C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>>I did answer his question in other posts in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>No, you evaded him. Just as you've evaded most of my questions.
>>>
>>>That's untrue.
>>
>>No, James, it's true.
>>
>>
>>>I've tried to answer his questions as well as yours.
>>
>>I've asked a couple times what part(s) of my opinion you found
>>objectionable.
>
>
> I've lost the context of what you asked. Ask me a specific question and I
> will answer it.
>
>
>>>The
>>>exception is when I am repeatedly asked the same questions - I don't
>
> care to
>
>>>repeat myself.
>>
>>You only repeat yourself if you actually answer the question. You didn't.
>
>
> Guess you got me there. Let me modify my statement. I'll answer your
> questions as long as they're not repetitive.
>
>
>>>>First, the questions aren't silly. Second, they're not to torment you.
>>>
>>>That's also untrue.
>>
>>No, both sentences are true. Asking someone to support statements isn't
>>an act of torment, it's a form of discussion, debate, and even
>>intellectual curiosity.
>
>
> It's very obvious that his questions are intended to provoke and antagonize
> people.

No, that's not so. At least, there is no *gratuitous*
provocation. I'm trying to provoke some critical
thinking and honest examination, because I feel there
is sound evidence to suggest that anyone who adheres to
some form of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism
demonstrates a complete absence of such thinking.

> If he were to ask them in a civil and respectful manner, more people
> would respond in kind.

My questions, and the dialogue leading to them, is
entirely civil and respectful. Tell me what's uncivil
or disrespectful about the question at the end of this
exchange, a question you have thus far refused to answer:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?

SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.

Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


Same with this one:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?

SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.

Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?

SeeJames:
> I don't know.

Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And with this one:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?


I think you simply don't LIKE the unpleasant truths
these questions illustrate, SeeJames. Thus, your
tactic: you avoid answering, and when someone else
then objects to your evasion, you casually dismiss the
questions as "uncivil", without even saying what the
questions are. YOU have brought up the idea that
someone is "playing games" in the discussion, SeeJames,
and the person playing games is you.

> Trust me, I'm not the only one who notices this. You
> are being preferential.
>
>
>>>I have not been nasty in a long time.
>>
>>At least you admit that you have been nasty.
>
>
> I never denied it.

Yes, you did, but don't bother. Just answer the questions.

>
>
>>Let me modify what I said.
>>The rest of the time you get really snippy.
>
>
> Well, snippy is a far cry from nasty, isn't it? I tend to get "snippy" when
> I feel provoked. I just want to be treated respectfully and without the
> games. It's not too much to ask...
>
>
>>>If you have evidence to the contrary
>>>then produce it. Jonathon Ball, on the other hand, has been provocative,
>>>abusive, ridiculing, has called me names, and he attacks me at every
>>>opportunity. He is like that with most other people as well. Yet you
>
> falsely
>
>>>accuse me of being nasty.
>>
>>I read what he's written this morning to this, and I think it shows he's
>>behaving with civility.
>
>
> Barely. How about yesterday, or the day before?

Why don't you just answer the entirely civil questions?

>
>
>>>It's not a level playing field with you. Why is that?
>>
>>A level playing field between you and me or between you and another person?
>
> I was talking about the dialog between you and me in this case. You side
> with Jon, ignore his abuse of people and even participate in it yourself,
> and play games to disadvantage other people (see the following response to
> the BK part of this thread as an example).
>
>
>>>>>>>Why would you eat at any commercially prepared foods but turn your
>
> nose
>
>>>>>>>at BK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bet you a SNPA he won't answer it in a civil manner.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because there's nothing at BK that I care to eat.
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong with their food?
>>>
>>>I never said that anything's wrong with their food.
>>
>>If there's nothing wrong with their food, why won't you go to their
>>restaurants?
>
>
> Go back and read it. I wrote: "I never said that anything's wrong with their
> food", not "there's nothing wrong with their food". You subtly twist things
> around to make it sound like I said something I didn't.

If you explicitly said, "I never said that anything's
wrong with their food", when asked what's wrong with
their food, then the implication is that you think
"there's nothing wrong with their food".

There's no twisting going on. You're just being
typically evasive, and when someone pins you down, you
get snippy.

> Then you ask the
> question: "why won't you go to their restaurants?" based on your faulty
> premise. I answered it previously with "because there's nothing at BK that I
> care to eat". It's an example of me having to repeat myself to your
> questions. And you wonder why I get "snippy"...

Actually, I don't think anyone wonders at all.


Now, answer the questions.