FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

On 14 Jan 2006 08:27:07 -0800, wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread
>> >> you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just
>> >> one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly
>> >> incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your
>> >> critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless
>> >> you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day
>> >> you went even further and wrote,
>> >>
>> >> "Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you
>> >> mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't
>> >> start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find
>> >> out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing
>> >> assholes that start dirt"
>> >>
>> >> My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that
>> >> promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those
>> >> "mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame
>> >> warning time and time again instead of actually making
>> >> them eat that dirt like you promised you would.
>> >>
>> >> >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
>> >> >boring after a while.
>> >>
>> >> Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat
>> >> dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking
>> >> mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing
>> >> it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've
>> >> seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I
>> >> read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly,
>> >> then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're
>> >> trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem
>> >> here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better
>> >> in your question contained in the subject title of this thread,
>> >> the real question should refer to your own efforts against
>> >> your critics, because many of us do do better.
>> >>
>> >> > It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with
>> >> > the meat industry shills disrupting every thread.
>> >>
>> >> No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell,
>> >> Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many
>> >> others I've failed to mention cut through the very same
>> >> critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much
>> >> larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you
>> >> see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were
>> >> still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on
>> >> these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?",
>> >> but rather,
>> >>
>> >> "Can I do better?"
>> >>
>> >> >Could
>> >> >someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists?
>> >> >
>> >> >I propose:
>> >> >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
>> >> >alt.food.vegan.moderated
>> >> >
>> >> >Any ideas?
>> >>
>> >> I remember proposing a moderated group once, but
>> >> soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics
>> >> and promote the proposition of animal rights was to
>> >> meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind
>> >> my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of
>> >> using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with
>> >> critics who are free to say what they want to say, and
>> >> then deal with them on that EQUAL basis.
>> >>
>> >> Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR
>> >> reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold
>> >> the same principle, even though the result of each
>> >> yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on
>> >> ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote;
>> >>
>> >> "Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on
>> >> moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the
>> >> disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
>> >> rendering meat for consumption."
>> >>
>> >> But that doesn't make sense, because how can one
>> >> make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and
>> >> ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting
>> >> and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat
>> >> for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the
>> >> "disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and
>> >> rendering meat for consumption" then from where else
>> >> did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical
>> >> grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose
>> >> of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge
>> >> in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've
>> >> failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain
>> >> from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question,
>> >> and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated
>> >> to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give
>> >> your own if you can and want to.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous
>> >aliases, I do not.
>>
>> They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind
>> the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're
>> meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the
>> courage to explain those reasons.
>
>There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat
>meat.

Then why participate at all? If you're not willing to debate
with your critics, and you feel it's a waste of time debating
with others that share your values, then who are you going
to debate with?

>I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary
>methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and
>that is all there is to it.

No, they are your objections, not your reasons. What's most
interesting about another's objections are his reasons behind
those objections. I object to some very plain and ordinary
things, but it's my reasons behind those objections that most
would find interesting and poignant.

>I posted something close to this and was
>immediately attacked

You were attacked, of course, but those attacks still leave
you plenty of room to explain the principles you use that
lie behind your opinions on those attackers.

>by meat industry shills and I have responded and
>will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for
>those who start name calling when they do not like what they read.

Oh well.

>> >The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded
>> >with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed
>> >to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my
>> >revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.
>>
>> Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be
>> no opposition to your views?
>
>I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my
>compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar
>experiences.

Why? According to you, "If you have compassion for them
then there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
wavelength." Why did you hope to find or form a group that
shares your views, only to find you're unwilling to debate
anything with anyone in it?

>> >What is to debate about?
>>
>> Quite a bit really.
>
>Not interested to debate meat industry shills.

Then you've eliminated your entire choice of people to debate
with, haven't you.

>I do it in my spare time
>what they are obviously doing for money.

Would it make a difference to your argument if you were
arguing with a professional arguer? If not, and it shouldn't,
press on.

>> >Either you have compassion for other living
>> >creatures or you do not.
>>
>> Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they
>> do is wrong, then?
>>
>> >If you have compassion for them then there is
>> >nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength.
>>
>> But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your
>> "values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate
>> with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed"
>> to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the
>> first place?
>
>Because of the name of the list.

But if you don't want to discuss anything with your critics,
and you think it's a waste of time to talk with those already
on your level, you've eliminated everyone, so what made
you decide to participate in a group that your principles
have eliminated you from?

>> >If you do not,
>> >as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those
>> >who do.
>>
>> That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start.
>> Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make
>> that same empty threat?
>
>Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb
>weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do
>little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make
>sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt.

No, I'm afraid you're not doing anything of the sort.