A Thread about Vegetarianism on a Latin Forum

[teo123]

Hey, guys!
I've started a thread about vegetarianism on a Latin forum. Do you think that's a good idea? Why or why not?
My logic was that, even though I am unlikely to get a lot of audience, I will likely attract audience who are interested in the same stuff I am (that we there kind of share the same culture), and who agree with me on quite a few stuff about philosophy and society (partly because one of the moderators there is preaching libertarianism, and is apparently not facing any opposition), so that it will be easier to convince the audience I get to actually start thinking about the ethics of eating meat (and later perhaps other animal products).
Do you think the arguments I used in the OP are likely to be convincing (If you don't know Latin, you can probably get the basic idea of what's in it using Google Translate)?

[brimstoneSalad]

My Latin is very limited, but I think it could be worth a try.
Libertarianism isn't Flat-Earth level crazy and there are some good ideas in there... although reception to more reasonable libertarians among the constituency in the U.S. is very concerning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
You'd have to look at how extreme it is. I'm guessing the moderator isn't "no drivers' licenses" level.

[Red]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

You have to wonder about the standards of these people when Gary Johnson looks more intelligent than them.
I can understand having a limited government; I don't agree with it, but I can understand it, and there are a lot of valid reasons for it. But come on, are these people really demanding that little intervention? I wonder if these are the same people who say 'If the child consents' like Adam Kokesh.
What do you think of Johnson's former running mate Bill Weld, who is seeking the Republican nomination? He's good on nuclear, opposes fossil fuels, and supports free trade. I think I'd rather have him than most of the Democrats who are seeking the nomination from what I know.

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you think of Johnson's former running mate Bill Weld, who is seeking the Republican nomination? He's good on nuclear, opposes fossil fuels, and supports free trade. I think I'd rather have him than most of the Democrats who are seeking the nomination from what I know.

Didn't know about him, but I assume he has no chance?

[teo123]

Well, since I haven't gotten a response until now, I probably won't get a response at all. I am probably just annoying people there by posting about controversial issues in bad Latin.

[brimstoneSalad]

Might be, was worth a try though!

[teo123]

Might be, was worth a try though!

Well, go repost it on some other forums where there are people who know Latin, if you think it's worth it.
It may not be grammatically completely correct, but I am quite sure it's understandable (one possible exception is "in suis lactibus", what I meant to say is "in their intestines", but I couldn't find a better word for "intestine" than "lactes", of which the ablative plural, "lactibus", happens to be the same as the ablative plural of the much-better-known word "lac", meaning "milk"), it's certainly not gibberish that will get you banned for trolling.

And, have you thought about it, which arguments would you use to argue for veganism/vegetarianism in a language you don't really speak? Perhaps it would be a good thing to make an introduction to vegetarianism/veganism which is easy to translate. What I've written might be a relatively good start.

[brimstoneSalad]

And, have you thought about it, which arguments would you use to argue for veganism/vegetarianism in a language you don't really speak? Perhaps it would be a good thing to make an introduction to vegetarianism/veganism which is easy to translate. What I've written might be a relatively good start.

I have, and I think the bigger issue is usually not language, but culture. Although that doesn't apply here since we're talking about people who had other native languages probably from all around.

When it's just about the language that's a tricky one... I guess I'd look at what I know how to say and try to formulate something within those limits. To use an example from yours, I wouldn't make any argument involving intestines if I wasn't sure how to communicate it. There are so many compelling arguments that leaving a few on the cutting room floor for clarity is probably worth it.

[teo123]

And, have you thought about it, which arguments would you use to argue for veganism/vegetarianism in a language you don't really speak? Perhaps it would be a good thing to make an introduction to vegetarianism/veganism which is easy to translate. What I've written might be a relatively good start.

I have, and I think the bigger issue is usually not language, but culture. Although that doesn't apply here since we're talking about people who had other native languages probably from all around.

When it's just about the language that's a tricky one... I guess I'd look at what I know how to say and try to formulate something within those limits. To use an example from yours, I wouldn't make any argument involving intestines if I wasn't sure how to communicate it. There are so many compelling arguments that leaving a few on the cutting room floor for clarity is probably worth it.

I've just gotten a response from the moderator.
That about the intestines is apparently fine, but my essay is otherwise full of grammar errors.
Not surprisingly, I haven't studied Latin grammar except in high-school years ago (from "Hereditas Linguae Latinae" and "Elementa Latina" textbooks). The moderator's native language is Italian, so it is probably easier for him to learn Latin grammar than it is for me.

[teo123]

Anyway, @brimstoneSalad, here is the (probably) grammatically correct version of that essay, if you want to use it to do vegangelicalism on forums about classics:

Quid homines in hoc foro cogitant de vegetarianismo? Ego vegetarianista sum, ego credo carnem edere non licitum esse. Quomodo id licitum esse possit? Si carnem edimus, aliquis occidi debet. Id saepe non videmus, sed non licet nobis id ignorare. Et in Sina, multi homines canes edunt, easdem canes, quas nos amamus. In Helvetia etiam multi homines feles edunt. An canes et feles quodam modo differentes sunt a bubus et suibus, quas nos occidimus, ut carnem possimus edere? Forsan feles et canes sapientiores bubus et suibus sunt, sed boves et sues certe sapientiores liberis infantibus sunt, et quis neget infantes occidere non licitum esse? Sane, aliquae animalia non possunt vivere si ea animalia carnem non edant. Ergo quid? Mantides religiosae etiam non possunt subolem habere, si eae non occidant et edant mares suos. An eius causa, quodam modo, licitum est mulieribus, quae homines sunt, suos maritos occidere?
Argumenta pro carne edenda, quae saepe dantur, sunt:
1) Carnis minime carus modus vitamini B12 acquirendi est.
Ita, multa animalia, boves inter alia, habent, in suis lactibus (intestinis), bacteria quae vitaminum B12 faciunt. Sed in carne, quae non cara est, vitaminum B12 paene non datur. Bubus, et aliis animalibus quae edimus, hodie semper antibiotica dantur. Ea antibiotica protegunt ea animalia a morbis, quos bacteria faciunt, quia ea animalia paene semper in parvis et sordidis spatiis sita sunt. Sed antibiotica etiam ea bacteria, quae vitaminum B12 faciunt, occidunt. Antibiotica enim et bona et mala bacteria occidunt. Carnis piscium vitaminum B12 continet, sed caro piscium multo carior (plures pecunias debes dare, ut carnem piscium possis emere) pilulis quae vitaminum B12 continent est.
Dare magnam summam antibioticorum animalibus etiam possibile facit, ut aliquae bacteria, quae et animalia et homines morbidos faciunt, ab antibioticis invulnerabilia fiant. Materia genetica, de invulnerabilitate ab antibioticis, in paene omnibus bacteriis data est, et ea potest activa fieri. Probabiliter, id fit iam hodie. Forsan multos morbos, quae hodie possumus curare antibioticis, in futura non poterimus curare... carnem edendi causa.
2) Edere magnam summam omega-3-acidi protegit a morbis cordis.
Simpliciter, hoc non est veritas. Evidentia huius non datur. Et si hoc veritas esset, non debeamus magnam summam carnis edere, debeamus magnam summam lini edere. Linum enim plenius omega-3-acidis quam caro est.
3) In optima diaeta, triens energiae ex proteinis acquisita est.
De veritate huius informationis loquitur id, quod lac hominum continet paene nulla proteina.
Spero, ut vos de his rebus cogitare faciam. Quod nos edimus, et quem aut quam nos edimus, afficit homines, et alia sentientia animalia, circa nos. Cum carnem emimus, facimus plures carnes fieri, id est, plura animalia ali et occidi. Leges de animalibus protegendis id non afficiunt.

It's also available on my website.