| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:27 pm 
Offline
Inflexitarian
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:31 am
Posts: 743
Your daughter is adorbs. That food doesn't look too shabby either.

_________________
Obligatory blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:58 pm 
Offline
Naked Under Apron
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:03 pm
Posts: 1713
Location: Central PA
That French toast is what I always get at Rutherford Pancake House. And I nearly went there this morning, too -- usually my mom and I go there on Friday morning when I'm in NJ, but she had an appointment to go to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:13 pm 
Offline
Semen Strong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 19105
Location: Cliffbar NJ
I wish I'd known you were around! We had such a fun time with Jilly <3 <3!

_________________
My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
ijustdiedinside wrote:
okay, well, personally, I find it hurtful and rude when I hear someone called ugly. Also, calling someone ugly totally takes away from anything you might have to say on his opinion because you've resorted to name calling rather than making an argument.


I do think it's possible to put a bit TOO much emphasis on the meaning of someone saying they find someone else unattractive! When no harm's meant and it's possibly the most polite form of 'name calling' one could muster, what does it matter? If that was said to his face then yes, it would detract from the argument. But surely no-one here is arguing FOR him?

I feel that various people jumping on someone else for a minor slip up, in a rather wrist-slappingly negative way, is actually more irrelevant than the fact anything was said in the first place! It also doesn't feel very nice to feel 'told off' and really, I don't think it's possible for every thread to stay 100% on topic all the time......that's often the joy of it!

We can't all be wonderfully well behaved all of the time - I don't think that necessarily makes opinions any less valid :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:34 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
caterpillar wrote:
fooldramaqueen wrote:
Surely saying you find someone unattractive is no different than saying you find them hawt?


I don't think either is completely inappropriate in the right context. But it shouldn't matter when discussing an opinion piece.


I agree it shouldn't matter - but that's ok right? That it doesn't matter? What a tricky place the PPK would be if we couldn't ever comment on anyone's appearance in any way ever! I fear it would become a lot less fun to be here :/

I really do think context is SO important - people will feel judged when they are told off, and if they never meant any harm in the first place then that in itself can feel hurtful. We're all people behind these screens (or infront of them) after all :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline
ugh
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 2649
Location: north of Boston, MA, USA
Two of the three people who responded to the appearance comment are mods. They're not jumping on anyone or telling people off, they are moderating discussion. Mat already explained pretty clearly why that sort of comment isn't acceptable on PPK.

_________________

"I feel like it's not a real political discussion if I'm not morally opposed to something I don't understand." - ndpittman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
b.vicious wrote:
Two of the three people who responded to the appearance comment are mods. They're not jumping on anyone or telling people off, they are moderating discussion. Mat already explained pretty clearly why that sort of comment isn't acceptable on PPK.


I see that we see things differently :) Which is ok! The logic is a little skewed to me, and I just think it's a shame that one needs to be so very careful - it's nice to be able to relax and feel that it's a nice safe place to be. I agree 100% that moderating judgemental behaviour contributes to that in a very important way. But I also feel that some things can be taken a little too seriously :)

I do feel that responses such as "Yes, and I'm sure that sucks for you....." etc, are somewhat puckish and perhaps not as value free as they might be when moderating, but again, I accept that may just be my view :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:35 pm 
Offline
Fair trade, organic mistletoe
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 3507
Location: Toronto
fooldramaqueen wrote:
ijustdiedinside wrote:
okay, well, personally, I find it hurtful and rude when I hear someone called ugly. Also, calling someone ugly totally takes away from anything you might have to say on his opinion because you've resorted to name calling rather than making an argument.


I do think it's possible to put a bit TOO much emphasis on the meaning of someone saying they find someone else unattractive! When no harm's meant and it's possibly the most polite form of 'name calling' one could muster, what does it matter? If that was said to his face then yes, it would detract from the argument. But surely no-one here is arguing FOR him?

I feel that various people jumping on someone else for a minor slip up, in a rather wrist-slappingly negative way, is actually more irrelevant than the fact anything was said in the first place! It also doesn't feel very nice to feel 'told off' and really, I don't think it's possible for every thread to stay 100% on topic all the time......that's often the joy of it!

We can't all be wonderfully well behaved all of the time - I don't think that necessarily makes opinions any less valid :)

Are you really defending calling someone ugly?

And complaining that it hurts to be told that it's not nice to comment pejoratively on someone's appearance?
fooldramaqueen wrote:
I see that we see things differently :) Which is ok! The logic is a little skewed to me, and I just think it's a shame that one needs to be so very careful - it's nice to be able to relax and feel that it's a nice safe place to be. I agree 100% that moderating judgemental behaviour contributes to that in a very important way. But I also feel that some things can be taken a little too seriously :)

IDJI (and others) have explicitly stated that they find it hurtful and rude when people comment negatively on someone's appearance--by definition it is not a safe place for them to be in in those circumstances. But you would rather feel safe enough to disparage someone you don't know's appearance rather than actually interacting with the content of their argument at the expense of others' safety and comfort?

_________________
"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:38 pm 
Online
Flat Chesty McNoBoobs
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 7548
Location: Portland
fooldramaqueen wrote:
b.vicious wrote:
Two of the three people who responded to the appearance comment are mods. They're not jumping on anyone or telling people off, they are moderating discussion. Mat already explained pretty clearly why that sort of comment isn't acceptable on PPK.


I see that we see things differently :) Which is ok! The logic is a little skewed to me, and I just think it's a shame that one needs to be so very careful - it's nice to be able to relax and feel that it's a nice safe place to be. I agree 100% that moderating judgemental behaviour contributes to that in a very important way. But I also feel that some things can be taken a little too seriously :)

I do feel that responses such as "Yes, and I'm sure that sucks for you....." etc, are somewhat puckish and perhaps not as value free as they might be when moderating, but again, I accept that may just be my view :)


To put it bluntly, it doesn't really matter how you see it in this situation. The PPK has certain rules and guidelines, and the moderators do our best to make sure those are followed. You don't have to agree with them, but you are asked to abide by them if you want to post here. Thank you.

_________________
If you spit on my food I will blow your forking head off, you filthy shitdog. - Mumbles
Don't you know that vegan meat is the gateway drug to chicken addiction? Because GMO and trans-fats. - kaerlighed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
j-dub wrote:
Are you really defending calling someone ugly?

And complaining that it hurts to be told that it's not nice to comment pejoratively on someone's appearance?


Nope :) I'm saying that in this situation, calling Tom Parker Bowles (an established swine of the highest order - if I'm allowed to comment pejoratively on someone's morals/behaviour) an "unattractive fellow" was very much undeserving of a rather impishly worded moderator response in this particular context. And that if it had been me, and had I not meant any harm or offence, than a more carefully worded explanation/moderation would have made me feel much less unwelcome. I hoped I explained it a bit better? It is a nuanced "complaint" (if that is what it must be) in that I think there are more gentle and wise ways to moderate people's behaviour in what should be a safe and welcoming environment. My opinion only, of course! Don't worry - my Mum taught me long ago that it's not ok to call people ugly :)

j-dub wrote:
IDJI (and others) have explicitly stated that they find it hurtful and rude when people comment negatively on someone's appearance--by definition it is not a safe place for them to be in in those circumstances. But you would rather feel safe enough to disparage someone you don't know's appearance rather than actually interacting with the content of their argument at the expense of others' safety and comfort?


This is getting a bit deep! :) What if I declared that I found it hurtful and rude for anyone to comment positively on other people's appearance? I'm not sure what that would mean in terms of what was & wasn't ok in terms of discussion?

I'm not quite sure what you mean re: interacting with the content of the argument - I think what you're suggesting is that I would rather be able to call someone in the public eye (but who I don't know personally) unattractive than stick to the content of the debate? (I wasn't aware this was an argument just yet :D). I do feel saddened that's your view, but I can assure you it's not my agenda at all - I don't really have one beyond the spirit of sharing my thoughts on the matter! Also, I think this assumes that it would be my intention to cause other people distress which is 100% not the case and I'm sorry you think that......I'm talking purely about situations where no harm was meant whatsoever.

I'm definitely not trying to be awkward - I have a genuine belief that it's important to recognise when someone doesn't mean harm to their fellow forum friends, and to therefore moderate the moderation appropriately. Otherwise people may indeed feel that it's not a very safe place to be - we're only human after all. I for one am feeling very mildly under attack at the moment, but I sincerely hope I haven't hurt or offended anyone in the process of trying to explain myself.


Last edited by fooldramaqueen on Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
jordanpattern wrote:
To put it bluntly, it doesn't really matter how you see it in this situation. The PPK has certain rules and guidelines, and the moderators do our best to make sure those are followed. You don't have to agree with them, but you are asked to abide by them if you want to post here. Thank you.


I had gotten that impression! :) And, I'm pretty sure I have abided by them thus far - shall we call this a philosophical debate?

I'm not trying to annoy anyone - I'm sorry if that's the case. Open minded discussion is my only aim.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
I also think the PPK should be a safe place to query comments or behaviour that don't seem entirely fair without feeling under attack, as I am rather feeling at the moment. If I've worded anything in a hurtful or seemingly trollish way then I apologise, but I would much rather I was asked to clarify what I mean in a way that doesn't suggest I'm here to hurt people's feelings, which I'm very much not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:31 pm 
Offline
Just Loathin' Around!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 7277
Location: bindlestiff
Eh. I have Things To Do.

_________________
Ovoids=not vegan --invictus

Panda With Cookie


Last edited by pandacookie on Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:32 pm 
Offline
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: It's hot. All the time.
Anyone who is surprised that a comment like that was modded in the way it was needs to lurk moah and post less for awhile. It's not about derailing the thread; that's my mission in life.

Isa wants a certain environment on the PPK and resorting to calling people ugly as a way of arguing doesn't fit that environment. There are certainly more clever ways to insult someone and more relevant ways to poke holes in what he said about veganism.

(I do think that it's a problem for veganism that it's become shorthand for a sort of intolerant, joyless, no fat, food dictatorship.)

_________________
A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-Dub
Dessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. Fezza
You people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:45 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
Vantine wrote:
Anyone who is surprised that a comment like that was modded in the way it was needs to lurk moah and post less for awhile. It's not about derailing the thread; that's my mission in life.

Isa wants a certain environment on the PPK and resorting to calling people ugly as a way of arguing doesn't fit that environment. There are certainly more clever ways to insult someone and more relevant ways to poke holes in what he said about veganism.

(I do think that it's a problem for veganism that it's become shorthand for a sort of intolerant, joyless, no fat, food dictatorship.)


I agree with you 100% and I totally get that that is the environment here. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't think that's what happened in this situation, and in my humble opinion (on which I emphatically emphasise the humble) it's safer and friendlier for all involved to appreciate that people don't always mean harm (the root of my thoughts here, I think).

I have lurked and posted in equal measure over a reasonably long period of time here and I genuinely didn't expect to come under such fire (or derail so dramatically) on the one occasion that I piped up with such an opinion. I believe I personally haven't ever flouted the rules or regulations, of which I am very aware and I cherish the PPK for them. Honestly, I feel quite sorry by now that I piped up at all and have learned that it's not really ok to challenge or query a mod - I think this is maybe what I hadn't quite realised until now.

I didn't mean any harm to anyone at any point in this discussion and I'd rather hoped that would've been picked up on more so than I think it has. Of course if I'm to blame for wording things badly then I am very sorry. To be perfectly honest, I genuinely didn't realise my opinions were quite so controversial!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline
Addicted to B12 Enemas

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:36 am
Posts: 239
Vantine wrote:
Anyone who is surprised that a comment like that was modded in the way it was needs to lurk moah and post less for awhile. It's not about derailing the thread; that's my mission in life.

Isa wants a certain environment on the PPK and resorting to calling people ugly as a way of arguing doesn't fit that environment. There are certainly more clever ways to insult someone and more relevant ways to poke holes in what he said about veganism.

(I do think that it's a problem for veganism that it's become shorthand for a sort of intolerant, joyless, no fat, food dictatorship.)


I agree with you 100% and I totally get that that is the environment here. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't think that's what happened in this situation, and in my humble opinion (on which I emphatically emphasise the humble) it's safer and friendlier for all involved to appreciate that people don't always mean harm (the root of my thoughts here, I think).

I have lurked and posted in equal measure over a reasonably long period of time here and I genuinely didn't expect to come under such fire (or derail so dramatically) on the one occasion that I piped up with such an opinion. I believe I personally haven't ever flouted the rules or regulations, of which I am very aware and I cherish the PPK for them. Honestly, I feel quite sorry by now that I piped up at all and have learned that it's not really ok to challenge or query a mod - I think this is maybe what I hadn't quite realised until now.

I didn't mean any harm to anyone at any point in this discussion and I'd rather hoped that would've been picked up on more so than I think it has. Of course if I'm to blame for wording things badly then I am very sorry. To be perfectly honest, I genuinely didn't realise my opinions were quite so controversial! It may be a poor excuse, but I didn't intend to drag things out gratuitously, I was really just replying to those folks who had replied to me.

p.s. I don't think I was surprised the comment was modded in the way it was - maybe that's why I opened my big mouth in the first place!

Edited to add: p.p.s. I actually emailed ITV about Tom Parker Bowles and received a very feeble response. I suggested they find a representative of veganism or vegan parentism and put the healthy, happy face of being vegan on the TV to counteract the damage done by TPB on their watch. No reply.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:53 pm 
Offline
Dr Bronners, MD
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:58 pm
Posts: 4750
Location: Santa Cruz whoop whoop
So, as the person who made the original post that was called into question, I was making a point regarding the pure posturing and total emptiness of Bowles' comments. It didn't work very well. (Perhaps that means it worked just as well as Bowles' (and I keep typoing that as "Bowels") original statements).

_________________
"Trolling an internet message board, The Greatest Activism Of All." - pandacookie
Вы такие сексапильные, когда злитесь


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:51 pm 
Online
Calls "cavemen" on that
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:53 pm
Posts: 2369
back to the article..

I think that Tofulish should just send the baby picture to that guy. Case closed. we win.

and no. no he cannot have any of that delicious food. We wouldnt want to abuse him now would we?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tom Parker Bowles and "vegan diets are child abuse"
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:20 am 
Offline
Naked Under Apron
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:32 pm
Posts: 1796
fooldramaqueen wrote:

Honestly, I feel quite sorry by now that I piped up at all and have learned that it's not really ok to challenge or query a mod - I think this is maybe what I hadn't quite realised until now.



Using a snide method to call the moderators a dictatorship is definitely not ok.

We are quite happy to discuss modding decisions (and we are quite restrained in modding) but having read your posts they seem to consist pretty much of saying " Gosh darn, no one meant anything by that comment (eyeroll)" which is not hugely persuasive.

I also quite clearly asked you to PM me if you wanted to discuss further, which would have prevented this massive derail.

I am locking this thread as I think it has outlived its usefulness. If you do want to discuss (or anyone else) PM me.

Mat.

_________________
Lady Gaga and Beyonce should run her over with the kitten Wagon for that one comment alone - Torque (speaking of Katy Perry)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer