FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

On 14 Jan 2006 09:29:35 -0800, wrote:
>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.

But, by your own word, you're not willing to debate with
them because, "If you have compassion for them then
there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
wavelength." You would have nothing to debate with
them, yet you're proposing to find or set up a group full
of these people you don't want to debate with.

> Meat industry shills are the intruders here.

Meat shills or not - they are your critics and make up the
rest of the percentage of posters outside your chosen
percentage of posters you've no interest in debating with.
Can't you see that you're trying to find a forum where
your principles dictate that you can't participate in it?

>> >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.

Fine. Now if you could explain your reasoning behind this
objection, as asked, a debate might take place.

>> >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.

Further down this page, in response to that comment,
I wrote, Do you believe a person cannot be shown that
what they do is wrong, then? You ignored that response
by failing to answer. Are you going to ignore it again?

>> >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.

Maybe, but you've declared that you have nothing to
debate with these people because they're all "on the
same wavelength". If an exchange of ideas isn't a
debate, and this isn't what you're looking for, what
made you decide to participate 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

Most anti-meat protesters would relish the chance in
taking on a paid hack, so why not 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.
>
>Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
>vocabulary than those only engage in name calling?

No, I'm a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds.

>If your answer yes,
>it would make a huge difference!

Why?

>> >> >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.

An "exchange of ideas" is a debate, and yet you refuse to
take any part in debates, and you refuse to take part in
debates with people who share the same values as
you do, so I can only repeat my question and ask why
you decided to post here when your stated principles
dictate that you won't.

>> >> >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?

Calling people names and just threatening to make them eat
dirt isn't actually making them eat that proverbial dirt. Did you
know that?