View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

Derek wrote:
> 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?


There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.
>
> >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.


OK, I object to the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.
>
> >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.


Nothing to explain, you either care for animals or not.
>
> >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?


There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.
>
> >> >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.


Not the entire list, only those who are paid to call people names for
expressing views contrary to meat industry interests. They even sued
Oprah and lost

>
> >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.


Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
vocabulary than those only engage in name calling? If your answer yes,
it would make a huge difference!
>
> >> >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?


I am having to repeat myself but you are posing the same question:
There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.

>
> >> >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.


How so?