his empiricism was the way to go, but that was stymied by ignorance, superstition and religion. Mysticism is a dead end. Period. We wasted a thousand years of human history proving that, It's called the Dark Ages,
If you know Aristotle then you should know that it was unsolved problems of his thought that inspired people like Aquinas and the major Muslim philosophers (Avicenna and Averroes).
Aristotle was an empiricist, He observed nature and tried to understand it rationally. This is exactly the opposite approach taken by Christianity and mysticism, which was to deny meaningfulness to anything in this world, and to treat our present world as a staging area for the next world. If it had not been for Christianity and other superstitions, our world would have advanced a thousand years further than it has now.
It was reflection on people like Aquinas and Kant and other modern movements in philosophy (especially Hegel) that led to major 20th century philosophical/theological movements that fit much of what I was talking about in prior emails (see Karl Rahner for instance).
So, your latest reply is nothing but a woefully inadequate and unimpressive argument "from authority."
I claimed not authority. I responded to your claim that I was out of my depth. Again, I think it is very clear who is out of their depth and who isn't.
You are asserting your authority without offering a substantial reply to any of my points.
Excuse me. You are the one who backed out of this after I gave you an EXTENSIVE reply. Your comment, "Oh, I didn't even read it." You read it all right, and you have no response. You are not going to play this game any longer. When I reply to your points you do not read them or you ignore them. Then you blame me for not responding. Go back and read my response if you are so interested in debate. If you are only interested in polemics, well then, you are behaving as I would expect.
Again, it is one thing to argue against your opponent in dialog by arrogantly asserting you have more knowledge but it is an entirely different thing to demonstrate your superior understanding.
Respond to the points I made that you previously failed to read, by your own admission.
I am quite confident that anyone reading our correspondence will conclude that my arguments stand unanswered from your end.
Bull. Because you chose not to read what I wrote does not mean I failed anything. You're playing a game, but I am not going to play any more. Respond to what I wrote. Answer the issues I brought up.
In fact, I suspect that what you are doing is exactly what the worst of the Inquisitors did. They likely simply asserted their position and declared that those they persecuted weren't "in their league."
You sure ought to know.0 -
I'm rather confused by these ad hominem attacks. Provoking curiosity and thought is one thing, but needing to win is just. . .sad. Maybe I'm too much under the influence of Monday or the new moon, but this thread is worn out for me. What was the original question again?
-Debra0 -
My only point of contention was someone claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian and suggesting the bible says we should not eat meat. My debate here was to refute that point. It was never my intention to personally insult anyone. I've even said numerous times that I respect people's choice not to eat meat and to raise their children doing the same.
On to the next debate!0 -
I'm rather confused by these ad hominem attacks. Provoking curiosity and thought is one thing, but needing to win is just. . .sad. Maybe I'm too much under the influence of Monday or the new moon, but this thread is worn out for me. What was the original question again?
-Debra
Although I like a spicy debate, and I am not at all bothered by ad hominem attacks, I also appreciate honesty. I have answered each and every one of her points. She has come back stating that she hasn't bothered to read them because they are the "same old stuff." (If she hasn't read them, how would she know that?) And then she declares herself the "winner."
Perhaps you see my concern, perhaps you don't, but this is not the kind of debate I am used to.0 -
My only point of contention was someone claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian and suggesting the bible says we should not eat meat. My debate here was to refute that point. It was never my intention to personally insult anyone. I've even said numerous times that I respect people's choice not to eat meat and to raise their children doing the same.
On to the next debate!
See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.0 -
Not sure what debate you've been reading, but I easily refuted these claims. You wanted to take me rabbit hole after rabbit hole while you attacked the Catholic church, and made a personal jab at my Jesuit background, called my remarks dumb, and suggested I knew less about "hard core" philosophy than you. I think I proved that false as well. I believe you when you say you're not used to this type of debate. You're probably used to bullying your way in a debate and having your opponent back down because of your claim of authority. I did not do that.See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.0 -
I knew I didn't want to know what diva cup is. :sick:
I had heard of them from some ladies I know from Babycenter.... very hippy type of people.... but yeah... unless I am not making enough money anymore to afford sanitary products... I am not using one... though it might be something one could donate to a homeless shelter or a women's outreach group... a poli sci prof told us during a service project of ours that impoverished women will take toilet paper and old panty hose and make a make-shift tampon... doing that they usually end up with toxic shock syndrome though... simply because they don't have the resources...0 -
I'm rather confused by these ad hominem attacks. Provoking curiosity and thought is one thing, but needing to win is just. . .sad. Maybe I'm too much under the influence of Monday or the new moon, but this thread is worn out for me. What was the original question again?
-Debra
I think we finally agree on something. :drinker: I am actually quite surprised this thread is still going honestly... must be the last-word-itis (as it is called in my family) that is perpetuating this one...0
