Red Bull & other energy drinks

[Runaway]

hey there. the rock star energy drink founder Michael Savage has said some really nasty things about racism, homophobia, etc. you can read all about it on
http://lesbiansanddating.today.com/2...phobic-racist/

things like “I don’t like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke…I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it’s child abuse.”

[missbettie]

oh...well i like mosters better anyway!!!! ....I know i shouldn't drink energy drinks but....they are so yummy.

[Mahk]

hey there. the rock star energy drink founder Michael Savage has said some really nasty things about racism, homophobia, etc. you can read all about it on
http://lesbiansanddating.today.com/2...phobic-racist/

things like “I don’t like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke…I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it’s child abuse.”

According to wikipedia, Rock Star energy drink was not founded by Michael Savage but rather his son. Does guilt by genetic similarity apply?
---

I hate homophobia as much as the next guy but the concept that companies that were founded by homophobic people should be boycotted seems rather odd to me. [If that's being suggested.] Ever hear of the gigantic religions called Islam and traditional Roman Catholicism? To the best of my knowledge if one practices those religions properly or traditionally and follows the teachings of the Pope, etc, one is by definition a homophobe. Both religions teach that homosexuallity is evil and sinful.

Should we boycott all companies founded by edevotely religious people from these two religions then? Also why limit our scope to just the founders? Everyone who works at the company stands to gain financially if we buy their energy drink so shouldn't we boycott any company that has in their hire a devote and traditional Catholic or Muslim?

Why stop at homophobia? What if we have strong feelings about, say, abortion or the death penalty. Should we boycott any company whose founder feels differently to us on those matters?

From my understanding the founder of my vegan toothpaste company, Tom's , is opposed to pro-choice, unlike me. [I'm not dead certain he is but let's for now say it's true.] Should I boycott his toothpaste? If I were to boycott his product would it not be hypocritical of me not to find out the abortion stand of the founders (or employees) of all the other hundreds of products I use every day? And what about their beliefs on:

-the death penalty
- gun control
- freedom of religion
- freedom of speech and thought
- killing poor defenseless animals to eat them, such as chickens and cattle

?

[missbettie]

... damn your logic Mahk...

[behindblueeyes]

I'm a big coffee person, but I like energy drinks every now and then. Monster used to be my go to, but then I realized it's owned by coke. I'm not a big fan of the coca cola company..(they also own full throttle and nos).
There are many others though, like stoked, jolt, etc..
Guru is probably the way to go if health is your main concern

[robb]

I had hoped that avoiding the various religious threads would mean I wouldn't stumble across religious intolerance (which is of course a form of bigotry) on Vegan Forum any more.

"Proper" Christianity preaches forgiveness, loving your neighbour as yourself, not judging others, etc. This simply cannot include homophobia!

Modern Catholicism (which isn't necessarily the same thing as "proper" Christianity) views homosexuality as an illness (not evil). Therefore it warrants support and sympathy. Now, while we may not support that view, it's a long way from homophobia. And the Catholic Church's paper on Instruction Concerning The Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies In View Of Their Admission To Seminaries And Holy Orders "stresses the Church's deep respect for homosexuals, who, it says, should by no means be discriminated against".
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4480588.stm)

I'm not familiar enough with the Islamic texts to be able to argue the case for Islam. But Irshad Manji (a lesbian, a feminist, a Muslim, and an Islamic scholar) makes a good case for rejecting homophobia in Islam too.

[Mahk]

I had hoped that avoiding the various religious threads would mean I wouldn't stumble across religious intolerance (which is of course a form of bigotry) on Vegan Forum any more.

"Proper" Christianity preaches forgiveness, loving your neighbour as yourself, not judging others, etc. This simply cannot include homophobia!

Thank you for not being "judgmental" yourself in your response regarding your discovery of some alleged post's "religious intolerance" and "bigotry".

In Roman Catholicism the Pope reigns supreme and unquestioned because he is infallible (in regards to faith and morals and when speaking ex Cathedra, at least). Perhaps you should address your concerns to the current Pope, who recently said that, "Saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction."

If you don't see such a statement as being clearly homophobic, then we have differing definitions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith
/article5387858.ece

I'm not familiar enough with the Islamic texts to be able to argue the case for Islam.

In many countries with Islamic based governments, such as Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, homosexuality is punishable by death. I'd personally count that as "homophobia" in my book as well.

[behindblueeyes]

I was raised Catholic. From my experience, I can say that there is undoubtedly widespread homophobia and intolerance in the Catholic community.
Honestly though, referring to it as an 'illness' still sounds...awful. Just awful.

[robb]

Thank you for not being "judgmental" yourself in your response regarding your discovery of some alleged post's "religious intolerance" and "bigotry".

I never claimed to be a proper Christian...

But I know from past experience that it's not worth wasting my time on your entrenched views about religion. I only hope that my post will encourage anyone with a more open mind to look at both sides of the argument.

However, I must admit I misread Catholicism as Christianity in your post (unless you've edited it). And the acts of the Nicene Council (for example) raise a question mark over whether proper Catholicism is proper Christianity. I'll defend Christianity until the end of time; Catholicism less so.

Nevertheless, I tire of your straw man arguments. Of course having the death penalty for homosexuality is homophobic. However, the fact that a country claims to be Islamic (and to use Sharia law) and also punishes homosexuality, does not mean that Islam is homophobic. An equally (if not more) compelling case can be made that the policy is not Islamic. Similarly such a regime's policies on the punishment for apostasy, etc. Again I refer you to Irshad Manji: this is her area of expertise, not mine. Personally I don't believe there are any truly Islamic states. (Nor any truly communist states, but that's another story...)

If you want to boycott companies that are owned or supported by (or indeed support) the Vatican or oppressive regimes then I might be with you. In fact, I do boycott some such companies. But when you continue to tar the vast majority of tolerant Christians (including Catholics) and Muslims with such prejudice, then I'm very much against you.

Edit:

Ever hear of the gigantic religions called Islam and Catholicism? To the best of my knowledge if one practices those religions properly and follows the teachings of the Pope, etc, one is by definition a homophobe. Both religions teach that homosexuallity is evil and sinful.

Should we boycott all companies founded by Catholics and Muslims then? Also why limit our scope to just the founders? Everyone who works at the company stands to gain financially if we buy their energy drink so shouldn't we boycott any company that has in their hire a Catholic or Muslim?

Of course, there's a massive leap in your "logic" here too.

Even if we accept the premise that being a "proper" Muslim or Catholic makes one a homophobe (and I don't accept this premise) why would you assume that any Muslim or Catholic that has founded a company, or who works for one, is such a "proper" Muslim or Catholic? I have never met a Muslim or Catholic who follows all of the rules and subscribes to all of the beliefs. So they're much more likely not to be a "proper" Muslim or Catholic...

Obviously I find homophobia unacceptable.
But I find Islamophobia (and "Christianophobia") unacceptable too.

[Mahk]

But I know from past experience that it's not worth wasting my time on your entrenched views about religion.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I hardly have had any presence or have made many comments about religion in this forum. The one thread I had any involvement in was the "Poll: What's your religion? " where my involvement was solely to defend religious people (which I am not, incidentally) from being repeatedly bashed by a forum member who referred to the god of the Christian's as "an evil monster" [and that atheism is the "only way"]. I would think that would prove your accusation of me being "intolerant" is baseless. [It went on and on but started here].

However, I must admit I misread Catholicism as Christianity in your post (unless you've edited it).

I haven't. It's always been "Catholicism" and I've never used the word Christianity in this thread (up until this very sentence).

the fact that a country claims to be Islamic (and to use Sharia law) and also punishes homosexuality, does not mean that Islam is homophobic. An equally (if not more) compelling case can be made that the policy is not Islamic. Similarly such a regime's policies on the punishment for apostasy, etc.

And how about their holy texts the Qur'an and the Hadith themselves? If they condemn homosexuality directly, which they do, are you going to say, "Well not all practicing Muslims believe in the Qur'an; it's completely optional." ?

If you want to boycott companies that are owned or supported by (or indeed support) the Vatican or oppressive regimes then I might be with you.

No thanks. I think you may have missed the entire gist of my original post. I was saying I think it is ridiculous to boycott a company because they have members or founders who have different political or religious views than my own.

Here's a re-wording for clarity:

Should we boycott all companies founded by Catholics and Muslims then since both religions traditionally condemn homosexuality and can therefor be deemed homophobic? Of course not; that's absurd. We have to accept that some people's religious doctrines of some religions are contrary to our own views. Also why limit our scope to just the founders? Everyone who works at the company stands to gain financially if we buy their energy drink so shouldn't we boycott any company that has in their hire a Catholic or Muslim? Of course not, that's ridiculous as well.

Why stop at homophobia? What if we have strong feelings about, say, abortion or the death penalty. Should we boycott any company whose founder feels differently to us on those matters? Of course not!

[Mahk]

But I find Islamophobia (and "Christianophobia") unacceptable too.

It's not Christianophobia to say,"Roman Catholics are opposed to homosexual sex." any more so than saying, "They are opposed to abortion", both are simply true, if the person practices the religion traditionally that is.

[robb]

I was planning to read your messages then post some "witty" retort. But I have to admit I haven't read them for the same reason I stay out of the religious threads these days. I just get really wound up by the fact that religious intolerance seems to be much more acceptable in society than other forms of bigotry.

Actually I have read your second email. Its short and it's sitting at the top of my screen so it's hard not to! But I'm going to refrain from commenting in an aim to get this thread back on topic (a radical idea, I know!)

So does anyone know if Relentless Energy Shots are vegan? I got handed a free sample at Liverpool Street Station a little while ago.

Actually Relentless seems to be owned by Coca Cola, and Monster owned by "Monster Beverage Company, a division of Hansen Beverage Company, a Delaware corporation (Monster Energy)". So you might be OK, behindblueeyes.

[Mahk]

I was planning to read your messages then post some "witty" retort. But I have to admit I haven't read them....

Wow. So you have the audacity of accusing me of "religious intolerance", "bigotry" and "Islamophobia/Christianophobia":

I had hoped that avoiding the various religious threads would mean I wouldn't stumble across religious intolerance (which is of course a form of bigotry) on Vegan Forum any more.

Obviously I find homophobia unacceptable.
But I find Islamophobia (and "Christianophobia") unacceptable too.

and having "entrenched views about religion":

But I know from past experience that it's not worth wasting my time on your entrenched views about religion.

Yet you admit you haven't read any of my posts in that other thread I provided a link to, the only one I am aware of where I have had any discussions regarding religion in this forum! What nerve. I consider your actions to be slanderous/libelous and quite offensive.

Actually I have read your second email. Its short and it's sitting at the top of my screen so it's hard not to!

Huh? "Email"? Yet more evidence you are confusing me with someone else. I have never sent you any emails or PM (private messages), of any kind, ever, and as far as I can recall this current thread we are in is the only conversation I have ever had with you. If you do have some "email" or PM that is signed by "Mahk", I assure you it is a forgery sent by someone else.

edit to add: Unless by "email" you mean an individual forum thread entry, what I would refer to as an individual's "post", in which case, nevermind. This usage could be a variance not found in American English so I wouldn't be aware of its use in this way.

[Mahk]

I was raised Catholic. From my experience, I can say that there is undoubtedly widespread homophobia and intolerance in the Catholic community.
Honestly though, referring to it as an 'illness' still sounds...awful. Just awful.

I completely agree. Referring to homosexuality as an "illness" is homophobia.

[robb]

But I'm going to refrain from commenting in an aim to get this thread back on topic (a radical idea, I know!)

Well I tried...

OK, this is an email post (oops, I did it again) in two parts...

Firstly, an apology.

Yes, I can admit it when I'm wrong. I had recalled that it was Mahk who had made the comments about God being an evil monster in the previous thread. He points out that he was on the other side of the argument. So, I apologise publicly and unreservedly for getting the wrong end of the stick, and retract my comments about "entrenched views". Sorry.

But for clarification, when I said I hadn't read your messages, I meant your messages in this thread. And not having read them, I didn't realise they referred to messages in another thread.

However, I've read them now. And that brings me to part 2...

I do find your comments in this thread to be Islamaphobic and "Catholicophobic". I felt they were crass generalisations based on unrealistic criteria, and not reflected in the real world. Also that they added nothing to your argument, which would have worked just as well without the first two paragraphs. So, no, I didn't miss the gist of your post. I just pointed out what I thought were flaws in your reasoning.

And, yes, by "email", I meant "post" - which should have been pretty obvious from the fact that I said it was at the top of my screen while I was replying to the thread. So no need to be paranoid (or pedantic).

[Mahk]

Well I tried...

OK, this is an email post (oops, I did it again) in two parts...

Firstly, an apology.

Yes, I can admit it when I'm wrong. I had recalled that it was Mahk who had made the comments about God being an evil monster in the previous thread. He points out that he was on the other side of the argument. So, I apologise publicly and unreservedly for getting the wrong end of the stick, and retract my comments about "entrenched views". Sorry.

Apology accepted.

I do find your comments in this thread to be Islamaphobic and "Catholicophobic".

But if I walk up to a traditional Roman Catholic and say. "Hello. I understand your religion feels abortion, premarital sex, and homosexuality are wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what your religion promotes?" They wouldn't take it offensively or at least they shouldn't. It is not an "attack" and is therefor not "Catholicphobic". Their religion teaches them all these things and they have every right to believe these things and we shouldn't boycott companies that have employees that think these things either because their religion says they should or otherwise. That's my point.

And, yes, by "email", I meant "post" - which should have been pretty obvious

Not to this American who has never heard the word used that way. Email has a completely different meaning in American English.

[missbettie]

as entertaining as your two's bickering is...this isn't a religion thread!!! crazy guys!!!

I do kind of agree with you Mahk, I don't think i'll boycott rockstar for someone's opinions of gays...I would however boycott a company that donated or donates money against lets say the gays getting married. But what you said did make sense to me.

[Poison Ivy]

Not to this American who has never heard the word used that way. Email has a completely different meaning in American English.

I think robb meant that he'd used email when he should have used post, not that email means post.

[Mahk]

^OK, got it.
---

I do kind of agree with you Mahk, I don't think i'll boycott rockstar for someone's opinions of gays...I would however boycott a company that donated or donates money against lets say the gays getting married. But what you said did make sense to me.

Hmm, I'm not sure how I'd be. I see your logic though.

I think we should only boycott companies because of their direct actions (funding evil off shoots may be one of them) and not their members' individual religious or political views. Can you imagine how difficult life would be if we had to boycott any company who had any employees that voted for George Bush! Yikes, that'd be hard.

[Buddha Belly]

Savage's son is a signed up member of the Paul revere society. A quasi racist and homophobic society. Seems genetics is a bit of a shit really. He is homophobic and racist, great all round chap. It's not like he stood as a candidate for an election as a Paul revere member.

[cobweb]

i can't believe some of the stuff here!

[cobweb]

Yet you admit you haven't read any of my posts in that other thread I provided a link to, the only one I am aware of where I have had any discussions regarding religion in this forum! What nerve. I consider your actions to be slanderous/libelous and quite offensive.

omg!!

[behindblueeyes]

I was planning to read your messages then post some "witty" retort. But I have to admit I haven't read them for the same reason I stay out of the religious threads these days. I just get really wound up by the fact that religious intolerance seems to be much more acceptable in society than other forms of bigotry.

Actually I have read your second email. Its short and it's sitting at the top of my screen so it's hard not to! But I'm going to refrain from commenting in an aim to get this thread back on topic (a radical idea, I know!)

So does anyone know if Relentless Energy Shots are vegan? I got handed a free sample at Liverpool Street Station a little while ago.

Actually Relentless seems to be owned by Coca Cola, and Monster owned by "Monster Beverage Company, a division of Hansen Beverage Company, a Delaware corporation (Monster Energy)". So you might be OK, behindblueeyes.

I just used wiki, which I know isn't exactly synonymous with reliability..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Energy

I guess I should look into it more, but it does seem that they are affiliated with Coke now

[Shrapnel]

I was raised Catholic. From my experience, I can say that there is undoubtedly widespread homophobia and intolerance in the Catholic community.
Honestly though, referring to it as an 'illness' still sounds...awful. Just awful.

I can say that there is widespread homophobia and intolerance in many religious (and non-religious) communities.

[Shrapnel]

According to wikipedia, Rock Star energy drink was not founded by Michael Savage but rather his son. Does guilt by genetic similarity apply?
---

I hate homophobia as much as the next guy but the concept that companies that were founded by homophobic people should be boycotted seems rather odd to me. [If that's being suggested.] Ever hear of the gigantic religions called Islam and Catholicism? To the best of my knowledge if one practices those religions properly or traditionally and follows the teachings of the Pope, etc, one is by definition a homophobe. Both religions teach that homosexuallity is evil and sinful.

Should we boycott all companies founded by Catholics and Muslims then? Also why limit our scope to just the founders? Everyone who works at the company stands to gain financially if we buy their energy drink so shouldn't we boycott any company that has in their hire a Catholic or Muslim?

Why stop at homophobia? What if we have strong feelings about, say, abortion or the death penalty. Should we boycott any company whose founder feels differently to us on those matters?

From my understanding the founder of my vegan toothpaste company, Tom's , is opposed to pro-choice, unlike me. [I'm not dead certain he is but let's for now say it's true.] Should I boycott his toothpaste? If I were to boycott his product would it not be hypocritical of me not to find out the abortion stand of the founders (or employees) of all the other hundreds of products I use every day? And what about their beliefs on

?

Wow really? I didn't know I'm a homophobe. Thanks for enlightening me. Anything more more you want to tell me about myself based on bigoted over generalizations? Were I atheist, would you assume I'm completely amoral and self serving, to coincide with the stereotypes?

And I doubt he's opposed to pro-choice. Perhaps against abortion, but I doubt he is against the concept of making decisions. Either way, that's cool to know. I'm all the more glad I've been supporting the company now (especially since it does pretty much go along with veganism).

[Shrapnel]

But if I walk up to a traditional Roman Catholic and say. "Hello. I understand your religion feels abortion, premarital sex, and homosexuality are wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what your religion promotes?" They wouldn't take it offensively or at least they shouldn't. It is not an "attack" and is therefor not "Catholicphobic". Their religion teaches them all these things and they have every right to believe these things and we shouldn't boycott companies that have employees that think these things either because their religion says they should or otherwise. That's my point.
.

If you said that to me, I would probably just correct you, and give my views as I see them in accordance with me. I hope you would listen too, rather than just pass judgement on me based on my religious views, though I have doubts.

[behindblueeyes]

I can say that there is widespread homophobia and intolerance in many religious (and non-religious) communities.

Yeah...sure, it's everywhere. But, the debate was whether or not it's something typical of Catholicism. And, to me, it is.

[Mahk]

^Agreed. The Roman Catholic Church, as represented by their leader the Pope, who is infallible in regards to faith and morals, says so.
[paraphrased] : Preaching: "Homosexuality as a lifestyle is 'an illness'." = homophobia.
---

Re Abortion:

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,"

-the current, Pope Benedict XVI, 2005

Having found this I retract where I said traditional Roman Catholics consider abortion "wrong" and am correcting my statement to "an evil crime". I guess that doesn't make them necessarily "wrong" in some peoples eyes so I was making a broad generalization I apologize for and of course we also should be tolerant of [*ahem*] ""Traditional" Roman Catholics who follow the Pope's teachings selectively, despite the fact that the religion itself teaches that's unacceptable and that the Pope is infallible in regards to faith and morals, by definition.

[Shrapnel]

Yeah...sure, it's everywhere. But, the debate was whether or not it's something typical of Catholicism. And, to me, it is.

Er, actually, I thought the debate was over Red Bull & other energy drinks. Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but it does imply that it is atypical of other beliefs. If I said that homophobia was typical of atheists, would that not imply a link between the two? Or for the converse, if I said that mercy and compassion were typical of Catholicism, would that imply that it was different for other religions?

[Shrapnel]

^Agreed. The Roman Catholic Church, as represented by their leader the Pope, who is infallible in regards to faith and morals, says so. "Homophobia is an illness" = homophobia.
---

Re Abortion:

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,"

-the current, Pope Benedict XVI, 2005

I retract where I said traditional Roman Catholics consider abortion "wrong" and am correcting my statement to "an evil crime", I guess that doesn't make them necessarily "wrong" in some peoples eyes so I was making a broad generalization I apologize for and of course we also should be tolerant of [*ahem*] ""Traditional" Roman Catholics who follow the Pope's teachings selectively, despite the fact that the religion itself teaches that's unacceptable and that the Pope is infallible in regards to faith and morals, by definition.

Actually, the Pope is not infallible (but what do I know? I mean, I'm not one to argue with the almighty Wikipedia. If the Internet says so, it must be right Not that the quoted Wikipedia page doesn't state the same thing anyhow). And really? Are all the quotes (with italics even) and throat clearing needed?

Incidentally, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, etc. are also part of the teaching, but lets just ignore them since they don't contribute to the stereotype we're looking for.

And don't be silly, religious tolerance is for losers. Religious bigotry is much more fun, and easier since you don't have to consider individual viewpoints, but just pass off the whole lot of them as ignorant fools and morally inferior without getting to know them. It's a great shorthand.

[Mahk]

Would direct links to the Vatican church itself in Rome be of any value to you or do you think they no have say in defining "Traditional Roman Catholic values" either?

Abortion.

" never, under any pretext, may abortion be resorted to, either by a family or by the political authority, as a legitimate means of regulating births.[25] The damage to moral values is always a greater evil for the common good than any disadvantage in the economic or demographic order."

Homosexuality:

" Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

"Homosexuality is a 'disorder'" = homophobia.
"living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is immoral" = homophobia

Blah-blah-blah, Vatican shmatican, what would they know about traditional Roman Catholic values?
---

I have a close friend who is Catholic and we have discussed abortion in some depth (and politely like gentlemen, each respecting the other's differences, I might add). Not only does he oppose abortion and is not afraid to say so, he also would take no offense at me saying "Traditional Roman Catholicism opposes abortion". I'm also pretty sure he would be infuriated if he heard someone claim they were a "Traditional" Roman Catholic and felt the Church allowed for abortions as being not sinful. It would be like how we would feel if a self proclaimed "vegan" we knew were to say they thought killing birds is OK and acceptable as a vegan.
---

Are all the quotes (with italics even) and throat clearing needed?

Yes. When I put something in italics or quotes there's a reason for it.

[Shrapnel]

Would direct links to the Vatican church itself in Rome be of any value to you or do you think they no have say in defining "Traditional Roman Catholic values" either?

Abortion.

" never, under any pretext, may abortion be resorted to, either by a family or by the political authority, as a legitimate means of regulating births.[25] The damage to moral values is always a greater evil for the common good than any disadvantage in the economic or demographic order."

Homosexuality:

" Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

"Homosexuality is a 'disorder'" = homophobia.
"living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is immoral" = homophobia

Blah-blah-blah, Vatican shmatican, what would they know about traditional Roman Catholic values?
---

I have a close friend who is Catholic and we have discussed abortion in some depth (and politely like gentlemen, each respecting the other's differences, I might add). Not only does he oppose abortion and is not afraid to say so, he also would take no offense at me saying "Traditional Roman Catholicism opposes abortion". I'm also pretty sure he would be infuriated if he heard someone claim they were a "Traditional" Roman Catholic and felt the Church allowed for abortions as being not sinful. It would be like how we would feel if a self proclaimed "vegan" we knew were to say they thought killing birds is OK and acceptable as a vegan.
---

Yes. When I put something in italics or quotes there's a reason for it.

Yes, actually, a direct link would be more helpful than Wikipedia (I never said that the Vatican didn’t know aobut Roman Catholic views, but rather that Wikipedia wasn’t infallible). Thanks for the little math equation, and the repetition thereof. I never would have gotten it without (though I was hoping for a pie chart or bar graph. Maybe next time).

I don’t see what the aboriton link is for, since I didn’t disagree (yeah, I generally feel that killing any animals, including humans, is not a good thing. People who kill aren’t exactly evil, but the act is not a moral one. Like hunters may not be evil, but hunting is).

Ah, you have a Catholic friend, to prove you’re not a bigot. Do you have a black friend, to show you’re not a racist? If you can respect your... so called “friend” (gratuitous quotes “are” fun), then why can’t you respect others? At any rate, what you are sure your friend becomes infuriated at isn’t much the issue; he doesn’t represent all Catholics, nor is he the sole judge and who is and is not a Catholic (nor are you). It may be a shock, but members of a religion can have differing viewpoints on issues, and assuming that everyone believes the same way on homosexuality, or any other issue, is relying too much on overgeneralizations. For instance, from the same page you yourself linked, “The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.” Now, do you agree that this applies to all Catholics, that every one respects the intrinsic dignity of each person, and that the respecting of intrinsic dignity is limited to only Catholics? Or do you only accept the bad parts, the ones that confirm your negative stereotypes?

Right, [I’m] "sure" there is a reason for "it". No doubts {there}.

[behindblueeyes]

Actually, the Pope is not infallible (but what do I know? I mean, I'm not one to argue with the almighty Wikipedia. If the Internet says so, it must be right Not that the quoted Wikipedia page doesn't state the same thing anyhow). And really? Are all the quotes (with italics even) and throat clearing needed?

Incidentally, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, etc. are also part of the teaching, but lets just ignore them since they don't contribute to the stereotype we're looking for.

And don't be silly, religious tolerance is for losers. Religious bigotry is much more fun, and easier since you don't have to consider individual viewpoints, but just pass off the whole lot of them as ignorant fools and morally inferior without getting to know them. It's a great shorthand.

I'm going to have to disagree here again. The Catholics I know fully believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. They think homosexuals are going to hell. They think I'm going to hell because I've had pre-marital sex. They think that if you don't worship god and thank him for everything good in your life...you're going to hell. Etc, etc...
But, wait! I forgot about the forgiveness part! You can do all those things and anything else considered 'sinful' and still go to heaven. How? Just go to confession. Tell all your sins to a (probably envious) priest, he'll tell you to say some prayers and..voila...you're good to go.
This is what bothers me about Catholics, they think non-believers need to be 'saved'.

And just to be perfectly clear, this is not a sweeping generalization of all Catholics. Just of all the ones I know personally, and have known for a long time.
And I apologize if this seems a bit harsh, but I was pretty miserable growing up in a Catholic household, so yeah, there's some bitterness there still.

[Shrapnel]

I'm going to have to disagree here again. The Catholics I know fully believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. They think homosexuals are going to hell. They think I'm going to hell because I've had pre-marital sex. They think that if you don't worship god and thank him for everything good in your life...you're going to hell. Etc, etc...
But, wait! I forgot about the forgiveness part! You can do all those things and anything else considered 'sinful' and still go to heaven. How? Just go to confession. Tell all your sins to a (probably envious) priest, he'll tell you to say some prayers and..voila...you're good to go.
This is what bothers me about Catholics, they think non-believers need to be 'saved'.

And just to be perfectly clear, this is not a sweeping generalization of all Catholics. Just of all the ones I know personally, and have known for a long time.
And I apologize if this seems a bit harsh, but I was pretty miserable growing up in a Catholic household, so yeah, there's some bitterness there still.

But that’s the thing, it’s just the people you know. I mean, here in Utah, the atheists I know are close minded bigots, 100% sure that they’re right, everyone else is wrong and that people are only religious if they’re too stupid to know any better. I’ve also know atheists who were tolerant, open minded and felt I had the same right to my beliefs as they did. I’m not going to assume every atheist is an egotistical douche based on the actions of a few. They're all individuals.

And sorry, I just feel mercy is important. If someone does sin, then I don’t see why not be forgiven. I prefer repentance over revenge. And besides, I don’t see how I’m in any position to know the worth of another person, or what punishment that person deserves for whatever wrongs committed. Though it’s much more complex than you’re making it out (though, I assume you’re more making fun of it).

Maybe you don’t realize it, but it is a sweeping generalization, at least when you say things like “This is what bothers me about Catholics.” Or the assumption that the priest is probably envious. I can understand you have had bad experiences with people who are Catholic, but I’d please ask you not to make assumptions about all of us, or any religion for that matter. It really does hurt. I had bad experiences with atheists, as well as evangelical Christians, Mormons, and people whose religion I was unaware of at the time, but it would be a wrong, in my opinion, to insult their beliefs or to judge every member of those belief systems based on the people I knew.

[behindblueeyes]

But that’s the thing, it’s just the people you know. I mean, here in Utah, the atheists I know are close minded bigots, 100% sure that they’re right, everyone else is wrong and that people are only religious if they’re too stupid to know any better. I’ve also know atheists who were tolerant, open minded and felt I had the same right to my beliefs as they did. I’m not going to assume every atheist is an egotistical douche based on the actions of a few. They're all individuals.

And sorry, I just feel mercy is important. If someone does sin, then I don’t see why not be forgiven. I prefer repentance over revenge. And besides, I don’t see how I’m in any position to know the worth of another person, or what punishment that person deserves for whatever wrongs committed. Though it’s much more complex than you’re making it out (though, I assume you’re more making fun of it).

Maybe you don’t realize it, but it is a sweeping generalization, at least when you say things like “This is what bothers me about Catholics.” Or the assumption that the priest is probably envious. I can understand you have had bad experiences with people who are Catholic, but I’d please ask you not to make assumptions about all of us, or any religion for that matter. It really does hurt. I had bad experiences with atheists, as well as evangelical Christians, Mormons, and people whose religion I was unaware of at the time, but it would be a wrong, in my opinion, to insult their beliefs or to judge every member of those belief systems based on the people I knew.

It's not that I don't think forgiveness is a good thing. It's just that I don't believe those things I mentioned are 'sins'. It's like they're saying 'you can be yourself and have fun and whatever else, but we think it's wrong so you have to feel guilty and be sorry'

It's not a generalization. I just didn't feel like putting (the ones that I know) every time and thought I covered that at the end there.
I've met asshole atheists as well...it's strange because they do exactly what the religious people they despise do; think they're right and everyone else is dead wrong, just like you said.

[Mahk]

Yes, actually, a direct link would be more helpful than Wikipedia (I never said that the Vatican didn’t know aobut Roman Catholic views, but rather that Wikipedia wasn’t infallible).

Good, then I'm glad my provided link to the Vatican proves that the traditional Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexualiy as being a disorder and immoral and is therefor homophobic.

Ah, you have a Catholic friend, to prove you’re not a bigot. Do you have a black friend, to show you’re not a racist? {not my point, strawman} If you can respect your... so called “friend” (gratuitous quotes “are” fun), then why can’t you respect others?

I do, but I wouldn't respect a person trying to pass themselves off as a devote follower of the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, since I am aware of them, yet claim that being opposed to abortion or homosexuality is "optional", just like I would have no respect for a vegan that claimed not killing fish was optional. People who feel this way I wouldn't mind if they called themselves "Catholic" or pesco-vegetarians , but using the word "traditional" would be a lie since I am aware of the true teachings of the Vatican and the Vegan Society.

Now, do you agree that this applies to all Catholics, that every one respects the intrinsic dignity of each person, and that the respecting of intrinsic dignity is limited to only Catholics? Or do you only accept the bad parts, the ones that confirm your negative stereotypes?

None of my posts have addressed "Catholics", they have addressed "Tradional Roman Catholics". If one is a traditional Roman Catholic one opposes abortion and homosexuality as being immoral, the Vatican and the Pope say so and anyone who says they are advocating traditional Roman Catholic values yet contradicts them on these two matters is not being faithful to two of their religion's core values, in my opinion. If you'd like to suggest that they are instead "optional" in the traditional opinion of the Church I don't think you'd be fooling anyone here but yourself.

[Shrapnel]

Well, I don't think pre-marital sex, or homosexuality are sins either. Hell, I don't think it's really my position to say what is a sin, and I think it's wrong to judge other people (like the people you mentioned).

I see what you mean, but I guess it at least comes across as a generalization (it's harder online, especially for people who don't know you well, to know what you mean exactly). Heh, I don't think it's that strange, since there are people of all creeds who can be jerks, and the feeling of being right, with everyone else being wrong, can be very satisfying. It's probably part of human nature, some evolutionary trait, feeling self-righteous and thinking your own group is better than another group.

[Shrapnel]

Good, then I'm glad my provided link to the Vatican proves that the traditional Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexualiy as being a disorder and immoral and is therefor homophobic.

You keep on repeating that part... I'm not sure why. Other than if you say it enough times, that makes it true?

I do, but I wouldn't respect a person trying to pass themselves off as a devote follower of the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, since I am aware of them, yet claim that being opposed to abortion or homosexuality is "optional", just like I would have no respect for a vegan that claimed not killing fish was optional. People who feel this way I wouldn't mind if they called themselves "Catholic" or pesco-vegetarians , but using the word "traditional" would be a lie since I am aware of the true teachings of the Vatican and the Vegan Society.

Well, whatever reason you have your token Catholic friend is yours to come up with.

You are quite the theologian, despite all the disrespect (I guess know thine enemy or some such. Though, just what authority do you have to judge who is and is not a "true" devout Ca"tho"lic? Were you elected Pope (I'm always the last to know these things)? And again, you're ignoring the part about the whole dignity of the person and what not (I could have quoted elsewhere, but figured that sticking to the page you yourself linked would lead to less quibbling). If you agree that being "traditionally Catholic" means you must hate them gays, then do you agree that being "tra"dition"all"y" Catholic means you have to follow all the non evil parts, like "The movement for the emancipation of women, insofar as it seeks essentially to free them from all unjust discrimination, is on perfectly sound ground." or for that matter, all that stuff about not judging others, turing the other cheek, etc.? You seem to assume that you have the authority to judge who is and who isn't truly a member of a religion you don't even follow.

None of my posts have addressed "Catholics", they have addressed "Tradional Roman Catholics". If one is a traditional Roman Catholic one opposes abortion and homosexuality as being immoral, the Vatican and the Pope say so and anyone who says they are advocating traditional Roman Catholic values yet contradicts them on these two matters is not being faithful to two of their religion's core values, in my opinion. If you'd like to suggest that they are instead "optional" in the traditional opinion of the Church I don't think you'd be fooling anyone here but yourself.

Actually, your posts have. And you don't have any right to say who is and who isn't a traditional "Roman" Catholic. Your attempts to lay down judgment on those who belong to a religion you don't like just are bigoted and egotistical. I really don't see your point, other than to make members of the target religion seem negative, or to hold some power in that you are able to judge them.

[cobweb]

this reminds me of a thread i took part in on a local (non-vegan) forum.
A meat-eater came on to tell me that "a strict vegetarian diet will stunt the growth of a child as it doesn't provide all the necessary amino acids".
Why would someone who isn't a vegetarian even begin to imagine that they would know more about the subject than a person (me, in this case) who's been vegan for over a decade? .

It also reminds me of an incident on this forum once when i mentioned i believe in God. Someone else came on and said "i used to, but then i grew up". What is it with people trying to point-score and trash other people's beliefs? .

As far as i'm aware (unless the position has changed) the Pope used to say that animals don't have souls, but just because he said that, i wouldn't assume all Catholics would blindly accept it, any more than i assume all Buddhists eat meat just because the Dalai Lama has/does.

[Mahk]

Though, just what authority do you have to judge who is and is not a "true" devout Ca"tho"lic? Were you elected Pope?

Aha! Gotcha! You just burned yourself. Thanks for documenting to all that you are well aware that the expression "Who died and made you Pope?" is based on the doctrine that the Pope has the final word on decisions in Roman Catholicism, yet you absurdly claim that followers of the Roman Catholic Church who refer to themselves as "Traditional" [the only category of Roman Catholics I've ever referred to throughout this entire thread despite your lies otherwise] have the option to ignore his teachings selectively, that for instance homosexuality is a destruction of God's will, evil, immoral, an illness, and a sin.

If you agree that being "traditionally Catholic" means you must hate them gays,

Not only do I not agree, I also never said that. The definition of homophobia I am using has nothing to do with hatred, it has nothing to do with discrimination in job placement; what it has to do with is the belief that a homosexual lifestyle is evil, immoral, a destruction of God's work, a sin, an illness, or a disorder. The Church teaches all these things and I've provided abundant links to both the Pope's own statements and those of the Vatican directly to prove it (Not that they have any say in defining traditional Roman Catholic values, according to some. LOL)

This is the definition of homophobia I am using:

"Many researchers claim that homosexuals still find themselves the target of bias within institutions like churches and professional organizations. Many church and religious groups maintain that homosexual behavior is a sin and runs counter to the will of God as expressed in certain Biblical passages. Up until 1980, many psychiatrists still looked upon homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today, medical professionals believe that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem." [emphasis mine]

then do you agree that being "tra"dition"all"y" Catholic means you have to follow all the non evil parts, like "The movement for the emancipation of women, insofar as it seeks essentially to free them from all unjust discrimination, is on perfectly sound ground." or for that matter, all that stuff about not judging others, turing the other cheek, etc.?

A strawman argument. The topic is does The Church teach that homosexuality is evil, a destructive force, an illness, and a sin. It does. And therefor anyone who claims to follow that religion traditionally, the only kind of Roman Catholics I've addressed throughout this entire thread, must accept the Popes words based on his unique position of Papal infallibility (assuming this is a matter of faith and morals, which I'd think it is, and assuming he speaks on these matters in a position of ex Cathedra).

In my opinion, anyone who claims to follow traditional vegan values but insists eating fish is "acceptable", or anyone who claims to follow traditional Roman Catholic values and insists a homosexual lifestyle is not a sin and is perfectly "acceptable" both should be ashamed of themselves for misrepresenting their people's true beliefs. They aren't traditionalists, at all.

[Shrapnel]

Aha! Gotcha! You just burned yourself. Thanks for documenting to all that you are well aware that the expression "Who died and made you Pope?" is based on the doctrine that the Pope has the final word on decisions in Roman Catholicism, yet you absurdly claim that followers of the Roman Catholic Church who refer to themselves as "Traditional" [the only category of Roman Catholics I've ever referred to throughout this entire thread despite your lies otherwise] have the option to ignore his teachings selectively, that for instance homosexuality is a destruction of God's will, evil, immoral, an illness, and a sin.

For the love of sweet gay loving Jesus, please tell me that was intentional, and you’re being satirical. Or do you really believe, based on an offhand comment I made to dismiss your attempt at playing theologian, that I have been zinged? Zung. Whatever. Wow, you saw throught my eeeeviel lies and deception! *gasps in horror* My wicked plans have been undone. And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you meddling kids. Are there any other facetious comment you want to deconstruct?

Not only do I not agree, I also never said that. The definition of homophobia I am using has nothing to do with hatred, it has nothing to do with discrimination in job placement; what it has to do with is the belief that a homosexual lifestyle is evil, immoral, a destruction of God's work, a sin, an illness, or a disorder. The Church teaches all these things and I've provided abundant links to both the Pope's own statements and those of the Vatican directly to prove it (Not that they have any say in defining traditional Roman Catholic values, according to some. LOL)

“Lol” Oh you rapscallion, you. You are such a cutup. But of course they don’t. I mean, you’re the final word on all matters of Church teaching.

A strawman argument. The topic is does The Church teach that homosexuality is evil, a destructive force, an illness, and a sin. It does. And therefor anyone who claims to follow that religion traditionally, the only kind of Roman Catholics I've addressed throughout this entire thread, must accept the Popes words based on his unique position of Papal infallibility (assuming this is a matter of faith and morals, which I'd think it is, and assuming he speaks on these matters in a position of ex Cathedra).

Oh, is that so? Your mom is a strawman. Seriously. You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You can’t merely say that arguments that you don’t like are strawmen. It doesn’t work that way. The only infallibility you believe in is your own, claiming. Seriously, what is your issue with the Catholic Church that you’re desperately trying to make it out to be the most eeeeeeevil organization this side of a James Bond movie? Did the Church dump your books in middle school? Did Jesus give you a wedgie in front of the girl you liked and now you’re out to get revenge?

In my opinion, anyone who claims to follow traditional vegan values but insists eating fish is "acceptable", or anyone who claims to follow traditional Roman Catholic values and insists a homosexual lifestyle is not a sin and is perfectly "acceptable" both should be ashamed of themselves for misrepresenting their people's true beliefs. They aren't traditionalists, at all.

Point is, you have no authority to say who is and who isn’t “true” and who should or should not feel ashamed. And, do you even have a point with trying to define true Catholics, other than the smug sense of superiority? Does your ego get a satisfying buzz at laying down your divine judgement and telling Catholics whether or not they should be ashamed because they don’t conform to your stereotype?

[Mahk]

Point is, you have no authority to say who is and who isn’t “true” and who should or should not feel ashamed. And, do you even have a point with trying to define true Catholics, other than the smug sense of superiority? Does your ego get a satisfying buzz at laying down your divine judgement and telling Catholics whether or not they should be ashamed because they don’t conform to your stereotype?

I never addressed "Catholics" nor defined "true Catholics". I've exclusively been describing the traditional Roman Catholic church based on the Vatican and the Pope's teachings, which oddly I see as being significant and you seem to think are more optional, even if one deems themselves specifically a "traditionalist". Saying that the Roman Catholic Church, and therefor traditional followers of the Vatican and the Pope's teachings are "opposed to abortion" or for our discussion "oppossed to homosexual lifestyles" isn't "an opinion" or "an attack". It is simply the truth.

The Pope says so.
The Church says so.
[I linked to the Vatican's official website and quoted the current Pope directly on these two matters proving them to be true, earlier in the thread. Just in case anyone is joining this thread late.]

But heck, what would they know about traditional Roman Catholicism? Get real.

[Korn]

I consider your actions to be slanderous/libelous and quite offensive.

Please see our FAQ about reporting offensive posts as opposed to turning threads into personal verbal fights.

Referring to homosexuality as an "illness" is homophobia.

Not if one is using the original meaning of 'phobia'.

It is not an "attack" and is therefor not "Catholicphobic".

Being against or attacking something is different from having a strong/irrational fear of that 'something'.


Anyway - this thread has gone off topic, so please start a new thread if you want to discuss these topics (eg. boycotting all companies founded by people with viewpoints/religious behavior that are in disagreements with your own viewpoints).

If you start a new thread, please remember that in intension to not be seen as offensive, one sometimes have to deliberately state that whatever is written in not meant as a personal attack and/or try to write stuff in ways that others will be offended by, even if it, if cut up in small pieces and analyzed, actually doesn't contain any personal attacks or offensive content.

Also - especially for people who have been on this board for a while... when you see that a thread is going as off topic as this thread now is, just start a new thread on your own initiative instead of waiting for a thread to be closed or an admin to ask you to do so.

Finally, don't test out our (admins'/moderators'/other members') tolerance regarding how far one can go in terms of being involved in verbal fights/taking things off topic/posting offensive stuff. This also applies to posts that actually may not be offensive but easily can be seen by many as offensive. Real communication is more interesting than 'verbal friction' anyway.

[Mahk]

Not if one is using the original meaning of 'phobia'....

Being against or attacking something is different from having a strong/irrational fear of that 'something'.

True. I apologize to all. My use of both the words "homophobia" and "Catholicphobia" both had absolutely no connection to "fear" or a "fear of" anyone or anything. I should have made that clear and didn't. My mistake. I was using both words to mean "a dislike or an aversion to" instead, as is described in this Oxford definition, for instance, and also how it was used in the TimesOnLine article I linked to. I'll be more clear next time.
---

Speaking of "aversions to" I think energy drinks are a bad idea in general. Stimulants like taurine, guarine, and even the common caffeine should not be equated with "health drinks", despite the advertisers attempt to do otherwise. Also aren't most of these things filled with sugar and artificial colors? I see most of these drinks, not that I've examined many, as basically soft drinks (fizzy drinks/ UK/EU?) with added stimulants and sometimes a few vitamins thrown in for "health image". I doubt one or two a month would do much damage but people who drink these things daily might be asking for hypertension and heart issues if it become habitual.

[sandra]

I think I need a crate of energy drinks after reading this thread!

[Manzana]

^^Red bull?!

[sandra]

A crate of 'VEGAN' energy drinks!

[Mahk]

I've never bought one of these drinks in my entire life but they pass them out (distribute them) for free at certain events to promote them. I took one home, drank it, and moments later proceeded to take a nap.

[sandra]

I've never bought them either Mahk...................I prefer cold, sparkling water when I'm thirsty!

[mariana]

So does anyone know if Relentless Energy Shots are vegan? I got handed a free sample at Liverpool Street Station a little while ago.

Looks like they are vegan. Link.