View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
dh@. dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:rsjr53pkoojf7okb3g77r0r7siu8ruuj6s@4ax .com...
>>> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
>>> groups.com...
>>> >>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> egroups.com...
>>>
>>> >>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>> >>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>>> >>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
>>> >>>> >> > par
>>> >>>> >> > for
>>> >>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
>>> >>>> >> > expressed
>>> >>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
>>> >>>> >> > have
>>> >>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
>>> >>>> >> > several
>>> >>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
>>> >>>> >> > things
>>> >>>> >> > that
>>> >>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
>>> >>>> >> > just
>>> >>>> >> > one
>>> >>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
>>> >>>> >> > the
>>> >>>> >> > last
>>> >>>> >> > paragraph.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
>>> >>>> >> > side
>>> >>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
>>> >>>> >> > one
>>> >>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
>>> >>>> >> > English.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Yours,
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > D.W.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>>> >>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>>
>>> >>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>>
>>> >>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
>>> >>>> "elegant",
>>> >>>> he
>>> >>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>>>
>>> >>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>>>
>>> >>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?
>>>
>>> > By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>>>
>>> >>Substance is the essence of argument,
>>>
>>> > Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
>>> > argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.
>>>
>>> No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.
>>>
>>> >>only it's substance can have elegance.
>>>
>>> > Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
>>> > up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:
>>>
>>> Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.

>>
>>
>>
>> You clearly are a ninny Dutch.
>>
>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.

>
>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.


Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all. I couldn't find a dictionary
definition, but here it is explained:
__________________________________________________ _______
from: Jeremy
.. . .
It is sort of unfortunate when natural language adjectives get used
scientifically, because they carry over connotations we don't
necessarily want for their technical uses. This is particularly
confusing when the adjectives connote something positive, like
"elegance" . It is hard to imagine someone using the word "elegant"
in natural language without it connoting something positive, and that
can make the technical use of the term seem a little pompous.

"Elegance" in the technical sense is something that can be defined
technically --although not 100% precisely-- , but no one is required
to find this property "elegant" in the natural language sense. They
might even find what we call elegant distasteful, and in fact many do.

Contrast this with an adjective like "concise" , which has both a
technical and natural language use; but these both coincide.

http://tinyurl.com/38ubnn
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
That tells us the term itself was the wrong one to use and doesn't
even apply to what Goo wrote, much less is the misused term
correct in suggesting that the Goober's argument is elegant. He
presented it fairly eloquently, and that's the most that can be said
for it in that regard.

>It never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
>automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
>but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.
>
>>> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
>>> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
>>> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>>>
>>> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
>>> along
>>> with logic and reason.
>>>
>>> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
>>> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
>>> decidely not elegant.

>>
>>
>>
>> Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
>> "ELEGANCE" you ****.

>
>Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
>away." - The Doobie Brothers
>
>> You're getting goofier than Goo.

>
>A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
>convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.


No. You're very wrong. Goo is Goobernicus because he's a moron
who thinks he's a genius, and that is what gives him his glorious Goobal
distinction.

>By that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?


No, because you're lying. You can't be put in the Goobernicus category
for the same reason the Goober lives there, because you're not as extreme
as he is in the Goobal respect. But! Since you're his boy and you support
his lies in similar opposition to giving consideration to the lives of the creatures
on this planet, you are voluntarily on team Goober because you love being
there, making you a goo too.