OK. You wanted an analysis, you're getting an analysis.

1. This post is begun by casting yourself as an outsider of society. You paint yourself as apart, maligned, different. What is friendly about that? It alienates everyone, including you.

2. The below quotes are not friendly. They do not respect others' opinions. You do not try to see alternative points of view. You are not sympathetic. These quotes are representative of your entire tone. Your entire exchange with 8bit exhibits all of these issues, rampantly, throughout. You never say "you're wrong," but you imply that your way is the only correct way, the moral high path, and all other paths are wrong and should be held in contempt.

By the way, do you have a valid argument to justify the billions of animals currently being cruelly imprisoned, abused, rapped, mutilated and murdered for no other reason than human enjoyment?

Do you think wanting to live compassionately towards all beings is elitist?

this has become an ego battle but not just mine.

you carry on with personal attacks and insults,

I shall add this one to my list of insults. What have I done that is so repugnant?

I'm sorry if you find me inconvenient, but that's not going to make me stop.

3. Here's my favorite point. Y'know that whole "If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically" ? Well, multiple times in this thread multiple users have tried to share with you their opinion that while your motives are understandable (that would be them showing respect for your opinion), they don't agree with how you are carrying it out.

Now, I get ignoring ONE person who tells you you are doing something in a way that not only turns others off, but doesn't help you.

I don't get ignoring THREE, or FOUR, or FIVE. Considering the number of people in this thread you've got a majority that disagree with your methods (though they aren't arguing much about your ethics because we're willing to leave that alone) and instead of hearing, "Hey, maybe you are going about things wrong," you thrust your fists against the posts and still insist you see the ghosts. In other words when faced with a commonly held reality you stand there and go "NO! NO THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IS!"

How many people need to tell you you are coming across as aggressive before you believe it? - Wait - I am pretty sure you will never believe it, or never care.

That's the thing. No one who really cared how they were coming across would demand, insist, even, that other people demonstrate and explain exactly why they are coming across that way without pausing and examining their own behavior, preferably first, at least at the same time. You know you are being antagonistic and you don't give a shit because you think it's worth it for your Cause, while at the same time you hide behind faux innocence and martyred airs. "This thread became about veganism when it didn't have to!"

WELL WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASK "HOW DID YOU FIND YOURSELF' AND THEN POST A RANT ABOUT HOW VEGANS ARE OUTSIDERS? You literally laid bait for this discussion. If you had even simply told the story of how you decided to become vegan, a) you would have been a shit ton more sympathetic to us because we could've related to you, and b) a metric SHIT TON LESS of users would have commented on it (veganism, how you practice it, etc). But no - you set up a fake post designed as an arena upon which you could play out your fantasies of martyring yourself, at least among our public opinion, for your Cause.

4. The other half of this statement is implied. If you allow another person to talk, that means you are supposed to listen. Moreover, if you listen to people, you will better learn how to appeal to them and their personal foibles/strengths/weaknesses/passions/whatever, thus making a more effective argumentative attack.

Where have I stopped anyone from doing a lot of the talk?

However, a person who has spent an entire thread denying that their conversational techniques are offensive/irritating/ineffective despite being told the contrariwise, over and over again, clearly isn't listening to his audience.

5.

Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.

That means you should have tried to lead us to the concept that veganism is better. You could have found out which one of us is staunchly concerned with climate change and begun slowly, inexorably, reasonably built on that concern and lead us to the conclusion that it is better to eat less meat due to methane emissions and so on. You could have found the person who cares about heart health and slowly brought them to the conclusion that eating less meat might be a good way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and trim waistline.

You never brought a single person to the conclusion that veganism/vegetarianism might be better because - to put it in a metaphor from your perspective - we are all at the starting line and you are at the finish. Instead of heading to meet us, at the start, or half way through, and helping us run the race by pacing us, pointing out pitfalls, and offering us water, you have stood at the finish line this entire time screaming about "Why aren't you guys here yet the finish is clearly here and that's the only place anyone in their right mind would want to be!"

_

-

Brah you ain't interested in a discussion and after collecting these quotes I ain't convinced you're really sane.

Bet you a dollar you refuse to see the truth in any of the statements I make in this post. I see straight through your "oh who me? I'm going to argue what 'aggressive' really is because I can derail this conversation via SEMANTICS instead of acknowledging that I railroad conversations in order to jam my big fat dick of a personal mission down people's throats while they're talking."

I will tell you one thing -

I AM THE DARKNESS

I AM THE NIGHT AND I DEFINITELY AM EATING MORE STEAK TONIGHT BECAUSE OF YOU

Also, I'd totally try horse some time, if I could.