I would agree. What's wrong with pro-abortion and anti-abortion? That's about the clearest way of describing each stance.
While I'm at it, vegetarian is a stupid term. Vegetables are a minority of my diet. I am defined by not eating meat. Why pick just one thing (of the many) I do eat and label me that? People who eat vegetables often eat meat too. It makes no damn sense. I am probably more noodle-arian than vegetarian, anyway.
I propose non-carnivore. I am *not* a vegetarian. I just don't eat meat. Non-carnivore covers that.
You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Some people are morally opposed to abortion, but understand that making abortion illegal would cause women to have dangerous and potentially deadly illegal abortions, for example.
"Pro-abortion" implies that they support abortion in general regardless of the mother's wishes. That's not the case. They support the woman having her choice to either to keep the baby or abort it. Someone who's "pro-abortion" would only support the latter. The conservatives would have a field day if someone popularized a term like that.
People who eat meat aren't carnivores, they're omnivores. You are too, because the specific monophagy or polyphagy of a species is determined by its physiology, not necessarily its actual diet. That's why cases of herbivores eating meat and carnivores eating plants don't cause the terms to be changed, their digestive systems are still best suited to a particular feeding behavior regardless of what they're actually eating at a given time. You can avoid meat all you want, but your teeth will always make you an omnivore.
But keep trying, maybe you'll get it right eventually.
Of course it doesn't! Pro means "for". Pro does not mean "only". Pro-abortion does not mean "we can only abort children, there is no other option but to abort them all".
You've made the same mistake with non-carnivore. A non-carnivore is someone who specifically does not eat meat. There is no implication about them eating anything else. A carnivore is someone who does eat meat. There is no implication about them eating anything else. If they eat everything (i.e. omni) they're an omnivore, but being a carnivore does not make them an omnivore.
Being a carnivore doesn't preclude you from being an omnivore. Being a non-carnivore does preclude you from being an omnivore.
Write yourself out a truth table. I don't eat some things, therefore I don't eat everything.
The "pro-" prefix means "in support of", not merely "tolerant of". Pronatalism is the belief that birth control should be restricted, not just that people should have the option of not using it. Pro-Zionists like Untermyer support that the Zionist goal be realized, not merely that Zionism exist. "Pro-life" insists that life be enforced, not that life simply exists for a certain option. If you are simply tolerant of something's existence, you are not pro-that thing. You're simply neutral and tolerant. Someone who's pro-something advocates it over what its opposite is. "Pro-abortion" people don't necessarily want people to get abortions, they just believe it should be an option. Therefore, "pro-abortion" is not the best possible term.
You don't seem to get that all humans are non-carnivores. "Being a carnivore doesn't preclude you from being an omnivore." Yes. Yes it does. A carnivore isn't just anything that can eat meat, a carnivore species is geared to eating meat to the exclusion of eating plants. A carnivore does not (normally) eat plants because its digestive system does not handle them well. Being a carnivore and an omnivore are mutually exclusive, because by definition, a carnivore is not geared to eating plants. I don't know how many different ways I need to put it. These are defined terms with fixed meanings. Do they not teach life sciences in British schools? There are plenty of textbooks and encyclopedias available to help make up for where your state education has clearly failed you.
I just looked this up and I was actually right all along. Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. They define a carnivore as any animal that eats meat, and an omnivore as an animal that eats everything (they specifically say, i.e. not a vegetarian). I'm not going to repeat all of what I said in my previous post but it was right and I shouldn't have been thrown off course so easily.
I looked up "pro" while I was there. It says reasoning in support of a hypothesis. Pro-abortion therefore means that if someone thinks they should have an abortion, someone who is pro-abortion would support their decision. If you apply this to "pro-life", it becomes a horribly mangled definition. But I think that's what your post was about.
You looked up a scientific term in a dictionary? I don't even know where to begin with that. Especially considering your obviously perfect source is published by a press whose works have contained such interesting claims as the chief language of Karnataka being Bengali or that siphoning works by atmospheric pressure. Obviously when they publish something that goes against what literally every other source on the subject says about something very basic, it must mean they're the only ones who have it right. Now, if you were a reasonable person, you would have instead picked up a book, any book, dedicated or with a section dedicated to the subject and gotten a more accurate definition. But apparently, you're not, and have no interest in picking up a book that seriously covers animal feeding behavior, perhaps because from the library emanates an aura of knowledge that intimidates you. You know, I used to think you were pretty cool dappled, but now it's obvious you're just as bad as wigsplitz and similarly draining to the reasoning ability of those who read your posts. I'm not going to bother anymore. It's like trying to explain things to a 4-year-old, who repeats the same silly things over and over and thinks if he does it enough, he'll eventually be right. I get enough of that bullshit from the people in this country, I don't need to look for it elsewhere.
They do teach the subject in schools but I chose not to study it. If I've made a mistake, fair enough, but I think people make mistakes daily and it doesn't call for a root and branch review of a national education system.
Although, admittedly, ours could do with it if it's producing people like me.
It SHOULDN'T mean that, but that's what anti-abortion people spin it to mean. It's easier to call ourselves "pro-choice" than it is to deal with that nonsense.
I was being slightly mischievous with the truth, as I am sometimes wont to do. It's funny when what something actually means is different than what everyone thinks it means.
I heard on QI that the Vegetarian Society claims the word "vegetarian" comes not from the same root as "vegetable", but from the Latin "vegetus", which means "lively or vigorous". No mainstream dictionary agrees with them though, they all say it comes from "vegetable" too. I just thought it was quite interesting :P
I just OED'd this one. The OED mentions veget- being the root (as opposed to vegetable) and says the word was spread by the Vegetarian Society (formed in Ramsgate in 1847) but then in the quotations, cites it in an article written in 1842, meaning The Vegetarian Society can't really lay claim to the word.
Tell you what is interesting. They're saying it means lively and vigorous but the same root word can form vegetating (or persistent vegetative state) which is kind of the polar oppose of lively and vigorous. :)
Is it normal to hate the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life"?
← View full post
I would agree. What's wrong with pro-abortion and anti-abortion? That's about the clearest way of describing each stance.
While I'm at it, vegetarian is a stupid term. Vegetables are a minority of my diet. I am defined by not eating meat. Why pick just one thing (of the many) I do eat and label me that? People who eat vegetables often eat meat too. It makes no damn sense. I am probably more noodle-arian than vegetarian, anyway.
I propose non-carnivore. I am *not* a vegetarian. I just don't eat meat. Non-carnivore covers that.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Some people are morally opposed to abortion, but understand that making abortion illegal would cause women to have dangerous and potentially deadly illegal abortions, for example.
"Pro-abortion" implies that they support abortion in general regardless of the mother's wishes. That's not the case. They support the woman having her choice to either to keep the baby or abort it. Someone who's "pro-abortion" would only support the latter. The conservatives would have a field day if someone popularized a term like that.
People who eat meat aren't carnivores, they're omnivores. You are too, because the specific monophagy or polyphagy of a species is determined by its physiology, not necessarily its actual diet. That's why cases of herbivores eating meat and carnivores eating plants don't cause the terms to be changed, their digestive systems are still best suited to a particular feeding behavior regardless of what they're actually eating at a given time. You can avoid meat all you want, but your teeth will always make you an omnivore.
But keep trying, maybe you'll get it right eventually.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Of course it doesn't! Pro means "for". Pro does not mean "only". Pro-abortion does not mean "we can only abort children, there is no other option but to abort them all".
You've made the same mistake with non-carnivore. A non-carnivore is someone who specifically does not eat meat. There is no implication about them eating anything else. A carnivore is someone who does eat meat. There is no implication about them eating anything else. If they eat everything (i.e. omni) they're an omnivore, but being a carnivore does not make them an omnivore.
Being a carnivore doesn't preclude you from being an omnivore. Being a non-carnivore does preclude you from being an omnivore.
Write yourself out a truth table. I don't eat some things, therefore I don't eat everything.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The "pro-" prefix means "in support of", not merely "tolerant of". Pronatalism is the belief that birth control should be restricted, not just that people should have the option of not using it. Pro-Zionists like Untermyer support that the Zionist goal be realized, not merely that Zionism exist. "Pro-life" insists that life be enforced, not that life simply exists for a certain option. If you are simply tolerant of something's existence, you are not pro-that thing. You're simply neutral and tolerant. Someone who's pro-something advocates it over what its opposite is. "Pro-abortion" people don't necessarily want people to get abortions, they just believe it should be an option. Therefore, "pro-abortion" is not the best possible term.
You don't seem to get that all humans are non-carnivores. "Being a carnivore doesn't preclude you from being an omnivore." Yes. Yes it does. A carnivore isn't just anything that can eat meat, a carnivore species is geared to eating meat to the exclusion of eating plants. A carnivore does not (normally) eat plants because its digestive system does not handle them well. Being a carnivore and an omnivore are mutually exclusive, because by definition, a carnivore is not geared to eating plants. I don't know how many different ways I need to put it. These are defined terms with fixed meanings. Do they not teach life sciences in British schools? There are plenty of textbooks and encyclopedias available to help make up for where your state education has clearly failed you.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I just looked this up and I was actually right all along. Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. They define a carnivore as any animal that eats meat, and an omnivore as an animal that eats everything (they specifically say, i.e. not a vegetarian). I'm not going to repeat all of what I said in my previous post but it was right and I shouldn't have been thrown off course so easily.
I looked up "pro" while I was there. It says reasoning in support of a hypothesis. Pro-abortion therefore means that if someone thinks they should have an abortion, someone who is pro-abortion would support their decision. If you apply this to "pro-life", it becomes a horribly mangled definition. But I think that's what your post was about.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You looked up a scientific term in a dictionary? I don't even know where to begin with that. Especially considering your obviously perfect source is published by a press whose works have contained such interesting claims as the chief language of Karnataka being Bengali or that siphoning works by atmospheric pressure. Obviously when they publish something that goes against what literally every other source on the subject says about something very basic, it must mean they're the only ones who have it right. Now, if you were a reasonable person, you would have instead picked up a book, any book, dedicated or with a section dedicated to the subject and gotten a more accurate definition. But apparently, you're not, and have no interest in picking up a book that seriously covers animal feeding behavior, perhaps because from the library emanates an aura of knowledge that intimidates you. You know, I used to think you were pretty cool dappled, but now it's obvious you're just as bad as wigsplitz and similarly draining to the reasoning ability of those who read your posts. I'm not going to bother anymore. It's like trying to explain things to a 4-year-old, who repeats the same silly things over and over and thinks if he does it enough, he'll eventually be right. I get enough of that bullshit from the people in this country, I don't need to look for it elsewhere.
They do teach the subject in schools but I chose not to study it. If I've made a mistake, fair enough, but I think people make mistakes daily and it doesn't call for a root and branch review of a national education system.
Although, admittedly, ours could do with it if it's producing people like me.
It SHOULDN'T mean that, but that's what anti-abortion people spin it to mean. It's easier to call ourselves "pro-choice" than it is to deal with that nonsense.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was being slightly mischievous with the truth, as I am sometimes wont to do. It's funny when what something actually means is different than what everyone thinks it means.
I heard on QI that the Vegetarian Society claims the word "vegetarian" comes not from the same root as "vegetable", but from the Latin "vegetus", which means "lively or vigorous". No mainstream dictionary agrees with them though, they all say it comes from "vegetable" too. I just thought it was quite interesting :P
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I just OED'd this one. The OED mentions veget- being the root (as opposed to vegetable) and says the word was spread by the Vegetarian Society (formed in Ramsgate in 1847) but then in the quotations, cites it in an article written in 1842, meaning The Vegetarian Society can't really lay claim to the word.
Tell you what is interesting. They're saying it means lively and vigorous but the same root word can form vegetating (or persistent vegetative state) which is kind of the polar oppose of lively and vigorous. :)