"Modern Day Nazis" - The first HORRIBLE post on StevePavlina.com

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Do I even have to say it?

No, you don't. You'd be wasting your time if you were reading a blog where horrible things are being written. And the same for whining about it in a dedicated thread.

[munish]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Glad to see it had such a strong effect on you, future vegan.

HaHaHa

[munish]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I wouldn't call it a horrible post, but it was rather insulting to those egg-eaters out there.

Egg eaters are insulting themselves by eating something coming out of a female vagina.

[Brutha]

What was also interesting was Steve's acceptance of an objective reality.

Maybe you should reread the chapter on truth in Steve's book. Steve never advocated to ignore reality.

[liverpool footballer]

oh man that first post is really bad.

[beautyscientist]

Originally Posted by munish

Egg eaters are insulting themselves by eating something coming out of a female vagina.

Would a male one be better?

[newmark]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Maybe you should reread the chapter on truth in Steve's book. Steve never advocated to ignore reality.

Brutha; how did you know I had a copy of Steve's book?

[amj]

The thing that got people worked up about this post was the word Nazi. I didn't like the way it was used but oh well. I just think people killing animals is not the same as people killing people. That's just me though.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Originally Posted by amj

The thing that got people worked up about this post was the word Nazi. I didn't like the way it was used but oh well. I just think people killing animals is not the same as people killing people. That's just me though.

This perspective comes from the idea that humans are on a "higher plane" than the rest of life on Earth, when in fact we destroy our environments and systematically exterminate most all other species while every other species on Earth lives in balance and does not systematically exterminate any other species. And from Deepak Chopra, "Animals never had a war. Who is the real animal?"

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

And from Deepak Chopra, "Animals never had a war. Who is the real animal?"

Do you consider ants to be part of the animal kingdom? Because ants colonies have wars.

[amj]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

This perspective comes from the idea that humans are on a "higher plane" than the rest of life on Earth, when in fact we destroy our environments and systematically exterminate most all other species while every other species on Earth lives in balance and does not systematically exterminate any other species. And from Deepak Chopra, "Animals never had a war. Who is the real animal?"

If you believe all species are on the same plane I disagree. I refuse to treat an animal better or equal to a person. I value animal life, but human life comes first. I will fight to save inner city youth before I fight to save sharks

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by beautyscientist

Would a male one be better?

No! Think of how much more painful it would be for the rooster!

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

This perspective comes from the idea that humans are on a "higher plane" than the rest of life on Earth, when in fact we destroy our environments and systematically exterminate most all other species while every other species on Earth lives in balance and does not systematically exterminate any other species. And from Deepak Chopra, "Animals never had a war. Who is the real animal?"

You -really- don't like yourself, do you?

Humans have their flaws, but it's okay to be one.

[beautyscientist]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Humans have their flaws, but it's okay to be one.

Good point. (Except Nazis)

[vMike]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

This perspective comes from the idea that humans are on a "higher plane" than the rest of life on Earth, when in fact we destroy our environments and systematically exterminate most all other species while every other species on Earth lives in balance and does not systematically exterminate any other species. And from Deepak Chopra, "Animals never had a war. Who is the real animal?"

Animals have no wars? Have you ever watched National Geographic? A colony of ants attack a colony of termites, kill a bunch and take them home as food. Some aren't as lucky to die quickly and they are being eaten alive while paralyzed from the poison. Colony destroyed, thousands of ants, termites lie dead or paralyzed. These folks take no prisoners - winner (the ants) gets all. And termites are being dragged back to the ants' nest to serve as food stock.
And that's one of the more common scenarios.. The animal world has so much cruelty that would make all our wars and torture look like child's play!

Other species seem to live in balance, because they lack the mental capacities we, humans possess, that allow us to leverage knowledge to achieve things in a mere lifetime that evolution could get to in hundreds of millions of years. Humans are the only species on Earth who are self aware, be proud you're one

[Holiday]

"You know who else liked to eat eggs? A little group of people called the Nazis..."

This is the second best ridiculous rhetorical device behind (from Animal House):

"...are the traits that America is built on, and I will not sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!"

hehe

[jasonwisdom]

The part that got me was watching baby male chicks conveyor belt'ed into the grinding machine.
That was very sad.

Here's my take on the vegan debate:
Humans are biologically meant to be Omnivores. Not Herbivores.
So, other than getting out the bow & arrow, fishing rod or...I'm not planning to set crab-traps & feast on bottom-crawlers from the Hudson River.....how can we satisfy that fundamental and biological need that we all have for animal-based nutrition, in an ethical way?

Question 2 - how do vegans get enough protein and iron, without red meat/lamb being a staple part of their diet? I was severely anemic during my high school years, and both doctors & acupuncturists have recommended red meat for my health. No vegan, vegetarian, or nutritionist I've asked could respond to this. "Eat more beans" does not sound healthy at all.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by jasonwisdom

Question 2 - how do vegans get enough protein and iron, without red meat/lamb being a staple part of their diet? I was severely anemic during my high school years, and both doctors & acupuncturists have recommended red meat for my health. No vegan, vegetarian, or nutritionist I've asked could respond to this. "Eat more beans" does not sound healthy at all.

I'm not sure everyone can do the vegan diet. Some people, like Steve, do very well, but it may be true that some people need meat. In that case free-range is the best option, not because of animal cruelty, but because meat produced in typical factory farms has so many extra chemicals and hormones that much of the nutritional value is moot.

With that said, I've done very well getting the bulk of my protein from lentils. The human body doesn't need a huge amount of protein and much of what we eat already has some protein in it. Aside from beans, green veggies like spinach are also a good source of these nutrients.

[loris128]

The last 10 or so posts on Steve's blog (networking with busy people) have had an almost zero response on the forum.

Now, in order to increase the response, you can do one of two things:
1) Write an exceptional blog post that helps a large enough group of people (like most of the post featured on the sidebar on stevepavlina.com)
2) Write an inflamatory post that separates your readership in two groups that will never stop arguing with eachother

Option #2 is way easier and can possibly generate even more response than option #1.
It's however very, very dangerous both to the blogger's reputation and to the community (which is now divided in "us" vs "them").

"Modern day nazis" is a classic example of using option#2 to artificially increase forum posts (and ad revenue)

And now for the mandatory XKCD reference:

[aelle]

Originally Posted by jasonwisdom

The part that got me was watching baby male chicks conveyor belt'ed into the grinding machine.
That was very sad.

Here's my take on the vegan debate:
Humans are biologically meant to be Omnivores. Not Herbivores.
So, other than getting out the bow & arrow, fishing rod or...I'm not planning to set crab-traps & feast on bottom-crawlers from the Hudson River.....how can we satisfy that fundamental and biological need that we all have for animal-based nutrition, in an ethical way?

Our natural diet is disputed, not established fact. Regardless, our life today has very little (nothing?) to do with our natural state ; in a world where there are 7 billion of us, where we use cars instead of feet, eat 3 meals a day at regular hours with no risk of famine year round, spend most of our time indoors, can choose not to have babies and expect to live 3 times longer than our ancestors, what is the relevance of our original diet, really?

Originally Posted by jasonwisdom

Question 2 - how do vegans get enough protein and iron, without red meat/lamb being a staple part of their diet? I was severely anemic during my high school years, and both doctors & acupuncturists have recommended red meat for my health. No vegan, vegetarian, or nutritionist I've asked could respond to this. "Eat more beans" does not sound healthy at all.

I'm not sure how "eat more beans" sounds unhealthy, quite the opposite: legumes will bring you the proteins and iron without the cholesterol, saturated fats and possible hormones. Vegans (and vegetarians, and pescetarians, and Hindus, and everyone else who doesn't eat red meat for any reason) can find all the protein they need in legumes, cereals, nuts and seeds, and all the iron they need in legumes (lentils especially), leafy greens and a variety of other plants. Doctors will recommend red meat as a source of iron by default, probably tired of patients who won't eat their broccoli, but plant sources definitely exist in sufficient quantities. I suggest browsing the website of the Vegan Society for more detailed nutritional advice.

[vMike]

Originally Posted by loris128

The last 10 or so posts on Steve's blog (networking with busy people) have had an almost zero response on the forum.

Now, in order to increase the response, you can do one of two things:
1) Write an exceptional blog post that helps a large enough group of people (like most of the post featured on the sidebar on stevepavlina.com)
2) Write an inflamatory post that separates your readership in two groups that will never stop arguing with eachother

Option #2 is way easier and can possibly generate even more response than option #1.
It's however very, very dangerous both to the blogger's reputation and to the community (which is now divided in "us" vs "them").

"Modern day nazis" is a classic example of using option#2 to artificially increase forum posts (and ad revenue)

yes very true, that's what bloggers do.

[jasonwisdom]

Originally Posted by loris128

"Modern day nazis" is a classic example of using option#2 to artificially increase forum posts (and ad revenue)

With all respect...

There is a possible #3:
That Steve is intentionally lighting a fire (or at least learning how to light a fire) under peoples' asses to bring about a change.
To use a historical example: Rosa Parks was not about people wanting attention for themselves; it was done to light a fire toward realizing a purpose.

"Shock Value" is a tool; it is usually used for things like drawing attention to oneself.
However, it can also be used for constructive purposes.
Gandhi eventually got the hang of this.
So have a few others.

[loris128]

Originally Posted by jasonwisdom

With all respect...

There is a possible #3:
That Steve is intentionally lighting a fire (or at least learning how to light a fire) under peoples' asses to bring about a change.

Sure, it's a possibility I hadn't thought about

But there are better ways to bring about a change.

Let's say your goal is to decrease animal deaths.

Now, let's suppose your have 1000 readers divided this way:
- 100 are vegetarian/pescitarian/other partial-animal-eater
- 10 are vegan/raw-foodists/etc
- 800 are on an average diet and eat an average amount of meat
- 90 are meat-lovers

Would you:
- Write an inflamatory post that will resonate positively with your vegetarian/vegan audiece, eventually convincing the 100 vegetarians to become vegans, while insulting (because being called a nazi is an insult, at least here in Europe) 89% of your readers

- Write a post describing the health and ambiental benefits that eating less meat could produce (even saying that eating no meat is better), therefore convincing 200 of the "carnivores" to eat 50% less meat per week and to buy the other 50% from the local farmer instead of the supermarket

I think that option #2 is clearly the winner here (see what Seth Godin has to say about a similar problem) .

[aelle]

Originally Posted by loris128

Sure, it's a possibility I hadn't thought about

But there are better ways to bring about a change.

Let's say your goal is to decrease animal deaths.

Now, let's suppose your have 1000 readers divided this way:
- 100 are vegetarian/pescitarian/other partial-animal-eater
- 10 are vegan/raw-foodists/etc
- 800 are on an average diet and eat an average amount of meat
- 90 are meat-lovers

Would you:
- Write an inflamatory post that will resonate positively with your vegetarian/vegan audiece, eventually convincing the 100 vegetarians to become vegans, while insulting (because being called a nazi is an insult, at least here in Europe) 89% of your readers

- Write a post describing the health and ambiental benefits that eating less meat could produce (even saying that eating no meat is better), therefore convincing 200 of the "carnivores" to eat 50% less meat per week and to buy the other 50% from the local farmer instead of the supermarket

I think that option #2 is clearly the winner here (see what Seth Godin has to say about a similar problem) .

I won't speculate on the proportions, but the shocking post certainly has the power to make some omnivores go vegan (several readers said they would do so in this thread). The new vegans can now do outreach on their own. The conciliatory post has the power to make omnivores feel good about maaaaaybe eating free-range meat every once in a while. Soothing people's ego rarely helps them make drastic changes in their lives. The new sometimes-free-range-meat-eaters have an extremely limited chance of convincing anyone to follow them, because they don't have a strong, compelling or coherent stance at all.

There are plenty of mild, conciliatory messages on meat reduction aimed at the general public already. I'm glad Steve could show a stronger position to his wide blog readership.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by loris128

Sure, it's a possibility I hadn't thought about

But there are better ways to bring about a change.

...

So you didn't think about that possibility, but yet you are sure there are better ways to bring about change? So what can you do more effectively? Please share your wisdom with us. And while you're at it, prove it by your stellar resume in this area?

I do get a bit tired reading all these opinions based on a presumed knowledge of Steve's intentions...

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by loris128

But there are better ways to bring about a change.

Different methods are going to reach different people. What is "best" is wholly subjective, and in this case you can only claim another method would be better if you suppose gentle methods are always better. If they were, nobody would be upset at the nazi comparison.

Steve has already talked about the health benefits of going vegan. Anybody that's going to be converted that way already has been or will be when they run across the archives. The problem is that it doesn't address the moral side of the issue, and people who have yet to consider it probably aren't going to pay attention to anything that doesn't strike their nerves.

Also keep in mind that the point isn't to decrease animal deaths per se. I'm sure Steve has his convictions and I've no doubt that he genuinely cares about other creatures as much as he says, but the foremost purpose of this blog is to increase consciousness by encouraging people to be aware of their decisions. If you really want to eat eggs and meat and you don't care how you get it, I don't think he's going to demonize you for it. The main point is to be internally congruent.

One of the major points hidden in the article is that people take things too personally. What he's said isn't going to stir you unless, on some level, you identify yourself as a nazi. This kind of shock will cause a lot of people to step back and dis-identify themselves with their current beliefs, thus allowing a much more thorough examination of themselves than they've had before.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I do get a bit tired reading all these opinions based on a presumed knowledge of Steve's intentions...

Especially when he's gone to no lengths to hide them. He's spelled things out pretty clearly. But then his readers will have to figure it out on their own in their own time.

[johnny4]

This was the very first thing I read when I stumbled onto this site and my honest reaction was"oh boy another person giving peta a bad name". but its his site and i figured his agenda....If this is a morality issue it will spark debate but will never be resolved...It is a circular discussion which will usally entail debating if its moral to kill a vegetable or perhaps your views based on religion or philosophy...

It reminds me of the debate about going to war in Iraq...pro-war folks were holding onto videos of crowds cheering and waving flags thanking us for our sacrifice..anti-war folks liked the beheading videos.

so you could argue that we are just the "strongest species" and are hunting our prey in an efficient manner because like it or not hunting is a natural occurance and we arent out trying to convert the mighty lions eating habits..oh he doesnt have a choice? ok but he eats what is satisfying to his taste.

or we could argue that we have a choice and just choose to eat meat and its causing health problems and in our quest for faster and more modern means we have lost sight of how inhumane it all is..

I am a meat eater and have been honestly thinking about it from MY moral compass and am considering changing...but this post did nothing for that cause...It made me question the authors intention more than anything.

I mean no disrespect and honor your views ,This is just one readers take and I base most of it on my gut feeling

love intended

[bluedragon]

I wouldn't call this post horrible, if anything, it is typical of Steve's propensity to provoke people to think for themselves, sometimes shaking them a bit with strong remarks. However, the title of this thread really is horrible, especially because it has the word itself capitalized, so that the only thing that sticks out on the Steve Pavlina sub-forum is this ugly word.

[jasonwisdom]

I know this was from a while ago. I was offline for a good week, and have done a bit of thinking & research.

Originally Posted by aelle

Our natural diet is disputed, not established fact.

We are born with both incisors & molars for teeth...molars are for fruits/vegetables, and incisors are for meats. simple yes?

Originally Posted by aelle

Regardless, our life today has very little (nothing?) to do with our natural state ; in a world where there are 7 billion of us, where we use cars instead of feet, eat 3 meals a day at regular hours with no risk of famine year round, spend most of our time indoors, can choose not to have babies and expect to live 3 times longer than our ancestors, what is the relevance of our original diet, really?

By this logic, irridated foods, trans fats, and soil fertilizers laced with several generations of hundreds-of-years-half-life pesticides are all valid nutrition choices, because after all, "what is the relevance of our original diet, really?"

Originally Posted by aelle

I'm not sure how "eat more beans" sounds unhealthy . . .

- Beans give you gas. That alone basically rules out beans for 75% (my estimate) of the developed world's single population.
- Beans are high in carbs - those following a low carb diet cannot use beans to get the quantities of protein they require.
- Beans are not recommended for those of the Vata dosha. (Ayurveda Diet, six food groups, simplified diets among other links)
- Beans are not recommended for those of Type "O" Blood in the book/system Eat Right 4 Your Type. What is very specifically recommended for Type O's protein needs is red meat - beef and lamb. (A Food List For The ""eat Right For Your Type"" Diet | LIVESTRONG.COM)