"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> >
> > > > >>The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
> > > > >>belief that you have mastered logic
> > >
> > > I've always understood it.
> >
> > If you understand logic then explain the following BASIC BLUNDER.
>
> I haven't made one. You, on the other hand make
> the same mistake over and over without realising,
> even when corrected half a dozen times. You're
> incredibly thick.
>
> > You presented the following as valid logic.
> >
> No, I didn't. You've made yet another mistake,
> dummy.

Yes you did, it's right there for anyone to see.

> > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products I cause less farmed animals
to
> > suffer and die.
>
> You've missed something out of that premise and
> made yet another error. That's not my argument.

It's copied and pasted verbatim. The only words I removed were the
parenthesized labels (antecedent) and (consequent) which have no effect on
the meaning of the statements.

> > 2) I abstain from farmed animal products
> > therefore
> > 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die

Also copied and pasted from your words..

> > X = I abstain from farmed animal products
> > Y = I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die
> >
> > Your "logic" can be represented as
> >
> > 1) If X, therefore Y
>
> Wrong. You'll never get it.

Copied and pasted directly from you, only substituting X and Y for your
statements..

> > 2) X
> > therefore
> > 3) Y
> >
> > <???>
> >
> > A circular regurgitation of the original premiss, no logic involved.
>
> Not where you're concerned, no. Pick up a book
> and learn something about deductive reasoning and
> logic. Don't expect me to waste my time teaching you.

No fear of that. You don't have the first clue, you're a paper cutout.. The
jig is up, again, and Google has a permanent record of all your foolishness.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> > >
> > > > > >>The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
> > > > > >>belief that you have mastered logic
> > > >
> > > > I've always understood it.
> > >
> > > If you understand logic then explain the following BASIC BLUNDER.
> >
> > I haven't made one. You, on the other hand make
> > the same mistake over and over without realising,
> > even when corrected half a dozen times. You're
> > incredibly thick.
> >
> > > You presented the following as valid logic.
> > >
> > No, I didn't. You've made yet another mistake,
> > dummy.
>
> Yes

Then don't.

> > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products I cause
> > > less farmed animals to suffer and die.
> >
> > You've missed something out of that premise and
> > made yet another error. That's not my argument.
>
> It's copied and pasted verbatim.

No, you didn't, and you're about to admit it, too.

> The only words I removed were the parenthesized
> labels (antecedent) and (consequent) which have no
> effect on the meaning of the statements.

Then you didn't copy and paste it verbatim, did
you? You're a joke. You missed out the "then"
component to it as well. A conditional "if, then"
proposition must have all its terms laid out exactly.
Get yourself sorted out.

For the final time, my argument goes;

1) If x (antecedent), then y (consequent)
2) x (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) y (affirms the consequent)

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
then I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

Look at it and learn it.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> ipse dixit wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
> >
> >>You've never understood it. You never will.
> >>
> >
> > How long do you think you can snip and hide
> > from this awful error, Jon?
>
> Not hiding from anything, Dreck. You don't understand
> logic, full stop. It's why you called a Denying the
> Antecedent argument valid.
>
> I understand and work with logic; you don't. You're a
> self-cripped joke.
>
> I'm going to go back to ignoring you, Dreck. You're
> not even amusing any more.

LAUGHING OUT LOUD!

The evil monster Jonathan (No) Balls wrote:
"I understand and work with logic; you don't. You're a self-cripped joke."

The day you "work" with logic I will be ice skating in hell with the Detroit Red Wings!

Tell me the logic of replying to a discussion and trying to win an argument by making references to a persons
disabilities. You are one sick **** that absolutely no one will ever respect. A-typical child of Klu Klux Klan!

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > >>The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
> > > > > > >>belief that you have mastered logic
> > > > >
> > > > > I've always understood it.
> > > >
> > > > If you understand logic then explain the following BASIC BLUNDER.
> > >
> > > I haven't made one. You, on the other hand make
> > > the same mistake over and over without realising,
> > > even when corrected half a dozen times. You're
> > > incredibly thick.
> > >
> > > > You presented the following as valid logic.
> > > >
> > > No, I didn't. You've made yet another mistake,
> > > dummy.
> >
> > Yes
>
> Then don't.
>
> > > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products I cause
> > > > less farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >
> > > You've missed something out of that premise and
> > > made yet another error. That's not my argument.
> >
> > It's copied and pasted verbatim.
>
> No, you didn't, and you're about to admit it, too.
>
> > The only words I removed were the parenthesized
> > labels (antecedent) and (consequent) which have no
> > effect on the meaning of the statements.
>
> Then you didn't copy and paste it verbatim, did
> you?

The labels don't have any effect on the logical structure, MORON. Their only
function was to make it look like you know something. You don't.

You're a joke. You missed out the "then"
> component to it as well. A conditional "if, then"
> proposition must have all its terms laid out exactly.

Therefore is a synomym for then, IDIOT.

> Get yourself sorted out.

ROTFL!!!!!

> For the final time, my argument goes;
>
> 1) If x (antecedent), then y (consequent)
> 2) x (affirms the antecedent)
> therefore
> 3) y (affirms the consequent)
>
> 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
> then I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
> 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
> therefore
> 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

Pure rubbish
>
> Look at it and learn it.

I have, it's a nonsense circular set of statements, 2) and 3) are simply
repeating 1). You taught me that you're a complete idiot. But I already knew
that, so again you teach me nothing new.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> will still be readable.

I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
helps.


> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in
message
> >
.net...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:

> > It's still better than doing nothing.
>
> Why? If the moral reasoning that leads you to believe
> you ought not kill animals is that animals have some
> kind of *right* not to have their lives ended
> unnecessarily, casually and without consequence for
> humans, then you simply *cannot* look at some small,
> symbolic reduction as an improvement.
>
> This gets back to a contrived example I gave earlier,
> about two guys sexually abusing a neighbor child. If
> they began the abuse at the same rate, but one of them
> subsequently reduces the frequency of his rape to 1/2
> or 1/4 or 1/500 of what the other guy does, it is
> absurd to call that reduction an "improvement". He
> must STOP altogether.

We see this issue differently. The difference between your
rape example and preventing animal suffering and deaths is
that rape is individually preventable while animal suffering
and deaths are not. Animals are used in many ways for many
things - no one person can do anything to stop it. In that
context, REDUCING animal suffering and deaths is more
practical and realizable.

> > It's a personal endeavor and doesn't necessarly have to
prevail anywhere
> > except in ourselves. Other people should respect that as
long as it doesn't
> > infringe on them.
>
> I think you may be equivocating on the word "respect".
> I do respect your right to follow whatever path you
> choose to follow regarding your diet, where respect
> means "acknowledge (your right) and refrain from
> interfering with". I do not respect your reasoning,
> where respect is taken to mean "hold in high esteem".
> I think the reasoning is utterly fallacious, shoddy,
> and incorporates a huge and, to my mind, revolting
> about of sanctimony. To the extent that many, probably
> most, "aras" want to *impose* an "ar" regime on the
> larger society, I not only don't respect their views, I
> consider it my duty actively to oppose them, and to
> expose the adherents as advocates of an intolerable
> authoritarian political regime. This is not a trivial
> matter.

That's fine. You obviously feel much stronger about this
issue than I do. I am not an animal activist and I don't
actively support animal rights organizations. I do
sympathize with the use of animals for our conveniences and
I am conscious of my participation in it. To that end, I DO
believe that a vegetarian diet contributes positively to the
welfare of animals, directly and indirectly.

> > But the sense that
> > the vegan diet/lifestyle "beats" the omnivore diet in
terms of minimizing
> > animal deaths is reasonable, even without hard proof.
>
> It's plausible, but only with so many restrictions on
> it that it becomes completely hollow.

I think it's more than plausible.

> > Nobody is trying to
> > prove anything beyond doubt, the "sense" that they're
making a difference is
> > good enough for many vegans. My opinion.
>
> I'm sorry; I can't help but view that sense of making a
> difference as naive and sanctimonious.

Maybe naive but certainly not sanctimonious.

> > The interesting thing is that the "wetland" created
> > provides habitat for many species of wildlife. I wonder
how many lives are
> > also created as a result of rice production.
>
> Oh, noooooo! That's exactly the same argument that
> David Harrison, better known as ****WIT, has been
> making here for over four and a half years.

It seems reasonable to me.

> His use of
> it is specifically about the "billions" of farm animals
> who are bred and slaughtered for meat. He considers it
> morally good that those animals at least "got to
> experience life". The refutation of this absurd belief
> is eloquently presented in an essay by late 19th/early
> 20th century British essayist and vegetarian named
> Henry Salt. Do a search on "The Logic of the Larder",
> with or without the additional keywords of Salt's name.
>
> I arrived at the same conclusion independently, without
> ever having heard of Salt. While I believe meat eating
> to be morally acceptable, the notion that it is
> acceptable because of some kind of trade off, because
> of viewing the "getting to experience life" on the part
> of the farm animals as some kind of morally
> praiseworthy thing, is absurd.

I suppose that "getting to experience life" issue is too
deep for me. Nobody knows if it's a good thing or a bad
thing since we don't know what the alternatives are. Life is
no great shakes for many animals who suffer for our
conveniences.

> I highly recommend Salt's essay. It's an excellent
> example of logical reasoning, and it's written in that
> excellent 19th century style.

I'll look it up.

> > I agree that not consuming animal parts won't eliminate
animal death and
> > suffering, but disagree that it won't 'minimize' to some
degree.
>
> "Minimize" implies having counted, and no "vegan" has
> ever counted, or even attempted to do a reasonable
> thought experiment.

There is no evidence that God exists either, but there are
lots of people believe that He does exist. Religion and
science have always been at odds over things like
quantitative/qualitative data and leaps of faith (I am NOT
supporting the notion that veganism is a religion!). But
there are some beliefs that may be reasonably inferred by
observation and contemplation, if not from facts.

> > I don't see anything wrong with wanting to be vegan for
self-image purposes
> > as long as it's not pretentious and is based on some
reasonable principle
> > (health, environment, "minimize" animal death and
suffering, etc.).
>
> I consider self-flattery, which is what a focus on
> self-image is all about, always to be a bad thing.

I assume that you care what you look like, what you smell
like, and through your behaviors to be presentable to
yourself as well as other people. Everyone has a self-image
that demands some care and attention. Obsession with
self-image can be a bad thing.

> > However,
> > I see some vegans who obviously are trying to cast
themselves in a
> > pretentious light for other people. Almost as if they
display "VEGAN" on
> > their chests (I have seen T-shirts like this).
>
> Exactly the problem. Even those who are (just barely)
> wise enough not to display an overtly visible symbol
> like that still often exude that smarmy sanctimony.

Maybe you're particularly sensitive to it.

> Here's an example of that, one that doesn't stem from
> "veganism" per se, but from something closely related.
> There was a small health-food chain here in L.A.
> called Mrs. Gooches, which was later bought out by
> Whole Foods (I and others called them Mrs. Gouges, as
> the prices were astronomical.) I went into one of them
> one time to look for something a visiting German friend
> wanted, called "grape sugar" (the stuff he wanted, not
> the name of my friend.) I found one of those
> irritating overweight tangle-haired hairy-legged "earth
> mother" types - you *know* what I'm talking about - and
> asked her if they carried grape sugar. Her literal
> reply, seen in writing, would be considered
> inoffensive: "We don't carry any sugar." But the look
> in her eyes, and the way she emphasized "any", all
> shrieked "CONDESCENSION!" She didn't literally have to
> say "We at Mrs. Gouges are morally superior, so we
> don't carry any sugar"; way she said what she said
> conveyed that anyway.

Well, the fact that she looks down her nose at you is her
problem, not yours. I understand that it's no fun to feel
condescended, but why take it so personally? Just don't
patronize her business anymore and warn everyone you know to
stay away. I think there must be some aspect of Darwinism
that applies to business as well.

> > I am vegetarian mostly because I think it's healthier
for me.
>
> While I don't believe it's necessary to abstain
> completely from meat to be healthy, there is little
> doubt that eating less meat than what has long been
> typical in North America is a more healthful diet.

Somehow I'm reminded of the irony of your rape example...

> > I also think it makes a difference for environmental
reasons.
>
> Only in terms of how most commercial meat is produced.
> However, any given person can completely abstain from
> commercial meat; certainly one can choose more
> environmentally friendly meat.

I see it as a bigger issue than that, and one that is
probably off topic for now.

> > If I could assign
> > percentages to my rationale, health would get something
like 60% and
> > environmental concerns would get something like 30%.
That leaves the
> > remaining 10% for so-called "ethical" reasons. Given
that, I believe that
> > being vegetarian also makes a difference in reducing
animal suffering and
> > deaths, though not as much as "vegan". Another factor is
that I am so far
> > unwilling to give up cheese products!
>
> But cheese products are "offenders" according to all of
> the reasons you've given.

You're right. All I can say is that I enjoy eating cheese
more than I care about the ethics involved. Though I don't
eat a lot of cheese and I do eat soy cheese (which I know
can still contain dairy products).

> > Maybe not completely. Keep in mind the 10% factor, so
I'm not THAT
> > concerned whether it's totally rational or not.
>
> Note, though, that you elected to join the fray
> entirely over my comments about the ethics. I wasn't
> commenting originally on someone's health concerns at
> all, and only relatively recently, and minorly, over
> environmental concerns.

It was an attempt to give you some understanding of context.

> > Hopefully, I've clarified my position on this. I'm not
particularly
> > interested in eliminating or even minimizing animal
suffering and deaths,
> > but I'm satisfied to think that I am doing something to
reduce it.
>
> See above. Until you've really analyzed the individual
> components of your diet and the means by which they are
> produced and distributed, I don't think even a
> relatively weak conclusion like "reduction" is supported.

We understand each other even if we don't agree on all the
issues.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> > a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> > will still be readable.
>
> I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> helps.

lol! Classic.

<..>

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>>will still be readable.
>
>
> I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> helps.
>
>
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in
>
> message
>
> .net...
>
>>>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>
>>>It's still better than doing nothing.
>>
>>Why? If the moral reasoning that leads you to believe
>>you ought not kill animals is that animals have some
>>kind of *right* not to have their lives ended
>>unnecessarily, casually and without consequence for
>>humans, then you simply *cannot* look at some small,
>>symbolic reduction as an improvement.
>>
>>This gets back to a contrived example I gave earlier,
>>about two guys sexually abusing a neighbor child. If
>>they began the abuse at the same rate, but one of them
>>subsequently reduces the frequency of his rape to 1/2
>>or 1/4 or 1/500 of what the other guy does, it is
>>absurd to call that reduction an "improvement". He
>>must STOP altogether.
>
>
> We see this issue differently. The difference between your
> rape example and preventing animal suffering and deaths is
> that rape is individually preventable while animal suffering
> and deaths are not.

One's INVOLVEMENT in animal suffering is indeed
individually preventable, albeit at considerable effort
and cost.

> Animals are used in many ways for many
> things - no one person can do anything to stop it.

One can do much to eliminate one's personal involvement
in it.

> In that
> context, REDUCING animal suffering and deaths is more
> practical and realizable.

One STILL needs a rational and *well defined* stopping
rule, which, to my mind, no "vegan" has ever presented.
It all appears very ad hoc and imprecise. Please
understand that I don't mean "ad hoc and imprecise" as
some kind of sneering blast; I genuinely do see those
qualities as real problems, given the moral claims
being made.

>
>
>>>It's a personal endeavor and doesn't necessarly have to
>>> prevail anywhere
>>>except in ourselves. Other people should respect that as
>>>> long as it doesn't infringe on them.
>>
>>I think you may be equivocating on the word "respect".
>>I do respect your right to follow whatever path you
>>choose to follow regarding your diet, where respect
>>means "acknowledge (your right) and refrain from
>>interfering with". I do not respect your reasoning,
>>where respect is taken to mean "hold in high esteem".
>>I think the reasoning is utterly fallacious, shoddy,
>>and incorporates a huge and, to my mind, revolting
>>amout of sanctimony. To the extent that many, probably
>>most, "aras" want to *impose* an "ar" regime on the
>>larger society, I not only don't respect their views, I
>>consider it my duty actively to oppose them, and to
>>expose the adherents as advocates of an intolerable
>>authoritarian political regime. This is not a trivial
>>matter.
>
>
> That's fine. You obviously feel much stronger about this
> issue than I do. I am not an animal activist and I don't
> actively support animal rights organizations. I do
> sympathize with the use of animals for our conveniences and
> I am conscious of my participation in it. To that end, I DO
> believe that a vegetarian diet contributes positively to the
> welfare of animals, directly and indirectly.
>
>
>>>But the sense that
>>>the vegan diet/lifestyle "beats" the omnivore diet in terms of minimizing
>>>animal deaths is reasonable, even without hard proof.
>>
>>It's plausible, but only with so many restrictions on
>>it that it becomes completely hollow.
>
>
> I think it's more than plausible.

But it remains a "counting game", where a counting game
is inappropriate. The nature of the underlying belief
- "casually causing the death and suffering of animals
is wrong" - demands more than a mere reduction with no
coherent stopping rule. I think it demands AT LEAST
the following, and probably much mo

1. A effort, intensive and extensive, to identify all
the ways
in which the elements of one's lifestyle
negatively affect
animals, and an equally intensive and extensive effort
to eliminate them.

2. WITHIN the confines of a strictly vegetarian diet,
an effort
to identify relatively higher CD vegetables and
fruits,
and a complete elimination of them from the diet.
No "vegan"
ought to be eating any rice, EVER.

>
>
>>>Nobody is trying to
>>>prove anything beyond doubt, the "sense" that they're
>>>making a difference is
>
>>>good enough for many vegans. My opinion.
>>
>>I'm sorry; I can't help but view that sense of making a
>>difference as naive and sanctimonious.
>
>
> Maybe naive but certainly not sanctimonious.

Very often sanctimonious, James. See my comment about
the woman and the sugar at Mrs. Gooch's. I hear and
read "vegans" pompously announcing they don't eat
"*any*" meat inexactly the same tone. That's pure
sanctimony.

The key problem here is that the difference, if indeed
there is any, is NOWHERE NEAR large enough to justify
the moral conclusion that "vegans" reach.

>
>
>>>The interesting thing is that the "wetland" created
>>>provides habitat for many species of wildlife. I wonder
>> how many lives are also created as a result of rice production.
>>
>>Oh, noooooo! That's exactly the same argument that
>>David Harrison, better known as ****WIT, has been
>>making here for over four and a half years.
>
>
> It seems reasonable to me.

It isn't. You really should read the "Logic of the
Larder" essay.

>
>
>>His use of
>>it is specifically about the "billions" of farm animals
>>who are bred and slaughtered for meat. He considers it
>>morally good that those animals at least "got to
>>experience life". The refutation of this absurd belief
>>is eloquently presented in an essay by late 19th/early
>>20th century British essayist and vegetarian named
>>Henry Salt. Do a search on "The Logic of the Larder",
>>with or without the additional keywords of Salt's name.
>>
>>I arrived at the same conclusion independently, without
>>ever having heard of Salt. While I believe meat eating
>>to be morally acceptable, the notion that it is
>>acceptable because of some kind of trade off, because
>>of viewing the "getting to experience life" on the part
>>of the farm animals as some kind of morally
>>praiseworthy thing, is absurd.
>
>
> I suppose that "getting to experience life" issue is too
> deep for me. Nobody knows if it's a good thing or a bad
> thing since we don't know what the alternatives are.

Exactly right. In a nutshell: we don't know if
animals "exist" in some kind of a "pre-born" state or
not, although there's no *evidence* to suggest they do;
one would have to fall back on religious belief. If
they don't, then "getting to experience life" CANNOT be
a benefit to the animals, because they aren't moving
from a worse state of existence to a better one (the
definition of "benefit"). If they DO "exist" prior to
conception and birth, we *still* don't know if the
"pre-existence" state is better than, worse than or
exactly as good as earthly existence, and so we *still*
cannot conclude that "getting to experience life", as
****WIT Harrison calls it, is a "benefit" to them.

> Life is
> no great shakes for many animals who suffer for our
> conveniences.
>
>
>>I highly recommend Salt's essay. It's an excellent
>>example of logical reasoning, and it's written in that
>>excellent 19th century style.
>
>
> I'll look it up.
>
>
>>>I agree that not consuming animal parts won't eliminate
>>> animal death and
>>>suffering, but disagree that it won't 'minimize' to some degree.
>
>>"Minimize" implies having counted, and no "vegan" has
>>ever counted, or even attempted to do a reasonable
>>thought experiment.
>
>
> There is no evidence that God exists either, but there are
> lots of people believe that He does exist.

Right. That's an irrational belief. "Irrational"
doesn't mean "crazy" or "nuts", it just means not based
in rationality. Rationality, however, is required when
trying to analyze something that is numerical in concept.

> Religion and
> science have always been at odds over things like
> quantitative/qualitative data and leaps of faith (I am NOT
> supporting the notion that veganism is a religion!).

That's okay; I'll handle that end of it.

> But there are some beliefs that may be reasonably inferred by
> observation and contemplation, if not from facts.

A claim of minimization is not one of them.

>
>
>>>I don't see anything wrong with wanting to be vegan for self-image purposes
>>>as long as it's not pretentious and is based on some reasonable principle
>>>(health, environment, "minimize" animal death and suffering, etc.).
>
>>I consider self-flattery, which is what a focus on
>>self-image is all about, always to be a bad thing.
>
>
> I assume that you care what you look like, what you smell
> like, and through your behaviors to be presentable to
> yourself as well as other people. Everyone has a self-image
> that demands some care and attention. Obsession with
> self-image can be a bad thing.
>
>
>>>However,
>>>I see some vegans who obviously are trying to cast themselves in a
>>>pretentious light for other people. Almost as if they display "VEGAN" on
>>>their chests (I have seen T-shirts like this).
>>
>>Exactly the problem. Even those who are (just barely)
>>wise enough not to display an overtly visible symbol
>>like that still often exude that smarmy sanctimony.
>
>
> Maybe you're particularly sensitive to it.

I don't know if I'm overly sensitive to it or not, but
having been around lots of "vegans", mostly here but in
person as well, I certainly have some sensitivity to
it. I don't think that's ground for any criticism.

>
>
>>Here's an example of that, one that doesn't stem from
>>"veganism" per se, but from something closely related.
>> There was a small health-food chain here in L.A.
>>called Mrs. Gooch's, which was later bought out by
>>Whole Foods (I and others called them Mrs. Gouges, as
>>the prices were astronomical.) I went into one of them
>>one time to look for something a visiting German friend
>>wanted, called "grape sugar" (the stuff he wanted, not
>>the name of my friend.) I found one of those
>>irritating overweight tangle-haired hairy-legged "earth
>>mother" types - you *know* what I'm talking about - and
>>asked her if they carried grape sugar. Her literal
>>reply, seen in writing, would be considered
>>inoffensive: "We don't carry any sugar." But the look
>>in her eyes, and the way she emphasized "any", all
>>shrieked "CONDESCENSION!" She didn't literally have to
>>say "We at Mrs. Gouges are morally superior, so we
>>don't carry any sugar"; way she said what she said
>>conveyed that anyway.
>
>
> Well, the fact that she looks down her nose at you is her
> problem, not yours.

No, it wasn't; it was MY problem: I went into that
store with a legitimate product request, and I got
treated like dirt, because I also and unfortunately
went into the store ignorant of the sanctimonious
attitude of the staff towards the majority part of the
public who don't share their extremist food beliefs.

> I understand that it's no fun to feel
> condescended, but why take it so personally?

Because it was AIMED personally!

> Just don't
> patronize her business anymore and warn everyone you know to
> stay away. I think there must be some aspect of Darwinism
> that applies to business as well.

Even after Mrs. Gooch's was bought out by Whole Foods,
the Economist magazine once referred to them as selling
equal parts food and sanctimony. I go to a Whole Foods
near me because they carry some excellent products, but
there really is an unpleasant stench of sanctimony in
the place.

>
>
>>>I am vegetarian mostly because I think it's healthier for me.
>
>>While I don't believe it's necessary to abstain
>>completely from meat to be healthy, there is little
>>doubt that eating less meat than what has long been
>>typical in North America is a more healthful diet.
>
>
> Somehow I'm reminded of the irony of your rape example...

Why? Good health has no moral dimension to it, at
least not directly; I think I owe it to my son to try
to remain healthy, given that I had him pretty late in
life and I'm worried about living long enough to see
him reach adulthood. In that sense, there might be a
moral dimension to the pursuit of good health, but it's
a moral obligation I have to a specific person, whom I
know and to whom I am related.

The rape example, by contrast, was about a person
claiming to be "more ethical" because he cut his
performance of an instrinsically vile and immoral
action to some non-zero fraction of what it once had been.

>
>
>>>I also think it makes a difference for environmental
>
> reasons.
>
>>Only in terms of how most commercial meat is produced.
>>However, any given person can completely abstain from
>>commercial meat; certainly one can choose more
>>environmentally friendly meat.
>
>
> I see it as a bigger issue than that, and one that is
> probably off topic for now.
>
>
>>>If I could assign
>>>percentages to my rationale, health would get something like 60% and
>>>environmental concerns would get something like 30%. That leaves the
>>>remaining 10% for so-called "ethical" reasons. Given that, I believe that
>>>being vegetarian also makes a difference in reducing animal suffering and
>>>deaths, though not as much as "vegan". Another factor is that I am so far
>>>unwilling to give up cheese products!
>>
>>But cheese products are "offenders" according to all of
>>the reasons you've given.
>
>
> You're right. All I can say is that I enjoy eating cheese
> more than I care about the ethics involved.

I was talking about your health, but you bring up the
fundamental problem again: ethics can't be
shortchanged. You can't look at "being ethical" as
something that you can fractionally do. Either you're
ethical, or you're not. If you cheat on your timesheet
by indicating an extra half hour of time that you
weren't really working, three days a week; and your
colleague does the same thing five days a week; and you
now reduce your time chiseling to one day a week: you
still are cheating your employer and behaving
unethically. If he catches you, your protest that you
aren't doing it as badly as you once did, or that you
never did it as badly as your colleague, won't get you
any more generous treatment: you'll still be
terminated, and quite rightly.

> Though I don't
> eat a lot of cheese and I do eat soy cheese (which I know
> can still contain dairy products).
>
>
>>>Maybe not completely. Keep in mind the 10% factor, so
>> > I'm not THAT concerned whether it's totally rational
or not.
>>
>>Note, though, that you elected to join the fray
>>entirely over my comments about the ethics. I wasn't
>>commenting originally on someone's health concerns at
>>all, and only relatively recently, and minorly, over
>>environmental concerns.
>
>
> It was an attempt to give you some understanding of context.
>
>
>>>Hopefully, I've clarified my position on this. I'm not particularly
>>>interested in eliminating or even minimizing animal suffering and deaths,
>>>but I'm satisfied to think that I am doing something to reduce it.
>
>>See above. Until you've really analyzed the individual
>>components of your diet and the means by which they are
>>produced and distributed, I don't think even a
>>relatively weak conclusion like "reduction" is supported.
>
>
> We understand each other even if we don't agree on all the
> issues.
>
>
>
>

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>>will still be readable.
>
> I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> helps.

See? Civility isn't so bad.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> >>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> >>will still be readable.
> >
> > I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> > helps.
>
> See? Civility isn't so bad.

I've always preferred it. Gotta go both ways though....

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> > > See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> > > a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> > > will still be readable.
> >
> > I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> > helps.
>
> lol! Classic.

Is there a problem with this?

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> > >
> > > > See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> > > > a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> > > > will still be readable.
> > >
> > > I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> > > helps.
> >
> > lol! Classic.
>
> Is there a problem with this?

She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
because when someone asks the other to adjust their
line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
making all his posts a right mess.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > > See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> > > > > a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> > > > > will still be readable.
> > > >
> > > > I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> > > > helps.
> > >
> > > lol! Classic.
> >
> > Is there a problem with this?
>
> She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
> because when someone asks the other to adjust their
> line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
> than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
> That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
> post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
> been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
> line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
> making all his posts a right mess.
>
>

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...

Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in the morning...

> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > > See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> > > > > a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> > > > > will still be readable.
> > > >
> > > > I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> > > > helps.
> > >
> > > lol! Classic.
> >
> > Is there a problem with this?
>
> She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
> because when someone asks the other to adjust their
> line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
> than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
> That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
> post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
> been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
> line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
> making all his posts a right mess.

Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>>>>will still be readable.
>>>
>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
>>>helps.
>>
>>See? Civility isn't so bad.
>
> I've always preferred it.

Yeah, sure. At least you're being civil now.

> Gotta go both ways though....

What you do in the privacy of your home is your own business. ;-)

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...

> > We see this issue differently. The difference between your
> > rape example and preventing animal suffering and deaths is
> > that rape is individually preventable while animal suffering
> > and deaths are not.
>
> One's INVOLVEMENT in animal suffering is indeed
> individually preventable, albeit at considerable effort
> and cost.

I don't understand your use of the word 'involvement', especially since you emphasized it. If we're talking about only food then
MAYBE animal suffering and death is totally avoidable with great effort, as you say. There are other non-food things that we
generally don't know about or don't have any control over. Meds are one example I can think of.

> > In that
> > context, REDUCING animal suffering and deaths is more
> > practical and realizable.
>
> One STILL needs a rational and *well defined* stopping
> rule, which, to my mind, no "vegan" has ever presented.
> It all appears very ad hoc and imprecise.

I don't see why you need a 'stopping rule'. How can you possibly quantify it. People make individual efforts based on their
passions, abilities, and knowledge. It's one of those things one continues to work on and improve.

> Please
> understand that I don't mean "ad hoc and imprecise" as
> some kind of sneering blast; I genuinely do see those
> qualities as real problems, given the moral claims
> being made.

I didn't take it that way. Trust me, I will know when you make sneering blasts. You're not subtle about it. :^)

> >>>But the sense that
> >>>the vegan diet/lifestyle "beats" the omnivore diet in terms of minimizing
> >>>animal deaths is reasonable, even without hard proof.
> >>
> >>It's plausible, but only with so many restrictions on
> >>it that it becomes completely hollow.
> >
> >
> > I think it's more than plausible.
>
> But it remains a "counting game", where a counting game
> is inappropriate. The nature of the underlying belief
> - "casually causing the death and suffering of animals
> is wrong" - demands more than a mere reduction with no
> coherent stopping rule. I think it demands AT LEAST
> the following, and probably much mo
>
> 1. A effort, intensive and extensive, to identify all
> the ways
> in which the elements of one's lifestyle
> negatively affect
> animals, and an equally intensive and extensive effort
> to eliminate them.
>
> 2. WITHIN the confines of a strictly vegetarian diet,
> an effort
> to identify relatively higher CD vegetables and
> fruits,
> and a complete elimination of them from the diet.
> No "vegan"
> ought to be eating any rice, EVER.

The 'counting game' is only useful for comparisons, say between herbivores and omnivores. Okay, it could be useful for quantifying
progress in *reducing* animal suffering and deaths. But it's essentially meaningless because we have no good way to count. I
essentially agree with you that AR vegans and other such activists should make it a life's 'project' to identify and eliminate all
sources of AS&D (I'm getting tire of typing "animal suffering and death") rather than just blindly jumping on the vegan bandwagon
thinking that all animal lives will be saved.

> > I suppose that "getting to experience life" issue is too
> > deep for me. Nobody knows if it's a good thing or a bad
> > thing since we don't know what the alternatives are.
>
> Exactly right. In a nutshell: we don't know if
> animals "exist" in some kind of a "pre-born" state or
> not, although there's no *evidence* to suggest they do;
> one would have to fall back on religious belief. If
> they don't, then "getting to experience life" CANNOT be
> a benefit to the animals, because they aren't moving
> from a worse state of existence to a better one (the
> definition of "benefit"). If they DO "exist" prior to
> conception and birth, we *still* don't know if the
> "pre-existence" state is better than, worse than or
> exactly as good as earthly existence, and so we *still*
> cannot conclude that "getting to experience life", as
> ****WIT Harrison calls it, is a "benefit" to them.

Agreed.

> > There is no evidence that God exists either, but there are
> > lots of people believe that He does exist.
>
> Right. That's an irrational belief. "Irrational"
> doesn't mean "crazy" or "nuts", it just means not based
> in rationality. Rationality, however, is required when
> trying to analyze something that is numerical in concept.

You mean like the 'counting game'!

> > Religion and
> > science have always been at odds over things like
> > quantitative/qualitative data and leaps of faith (I am NOT
> > supporting the notion that veganism is a religion!).
>
> That's okay; I'll handle that end of it.

No doubt...

> > But there are some beliefs that may be reasonably inferred by
> > observation and contemplation, if not from facts.
>
> A claim of minimization is not one of them.

I'm tempted to say that minimization may not all into that category but reduction does, but they both require some sort of
numerical quantification. I guess my point here is that it's good enough for a lot of poeple to have a sense for the consequences
for their actions in lieu of actual proof. You are rigid in demanding proof.

> >>Exactly the problem. Even those who are (just barely)
> >>wise enough not to display an overtly visible symbol
> >>like that still often exude that smarmy sanctimony.
> >
> >
> > Maybe you're particularly sensitive to it.
>
> I don't know if I'm overly sensitive to it or not, but
> having been around lots of "vegans", mostly here but in
> person as well, I certainly have some sensitivity to
> it. I don't think that's ground for any criticism.

My comment wasn't meant to be critical. It's just an observation that you seem very sensitive to the AR/vegan dilemma in ethics.
You are more passionate about it than I am.

> > Well, the fact that she looks down her nose at you is her
> > problem, not yours.
>
> No, it wasn't; it was MY problem: I went into that
> store with a legitimate product request, and I got
> treated like dirt, because I also and unfortunately
> went into the store ignorant of the sanctimonious
> attitude of the staff towards the majority part of the
> public who don't share their extremist food beliefs.

Is this what set you off against AR/vegans?

> >>While I don't believe it's necessary to abstain
> >>completely from meat to be healthy, there is little
> >>doubt that eating less meat than what has long been
> >>typical in North America is a more healthful diet.
> >
> >
> > Somehow I'm reminded of the irony of your rape example...
>
> Why?

It's almost like a double standard - if less of something is better then why would one ever settle for less than zero? If you
believe that "there is little doubt that eating less meat than what has long been typical in NOrth America is a more healthful
diet", then why don't you "believe it's necessary to abstain completely from meat to be healthy"?

> Good health has no moral dimension to it, at
> least not directly; I think I owe it to my son to try
> to remain healthy, given that I had him pretty late in
> life and I'm worried about living long enough to see
> him reach adulthood. In that sense, there might be a
> moral dimension to the pursuit of good health, but it's
> a moral obligation I have to a specific person, whom I
> know and to whom I am related.

All the more reason to endeavor to be as healthy as possible.

> The rape example, by contrast, was about a person
> claiming to be "more ethical" because he cut his
> performance of an instrinsically vile and immoral
> action to some non-zero fraction of what it once had been.

I still say that less rape is better than more rape. I agree that zero rape is ideal.

> > You're right. All I can say is that I enjoy eating cheese
> > more than I care about the ethics involved.
>
> I was talking about your health, but you bring up the
> fundamental problem again: ethics can't be
> shortchanged. You can't look at "being ethical" as
> something that you can fractionally do. Either you're
> ethical, or you're not.

Okay, but you're tying ethics into things in which they don't necessarily apply, at least in the same ways. We generally think
it's not ethical to murder other people, yet we murder animals as a matter of course. We draw that line based on the premise that
animal lives don't have the same value as human lives. NOt all people draw that line in the same place. Example: I eat cheese
knowing that animals probably suffer and die as a result. Example: you regularly eat meat knowing that eating LESS meat is
healthier, yet you feel a moral obligation of being there for your son as he grows up (not to mention possibly burdening your son
with declining health later in your life). We all have our personal moral and ethical dilemmas because of how we choose our
boundaries. If our boundaries fall close to that of other people then we can be said to be morel and ethical in the context of our
peers. In the end, it's not so much what our peers think. It's more about how we conduct ourselves in light of what's important to
us individually.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> >>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> >>>>will still be readable.
> >>>
> >>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> >>>helps.
> >>
> >>See? Civility isn't so bad.
> >
> > I've always preferred it.
>
> Yeah, sure. At least you're being civil now.

It amazes me that you, obviously a very intelligent and well educated guy, don't seem to get that I will meet civility with
civility. I enjoy substantive discussions when all of the ego and facade garbage is out of the way.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:58:29 -0500, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
>Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in the morning...

I've nearly done that a few times over the last few
days. I'm going through a pretty tough bout of flu
at the moment. Can't seem to shift it. A real eye-
streamer.

>> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
>> > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > > See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>> > > > > a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>> > > > > will still be readable.
>> > > >
>> > > > I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
>> > > > helps.
>> > >
>> > > lol! Classic.
>> >
>> > Is there a problem with this?
>>
>> She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
>> because when someone asks the other to adjust their
>> line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
>> than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
>> That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
>> post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
>> been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
>> line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
>> making all his posts a right mess.
>
>Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>
Oh, and another pointer, if I may. Even though I extend
my line wrap beyond the default level, I usually ensure I
keep my lines down to about 10 words per line by hitting
the "Enter" key as well. I'm a bit over-fastidious most of
the time on most things. Usenet being no exception.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
> Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in the morning...
>
>
>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>"pearl" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>>>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>>>>>>will still be readable.
>>>>>
>>>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
>>>>>helps.
>>>>
>>>>lol! Classic.
>>>
>>>Is there a problem with this?
>>
>>She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
>>because when someone asks the other to adjust their
>>line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
>>than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
>>That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
>>post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
>>been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
>>line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
>>making all his posts a right mess.
>
>
> Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.

I actually don't know that that's right. I have
NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
when someone else is replying. I think the problem is,
different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a
post, the material that is already there appears (in my
composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT wrap
at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I
figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's
less likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin
to add up, pushing the text rightward.

I think the problem is, some people use lousy
e-mail/news clients that don't differentiate between
quoted text and new text.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
<...>
>> Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>
> I actually don't know that that's right.

It isn't. I still have to edit James' posts because some sentences wrap in
awkward places.

> I have NARROWED mine, because
> I want my own text to be compact when someone else is replying. I think
> the problem is, different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
> differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a post, the
> material that is already there appears (in my composition window) in a
> blue font, and does NOT wrap at my limits; those limits only apply to MY
> text. I figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's less
> likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin to add up, pushing
> the text rightward.
>
> I think the problem is, some people use lousy e-mail/news clients that
> don't differentiate between quoted text and new text.

Most of the problems I have with line-wrap are from Outlook Express users.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in the morning...
> >
> >
> >>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>>"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> >>>
> >>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> >>>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> >>>>>>will still be readable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> >>>>>helps.
> >>>>
> >>>>lol! Classic.
> >>>
> >>>Is there a problem with this?
> >>
> >>She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
> >>because when someone asks the other to adjust their
> >>line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
> >>than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
> >>That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
> >>post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
> >>been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
> >>line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
> >>making all his posts a right mess.
> >
> >
> > Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>
> I actually don't know that that's right. I have
> NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
> when someone else is replying. I think the problem is,
> different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
> differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a
> post, the material that is already there appears (in my
> composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT wrap
> at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I
> figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's
> less likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin
> to add up, pushing the text rightward.
>
> I think the problem is, some people use lousy
> e-mail/news clients that don't differentiate between
> quoted text and new text.

Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length. Doing
so goes against all my instincts, since he is so often so completely
wrong about everything, but in this case the solution seems to make
some sense.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:10:49 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Jonathan Ball wrote:
><...>
>>> Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>>
>> I actually don't know that that's right.
>
>It isn't. I still have to edit James' posts because some sentences wrap in
>awkward places.
>
>> I have NARROWED mine, because
>> I want my own text to be compact when someone else is replying. I think
>> the problem is, different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
>> differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a post, the
>> material that is already there appears (in my composition window) in a
>> blue font, and does NOT wrap at my limits; those limits only apply to MY
>> text. I figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's less
>> likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin to add up, pushing
>> the text rightward.
>>
>> I think the problem is, some people use lousy e-mail/news clients that
>> don't differentiate between quoted text and new text.
>
>Most of the problems I have with line-wrap are from Outlook Express users.

..... who can't be arsed to use their "Enter" key after about a
dozen words.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:15:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in the morning...
>> >
>> >
>> >>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>> >>
>> >>>"pearl" > wrote in message ...
>> >>>
>> >>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>> >>>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>> >>>>>>will still be readable.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
>> >>>>>helps.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>lol! Classic.
>> >>>
>> >>>Is there a problem with this?
>> >>
>> >>She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
>> >>because when someone asks the other to adjust their
>> >>line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
>> >>than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
>> >>That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
>> >>post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
>> >>been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
>> >>line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
>> >>making all his posts a right mess.
>> >
>> >
>> > Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>>
>> I actually don't know that that's right. I have
>> NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
>> when someone else is replying. I think the problem is,
>> different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
>> differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a
>> post, the material that is already there appears (in my
>> composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT wrap
>> at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I
>> figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's
>> less likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin
>> to add up, pushing the text rightward.
>>
>> I think the problem is, some people use lousy
>> e-mail/news clients that don't differentiate between
>> quoted text and new text.
>
>Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
>to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
>mine to the maximum

Excellent! Thanks.

>and am manually controlling my line length.

Even better. It really can be quite a chore having to
shorten lines and straighten out the posts I'm replying
to.

>Doing
>so goes against all my instincts, since he is so often so completely
>wrong about everything, but in this case the solution seems to make
>some sense.

Blimey.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in
the morning...
> >
> >
> >>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >>>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> >>>
> >>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
> >>>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
> >>>>>>will still be readable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
> >>>>>helps.
> >>>>
> >>>>lol! Classic.
> >>>
> >>>Is there a problem with this?
> >>
> >>She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
> >>because when someone asks the other to adjust their
> >>line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
> >>than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
> >>That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
> >>post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
> >>been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
> >>line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
> >>making all his posts a right mess.
> >
> >
> > Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>
> I actually don't know that that's right. I have
> NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
> when someone else is replying.

This was my original thinking. I'm going try 70 chars/line for awhile
to see how it goes.

> I think the problem is,
> different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
> differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a
> post, the material that is already there appears (in my
> composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT wrap
> at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I
> figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's
> less likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin
> to add up, pushing the text rightward.
>
> I think the problem is, some people use lousy
> e-mail/news clients that don't differentiate between
> quoted text and new text.
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote

> > > Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
> >
> > I actually don't know that that's right. I have
> > NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
> > when someone else is replying.
>
> This was my original thinking. I'm going try 70 chars/line for awhile
> to see how it goes.

That will just make things worse using Outlook Express.
Every time you reply more carats are inserted, the breaks happen
and the included text becomes more and more scattered.
Jonathan is using Netscape.

As much as I hate to admit it, for OE Derek is probably correct *this time*
..

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
>
>>>We see this issue differently. The difference between your
>>>rape example and preventing animal suffering and deaths is
>>>that rape is individually preventable while animal suffering
>>>and deaths are not.
>>
>>One's INVOLVEMENT in animal suffering is indeed
>>individually preventable, albeit at considerable effort
>>and cost.
>

Oh, lord! LOOK at this below. Maybe set the line wrap
limit to 85.

>
> I don't understand your use of the word 'involvement', especially since you emphasized it. If we're talking about only food then
> MAYBE animal suffering and death is totally avoidable with great effort, as you say. There are other non-food things that we
> generally don't know about or don't have any control over. Meds are one example I can think of.

Sure you understand involvement. Even as a meat eater,
my involvement with animal death is indirect: I don't
kill the animals personally, but my demand for meat,
which demand is made effective at the grocery store,
extends backward through a supply chain of retail
store, distributor, packer, processor, slaughterhouse,
feedlot (for some animals), grower. All of us are
involved in the process that involves killing animals:
me on the demand end, the rest of them on the supply
end. You are intimately, even if indirectly, involved
with animal death, too, when the production of the
fruits and vegetables you eat causes animal death. As
you acknowledge, all of that involvement is avoidable;
you could very carefully grow your own food, forage for
some of it, and avoid killing any animals.

You could also avoid the animal death inherent in
current medicine development and production: you
simply don't consume any medicine or medical care.
Karen Winter, a notorious liar and
responsibility-shirker in a.a.e.v. (where this thread
appears in addition to a.f.v.) has infamously claimed
that she doesn't take any prescription drugs, and would
refuse any animal-harming medical treatment. She's
lying, of course, but one *could* refuse all medical care.

>
>
>>>In that
>>>context, REDUCING animal suffering and deaths is more
>>>practical and realizable.
>>
>>One STILL needs a rational and *well defined* stopping
>>rule, which, to my mind, no "vegan" has ever presented.
>>It all appears very ad hoc and imprecise.
>
>
> I don't see why you need a 'stopping rule'.

You need a coherent explanation of why you're stopping
your reduction at some non-zero level, and why that
level is morally justified. Go back to my obviously
extreme and contrived example of driving through a
schoolyard as a shortcut to someplace you need to get
to in a hurry. What is the stopping rule for deciding
how many children I may ethically drive over in order
to cut some time off my commute? The clear answer is,
I may NEVER ethically do that; the only acceptable
number of children driven over as a result of my
deliberately driving through a schoolyard is zero.
Why? Because of the nature of the moral claim about
people having rights. It isn't expressed in such a way
that permits me to set my stopping rule, for how many
times I may do it, at a non-zero number. The number
must be zero.

Now, what exactly is the moral harm in killing animals
that leads you not to eat meat? What quality inherent
in animals makes it wrong for you to kill them and eat
them? It's pretty obvious, or ought to be, that the
"...and eat them" component is irrelevant; it's the
killing, other than in a true accident, that carries
the moral problem that you perceive.

It should also be obvious that the collateral deaths of
animals in vegetable agriculture bears no moral
resemblance whatever to the accidental deaths of humans
in industry, because of the vast difference in the
amount of care taken to avoid the deaths. In fact,
considerable care is taken, and expense incurred, in
order TRULY to minimize human death in industry. If a
death occurs, there is always a serious investigation;
if the result of the investigation is that there was
negligence, then civil and even sometimes criminal
sanctions are imposed. Even if the death is ruled an
accident, much effort is made to adjust safety rules to
prevent future deaths from the same cause. But the
whole nature of animal CDs is that there are no
consequences for them, ever, and as a result, NO ONE,
not even the most environmentally conscientious farmer,
does anything to avoid killing animals collaterally
that even REMOTELY resembles the steps taken to avoid
human industrial accidents.

Your stopping rule - the ceiling number - for meat
animals is zero: you won't eat any meat at all. Your
stopping rule for domestic animals *harmed* directly to
provide you with some food is non-zero, as you've
indicated you eat dairy, and milk cows are ultimately
killed when their milk production decreases. Your
stopping rule for animal CDs for vegetables and fruit
is...well, what is it? What number of animal CDs is
morally acceptable to you, given that you think killing
animals unnecessarily in order for humans to eat is
wrong? If you have some number in mind, how did you
arrive at it, and how do you ensure that foods you eat
don't surpass it?

> How can you possibly quantify it. People make individual efforts based on their
> passions, abilities, and knowledge.

I think it's pretty well established that people have
no idea. No one, "vegan" or omnivore, knows how many
"subject-of-a-life" animals are killed in producing ten
tons of beans. For the overwhelming majority of
consumers, no one has even thought of the issue before,
unless they've stumbled into one of these newsgroups.
However, in terms of what each type of individual
BELIEVES is morally acceptable, the omnivore incurs no
moral conflict based on CDs. How could he? He
obviously doesn't believe it's wrong to kill animals
deliberately in order to eat them, so why on earth
would he ever consider that it might be wrong to kill
them collaterally? It's a different story for the
"vegan", or for anyone with "vegan" leanings, like you:
because the collateral killing isn't necessary, and
because NO effort is made to avoid it, there's a real
moral problem for someone who says, flatly, that it's
wrong to kill animals merely for human convenience.

> It's one of those things one continues to work on and improve.

Come off it: how much effort had you EVER made to
reduce your collateral death toll, before reading me or
some other opponent of "ar"/"veganism" bring the issue
up here?

>
>
>>Please
>>understand that I don't mean "ad hoc and imprecise" as
>>some kind of sneering blast; I genuinely do see those
>>qualities as real problems, given the moral claims
>>being made.
>
>
> I didn't take it that way. Trust me, I will know when you make sneering blasts. You're not subtle about it. :^)
>
>
>>>>>But the sense that
>>>>>the vegan diet/lifestyle "beats" the omnivore diet in terms of minimizing
>>>>>animal deaths is reasonable, even without hard proof.
>>>>
>>>>It's plausible, but only with so many restrictions on
>>>>it that it becomes completely hollow.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think it's more than plausible.
>>
>>But it remains a "counting game", where a counting game
>>is inappropriate. The nature of the underlying belief
>>- "casually causing the death and suffering of animals
>>is wrong" - demands more than a mere reduction with no
>>coherent stopping rule. I think it demands AT LEAST
>>the following, and probably much mo
>>
>>1. A effort, intensive and extensive, to identify all the ways
>> in which the elements of one's lifestyle negatively affect
>> animals, and an equally intensive and extensive effort
>> to eliminate them.
>>
>>2. WITHIN the confines of a strictly vegetarian diet, an effort
>> to identify relatively higher CD vegetables and fruits,
>> and a complete elimination of them from the diet. No "vegan"
>> ought to be eating any rice, EVER.
>
>
> The 'counting game' is only useful for comparisons, say between herbivores and omnivores.

It isn't AT ALL useful, if the result of it is that the
"vegan" figures he's doing "better" than an omnivore by
only causing a non-zero fraction of the deaths an
omnivore causes, when the "vegan's" philosophy dictates
he not cause ANY.

> Okay, it could be useful for quantifying
> progress in *reducing* animal suffering and deaths. But it's essentially meaningless because we have no good way to count.

No, that's not why it's meaningless. It's meaningless
because any non-zero number for the "vegan" is too
many, if he subscribes to an absolutist philosophy that
says "it is wrong to kill animals unnecessarily".

It's actually much WORSE than meaningless, because
virtue should NEVER be measured relative to what
someone else is doing; virtue can ONLY be measured by
examining one's behavior or thinking against some
objective standard that doesn't even consider anyone
else. That's the whole point of my example of the two
guys raping neighbor children, where one guy reduces
his weekly episodes but still does the crime: ONLY a
count of ZERO is acceptable.

The counting game is INTRINSICALLY invalid and even
immoral, Jim; it has nothing to do with the
practicality of actually doing a count. Here's another
helpful hypothetical example that illustrates why.
Let's say we've resolved the practical problems of
counting, and we can actually conduct an accurate
count. Let's say that a typical omnivore's diet,
today, causes 10 total animal deaths per week,
including meat animals, and a typical "vegan's" diet
causes half that, 5, of strictly collateral deaths.
Now let's suppose there's some shift in dietary
preferences for both omnivores and "vegans", and the
weekly death toll of the omnivore triples, to 30, and
that of the "vegan" doubles, to 10. The "vegan" still
"wins" the counting game, and in fact, RELATIVE to
omnivores, the "vegan" now "wins" the counting game
even more decisively than befo he used to cause 50%
of the animal deaths of an omnivore, and now he "only"
causes 33.333% as many. But godDAMNit, man, he has
DOUBLED his death toll! The conclusion is obvious,
unavoidable and irrefutable: the "counting game",
which is an effort to measure virtue in comparison to
the behavior of others, is worse than meaningless; it
can even yield exactly WRONG results.

I think that ANY reputable analysis of morality and
virtue you can find will make plain that one cannot
evaluate virtue by making any sort of comparison with
others.

> I essentially agree with you that AR vegans and other such activists should make it a life's 'project' to identify and eliminate
> all sources of AS&D (I'm getting tire of typing "animal suffering and death")

How about "harm", where it is understood we're talking
about harm to animals?

> rather than just blindly jumping on the vegan
> bandwagon thinking that all animal lives will be saved.
>
>
>>>I suppose that "getting to experience life" issue is too
>>>deep for me. Nobody knows if it's a good thing or a bad
>>>thing since we don't know what the alternatives are.
>>
>>Exactly right. In a nutshell: we don't know if
>>animals "exist" in some kind of a "pre-born" state or
>>not, although there's no *evidence* to suggest they do;
>>one would have to fall back on religious belief. If
>>they don't, then "getting to experience life" CANNOT be
>>a benefit to the animals, because they aren't moving
>>from a worse state of existence to a better one (the
>>definition of "benefit"). If they DO "exist" prior to
>>conception and birth, we *still* don't know if the
>>"pre-existence" state is better than, worse than or
>>exactly as good as earthly existence, and so we *still*
>>cannot conclude that "getting to experience life", as
>>****WIT Harrison calls it, is a "benefit" to them.
>
>
> Agreed.

Look for some really obviously stupid, ****witted reply
from ****WIT David Harrison, who posts as
", to the effect that "some animals
have decent lives, and some don't", and/or "life is the
benefit that makes other benefits possible". He's wrong.

>
>
>>>There is no evidence that God exists either, but there are
>>>lots of people believe that He does exist.
>>
>>Right. That's an irrational belief. "Irrational"
>>doesn't mean "crazy" or "nuts", it just means not based
>>in rationality. Rationality, however, is required when
>>trying to analyze something that is numerical in concept.
>
>
> You mean like the 'counting game'!

Yes.

>
>
>>>Religion and
>>>science have always been at odds over things like
>>>quantitative/qualitative data and leaps of faith (I am NOT
>>>supporting the notion that veganism is a religion!).
>>
>>That's okay; I'll handle that end of it.
>
>
> No doubt...
>
>
>>>But there are some beliefs that may be reasonably inferred by
>>>observation and contemplation, if not from facts.
>>
>>A claim of minimization is not one of them.
>
>
> I'm tempted to say that minimization may not all into that category but reduction does, but they both require some sort of
> numerical quantification.

That ending clause of your sentence implies that a
claim of reduction does NOT fall into the category of
claims that may be reasonably advanced only on the
basis of observation and contemplation. Both
minimization and reduction require quantification, as
your ending clause states, so neither may be reasonably
advanced without some quantifying activity.

> I guess my point here is that it's good enough for a lot of poeple to have a sense for the consequences
> for their actions in lieu of actual proof. You are rigid in demanding proof.

Sure I am, because I feel that that "sense"
emphatically is NOT good enough. It's lazy, both
intellectually and physically.

>
>
>>>>Exactly the problem. Even those who are (just barely)
>>>>wise enough not to display an overtly visible symbol
>>>>like that still often exude that smarmy sanctimony.
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe you're particularly sensitive to it.
>>
>>I don't know if I'm overly sensitive to it or not, but
>>having been around lots of "vegans", mostly here but in
>>person as well, I certainly have some sensitivity to
>>it. I don't think that's ground for any criticism.
>
>
> My comment wasn't meant to be critical. It's just an observation that you seem very sensitive to the AR/vegan dilemma in ethics.
> You are more passionate about it than I am.

I'm sure there's something you've considered both
longer and in greater depth than I, and about which you
consequently feel a greater passion.

>
>
>>>Well, the fact that she looks down her nose at you is her
>>>problem, not yours.
>>
>>No, it wasn't; it was MY problem: I went into that
>>store with a legitimate product request, and I got
>>treated like dirt, because I also and unfortunately
>>went into the store ignorant of the sanctimonious
>>attitude of the staff towards the majority part of the
>>public who don't share their extremist food beliefs.
>
>
> Is this what set you off against AR/vegans?

No.

>
>
>>>>While I don't believe it's necessary to abstain
>>>>completely from meat to be healthy, there is little
>>>>doubt that eating less meat than what has long been
>>>>typical in North America is a more healthful diet.
>>>
>>>
>>>Somehow I'm reminded of the irony of your rape example...
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> It's almost like a double standard - if less of something is better then why would one ever settle for less than zero? If you
> believe that "there is little doubt that eating less meat than what has long been typical in NOrth America is a more healthful
> diet", then why don't you "believe it's necessary to abstain completely from meat to be healthy"?

Because less ISN'T always better, just as more isn't
always better. Funny you'd say that, because my
academic field, both graduate and undergraduate, is
economics, and there's an axiom in price theory - what
is sometimes unhelpfully called micro-economics -
specifically in the theory of demand that "more is
preferred to less." What's unstated but present in
that axiom is some thinking about "the relevant range"
(there's more that's unstated, that I'll get to.) If
we're talking about ice cream cones, and I currently
consume two ice cream cone per week, then it's pretty
reasonable to think I might prefer to have three. It's
not reasonable to think I might prefer 5,000; that's
far outside the relevant range. It is PRESUMED in the
theory of demand that, due to scarcity of goods and
limited income, one is consuming pretty much everything
in quantities such that, if you could have a little bit
more of them at no extra cost, you'd do it; that kind
of presumption is what makes it an axiom. The "more"
might take the form of better quality, rather than
increased quantity: if your income doubles, you might
still only own one house, one car, one television set,
and so on, but you quite reasonably might have a better
one of all of those (you might have quantitatively
"more", as well, in that you might have a slightly
bigger AND better house, car and television.)

One has to look at costs and benefits of something
before concluding that less of something is always
better. There's a benefit to me in eating meat: I get
complete protein, some other essential nutrients, and
something that tastes really good, all in one package.
There are also costs, one of which is, at the
extreme, impaired health. I believe, based on
mainstream health and nutrition information, that
eating 4-8 ounces of lean meat in a meal is perfectly
consistent with good health. Even if it isn't - if
eating that much meat means I'm more likely to die at
83 than at 89 - the trade-off is worth it to me. I'm
going to die anyway, some day, but today I enjoy the
meat, and I feel good, and I'm in apparent good health:
my total cholesterol count is usually substantially
under 200, my HDL/LDL ratio is usually extremely good,
my triglycerides are usually extremely good, my blood
pressure is typically about 115/65, my weight and
appearance are good (about 150 lb on 5'6"; 30" waist,
39-40" chest; I lift weights). I can't see any reason
at all not to eat some meat.

>
>
>>Good health has no moral dimension to it, at
>>least not directly; I think I owe it to my son to try
>>to remain healthy, given that I had him pretty late in
>>life and I'm worried about living long enough to see
>>him reach adulthood. In that sense, there might be a
>>moral dimension to the pursuit of good health, but it's
>>a moral obligation I have to a specific person, whom I
>>know and to whom I am related.
>
>
> All the more reason to endeavor to be as healthy as possible.

Which I do, consistent with what I know and believe
(and believe I know!) about nutrition.

>
>
>>The rape example, by contrast, was about a person
>>claiming to be "more ethical" because he cut his
>>performance of an instrinsically vile and immoral
>>action to some non-zero fraction of what it once had been.
>
>
> I still say that less rape is better than more rape. I agree that zero rape is ideal.

ONLY zero rape is morally acceptable. As a society, we
have to recognize *practically* that rape, like shit,
happens; but in examining the conduct of any one person
who is charged with rape, we will lock him (or her) up
if the facts of the case support even a single charge
of rape.

>
>
>>>You're right. All I can say is that I enjoy eating cheese
>>>more than I care about the ethics involved.
>>
>>I was talking about your health, but you bring up the
>>fundamental problem again: ethics can't be
>>shortchanged. You can't look at "being ethical" as
>>something that you can fractionally do. Either you're
>>ethical, or you're not.
>
>
> Okay, but you're tying ethics into things in which they don't necessarily apply, at least in the same ways. We generally think
> it's not ethical to murder other people, yet we murder animals as a matter of course.

No, we do not "murder" them. You know this. Murder
has a specific LEGAL AND MORAL meaning that does not
extend to cover animals.

> We draw that line based on the premise that
> animal lives don't have the same value as human lives.

Which collateral deaths, and EVERYONE'S approach to
them, UNAMBIGUOUSLY show is a valid premise. Right?

> NOt all people draw that line in the same place. Example: I eat cheese
> knowing that animals probably suffer and die as a result. Example: you regularly eat meat knowing that eating LESS meat is
> healthier, yet you feel a moral obligation of being there for your son as he grows up (not to mention possibly burdening your son
> with declining health later in your life).

Which is why I stopped eating those 14 ounce New York
steaks years ago, and stopped eating the 22 ounce
Porterhouse steaks years before that!

My son was born when I was a few weeks short of my 48th
birthday. If I surpass the average male lifespan in
the U.S. by a few years, and reach 80, he'll be in his
30s. One never knows what the future holds, but
statistically, I am likely to reach that age. I'm
comfortable with that. I don't feel the diet I follow
is likely to lead to a serious reduction in my
lifespan, if any.

I still think you're confusing some moral dimensions.
"vegans" feel that the needless death of animals is
*intrinsically* immoral, based on our moral obligations
to animals themselves: obligations that "vegans"
obviously do not meet. By contrast, if I didn't have
any family (as I obviously came close to doing), I
wouldn't have any intrinsic moral obligation to anyone
to preserve my health. The obligation I incur is
derivative.

> We all have our personal moral and ethical dilemmas because of how we choose our
> boundaries.

Best not to incur an ethical dilemma by adopting, and
sticking to, a flawed moral philosophy like "veganism".

> If our boundaries fall close to that of other people then we can be said to be morel and ethical in the context of our
> peers. In the end, it's not so much what our peers think. It's more about how we conduct ourselves in light of what's important to
> us individually.

Because ethics inherently involves others, one can't
evaluate behavior on a moral scale without taking
others into consideration. The judgment of ethical, or
not, depends crucially on your meeting your obligations
to others, but NOT in comparing yourself to others in
terms of how well they meet their obligations.

usual suspect wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <...>
>
>>> Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>>
>>
>> I actually don't know that that's right.
>
>
> It isn't. I still have to edit James' posts because some sentences wrap
> in awkward places.

The one post of his to which I've replied since he
changed the width showed his text just fine, although I
had to use the horizontal navigation scroll bar
back-and-forth in order to read his text. Netscape
seems to handle this pretty well. What it can't do is
repair the damage someone else's shitty e-mail/news
client has already caused.

>
>> I have NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact when
>> someone else is replying. I think the problem is, different
>> e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing differently. I use
>> Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a post, the material that is already
>> there appears (in my composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT
>> wrap at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I figure that
>> by keeping my own text narrow, then it's less likely to wrap as the
>> indentation characters begin to add up, pushing the text rightward.
>>
>> I think the problem is, some people use lousy e-mail/news clients that
>> don't differentiate between quoted text and new text.
>
>
> Most of the problems I have with line-wrap are from Outlook Express users.

I think you're right. It's an execrable product.

Dutch wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in the morning...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"pearl" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>>>>>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>>>>>>>>will still be readable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
>>>>>>>helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>lol! Classic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there a problem with this?
>>>>
>>>>She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
>>>>because when someone asks the other to adjust their
>>>>line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
>>>>than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
>>>>That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
>>>>post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
>>>>been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
>>>>line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
>>>>making all his posts a right mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>>
>>I actually don't know that that's right. I have
>>NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
>>when someone else is replying. I think the problem is,
>>different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
>>differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a
>>post, the material that is already there appears (in my
>>composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT wrap
>>at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I
>>figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's
>>less likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin
>>to add up, pushing the text rightward.
>>
>>I think the problem is, some people use lousy
>>e-mail/news clients that don't differentiate between
>>quoted text and new text.
>
>
> Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
> to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
> mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length.

Yeah, it was unhelpful for him and Chelsea O'Hosebag
merely to shriek "extend your line wrap!!!" without
explaining what that was supposed to accomplish. It
seems it's *always* too much to expect them to be
ORIGINALLY civil and helpful; you have to pull it out
of them, with them protesting every step of the way.

Doing
> so goes against all my instincts, since he is so often so completely
> wrong about everything, but in this case the solution seems to make
> some sense.
>
>

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>Ooops, sorry I pressed the send button before replying. Early in
>
> the morning...
>
>>>
>>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>>>"pearl" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>>>>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>
> ink.net...
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See if you can adjust your line wrap. I'm having to do
>>>>>>>>a lot of tedious repair work so the previous material
>>>>>>>>will still be readable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I changed it from 76 chars/line to 60 chars/line. Hope it
>>>>>>>helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>lol! Classic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there a problem with this?
>>>>
>>>>She probably thought you were having a bit of a joke
>>>>because when someone asks the other to adjust their
>>>>line wrap it's usually a request that he extend it rather
>>>>than reduce it. I have mine set on maximum, about 130.
>>>>That way my replies don't ruin the layout of the previous
>>>>post I'm responding to. Dutch is the worst for this; he's
>>>>been asked repeatedly and by everyone to extend his
>>>>line wrap for years now, yet he simply refuses to do it,
>>>>making all his posts a right mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>Changed line wrap to 130. Thanks for informing me.
>>
>>I actually don't know that that's right. I have
>>NARROWED mine, because I want my own text to be compact
>>when someone else is replying.
>
>
> This was my original thinking. I'm going try 70 chars/line for awhile
> to see how it goes.

Since you're using Outlook Express, I think you'll
always start to have a bad line-wrap, once the embedded
quotes (from several posts back in the thread) begin to
extend outside your limits. Give 85 or 90 a try; 130
was too wide, causing me to have to use the horizontal
navigation scroll bar back and forth to read your text
(and since my convenience is a priority!)

>
>
>>I think the problem is,
>>different e-mail/news clients handle that kind of thing
>>differently. I use Netscape 7.1, and when I reply to a
>>post, the material that is already there appears (in my
>>composition window) in a blue font, and does NOT wrap
>>at my limits; those limits only apply to MY text. I
>>figure that by keeping my own text narrow, then it's
>>less likely to wrap as the indentation characters begin
>>to add up, pushing the text rightward.
>>
>>I think the problem is, some people use lousy
>>e-mail/news clients that don't differentiate between
>>quoted text and new text.
>>
>
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Dutch wrote:
<..>
> > Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
> > to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
> > mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length.
>
> Yeah, it was unhelpful for him and Chelsea O'Hosebag
> merely to shriek "extend your line wrap!!!" without
> explaining what that was supposed to accomplish. It
> seems it's *always* too much to expect them to be
> ORIGINALLY civil and helpful; you have to pull it out
> of them, with them protesting every step of the way.

From: Lotus )
Subject: The anti animal rights position
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Date: 2001-11-01 05:27:06 PST

Dutch wrote:
<.....>
> > > > (You need to lengthen your text settings now Dutch. <g>)
> > >
> > > you're kidding right?
> >
> > looks o.k now..

1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).

<..>
http://tinyurl.com/yswjc

You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.

And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!

pearl wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
>>>to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
>>>mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length.
>>
>>Yeah, it was unhelpful for him and Chelsea O'Hosebag
>>merely to shriek "extend your line wrap!!!" without
>>explaining what that was supposed to accomplish. It
>>seems it's *always* too much to expect them to be
>>ORIGINALLY civil and helpful; you have to pull it out
>>of them, with them protesting every step of the way.
>
>
> From: Lotus )
> Subject: The anti animal rights position
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> Date: 2001-11-01 05:27:06 PST
>
> Dutch wrote:
> <.....>
>
>>>>>(You need to lengthen your text settings now Dutch. <g>)
>>>>
>>>>you're kidding right?
>>>
>>>looks o.k now..
>
>
> 1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
> 2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
>
> <..>
> http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
>
> You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
>
> And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!

That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.

First of all, I don't perceive a problem. My eyes easily scan the broken
lines and gather the meaning from them. Second problem, your
credibility, or rather lack thereof.

Also, I doubt if one person in 100 bothers to play with line length like
this, so to say it's negligent to *not* do so is pretty silly.

[posted with Mozilla 1.6]

"Dutch" > wrote in message newshR_b.609549$X%5.562509@pd7tw2no...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >
> > <..>
> >
> >>>Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
> >>>to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
> >>>mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length.
> >>
> >>Yeah, it was unhelpful for him and Chelsea O'Hosebag
> >>merely to shriek "extend your line wrap!!!" without
> >>explaining what that was supposed to accomplish. It
> >>seems it's *always* too much to expect them to be
> >>ORIGINALLY civil and helpful; you have to pull it out
> >>of them, with them protesting every step of the way.
> >
> >
> > From: Lotus )
> > Subject: The anti animal rights position
> > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> > Date: 2001-11-01 05:27:06 PST
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> > <.....>
> >
> >>>>>(You need to lengthen your text settings now Dutch. <g>)
> >>>>
> >>>>you're kidding right?
> >>>
> >>>looks o.k now..
> >
> >
> > 1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
> > 2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
> >
> > <..>
> > http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
> >
> > You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
> >
> > And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!
>
> That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.

Yes, and over 3 years posting here.

> First of all, I don't perceive a problem. My eyes easily scan the broken
> lines and gather the meaning from them.

So? You've been asked many, many times by others.

> Second problem, your credibility, or rather lack thereof.

You're projecting.

> Also, I doubt if one person in 100 bothers to play with line length like
> this, so to say it's negligent to *not* do so is pretty silly.

Twit.

> [posted with Mozilla 1.6]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:15:58 GMT, the Gonad > wrote:
[...]
>I think it's pretty well established that people have
>no idea. No one, "vegan" or omnivore, knows how many
>"subject-of-a-life" animals are killed in producing ten
>tons of beans.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. That would
be 750 meals if each included 3/4 pound of meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to
the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case
of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one meal of soy or
rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised
cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife
habitat, and better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

[...]
>Because ethics inherently involves others, one can't
>evaluate behavior on a moral scale without taking
>others into consideration. The judgment of ethical, or
>not, depends crucially on your meeting your obligations
>to others, but NOT in comparing yourself to others in
>terms of how well they meet their obligations.

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message newshR_b.609549$X%5.562509@pd7tw2no...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
>>>>>to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
>>>>>mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, it was unhelpful for him and Chelsea O'Hosebag
>>>>merely to shriek "extend your line wrap!!!" without
>>>>explaining what that was supposed to accomplish. It
>>>>seems it's *always* too much to expect them to be
>>>>ORIGINALLY civil and helpful; you have to pull it out
>>>>of them, with them protesting every step of the way.
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Lotus )
>>>Subject: The anti animal rights position
>>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>>Date: 2001-11-01 05:27:06 PST
>>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>><.....>
>>>
>>>>>>>(You need to lengthen your text settings now Dutch. <g>)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you're kidding right?
>>>>>
>>>>>looks o.k now..
>>>
>>>
>>>1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
>>>2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
>>>
>>><..>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
>>>
>>>You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
>>>
>>>And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!
>>
>>That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.
>
>
> Yes, and over 3 years posting here.

Irrelevant
>
>
>>First of all, I don't perceive a problem. My eyes easily scan the broken
>>lines and gather the meaning from them.
>
>
> So?

So get over it.


> You've been asked many, many times by others.

Bull_shit "many, many times" 2 or 3 times, until now only by you and
Nash, screwballs both of you, see what I mean about credibility?

>>Second problem, your credibility, or rather lack thereof.
>
>
> You're projecting.

Not hardly

>>Also, I doubt if one person in 100 bothers to play with line length like
>>this, so to say it's negligent to *not* do so is pretty silly.
>
>
> Twit.

The truth.

wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:15:58 GMT, the Gonad > wrote:
> [...]
>
>>I think it's pretty well established that people have
>>no idea. No one, "vegan" or omnivore, knows how many
>>"subject-of-a-life" animals are killed in producing ten
>>tons of beans.
>
>
> · From the bullshit horseshit ****wittery

Including you, ****WIT. You have no idea how many
animals are killed producing anything. You don't even
have any idea how many sperm you kill jerking off in
your mother's mouth.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:WYU_b.610829$X%5.100961@pd7tw2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message newshR_b.609549$X%5.562509@pd7tw2no...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>
> >>><..>
> >>>
> >>>>>Like Outlook Express... actually now that Derek has taken the time
> >>>>>to fully explain his reasoning, I have taken his advice and have extended
> >>>>>mine to the maximum and am manually controlling my line length.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yeah, it was unhelpful for him and Chelsea O'Hosebag
> >>>>merely to shriek "extend your line wrap!!!" without
> >>>>explaining what that was supposed to accomplish. It
> >>>>seems it's *always* too much to expect them to be
> >>>>ORIGINALLY civil and helpful; you have to pull it out
> >>>>of them, with them protesting every step of the way.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>From: Lotus )
> >>>Subject: The anti animal rights position
> >>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> >>>Date: 2001-11-01 05:27:06 PST
> >>>
> >>>Dutch wrote:
> >>><.....>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>(You need to lengthen your text settings now Dutch. <g>)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>you're kidding right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>looks o.k now..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
> >>>2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
> >>>
> >>><..>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
> >>>
> >>>You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
> >>>
> >>>And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!
> >>
> >>That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.
> >
> >
> > Yes, and over 3 years posting here.
>
> Irrelevant

Only to you and etter- right smurfs the pair of you. Not to those
trying to review the ongoing argument, or trying to reply to you.

> >>First of all, I don't perceive a problem. My eyes easily scan the broken
> >>lines and gather the meaning from them.
> >
> >
> > So?
>
> So get over it.

Non sequitur.

> > You've been asked many, many times by others.
>
> Bull_shit "many, many times" 2 or 3 times, until now only by you and
> Nash,

At least two or three times by each of us. Why haven't you complied?

> screwballs both of you, see what I mean about credibility?

You're the screwball lacking credibility here, dutch.

> >>Second problem, your credibility, or rather lack thereof.
> >
> >
> > You're projecting.
>
> Not hardly

Totally.

> >>Also, I doubt if one person in 100 bothers to play with line length like
> >>this, so to say it's negligent to *not* do so is pretty silly.
> >
> >
> > Twit.
>
> The truth.

Yes, - you're a raving twit, dutch.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> >
> >>>We see this issue differently. The difference between your
> >>>rape example and preventing animal suffering and deaths is
> >>>that rape is individually preventable while animal suffering
> >>>and deaths are not.
> >>
> >>One's INVOLVEMENT in animal suffering is indeed
> >>individually preventable, albeit at considerable effort
> >>and cost.
> >
>
> Oh, lord! LOOK at this below. Maybe set the line wrap
> limit to 85.

I know, I know. I wrote the last post at 130 chars/line. Let's see how
70 chars/line looks.

> As
> you acknowledge, all of that involvement is avoidable;
> you could very carefully grow your own food, forage for
> some of it, and avoid killing any animals.

Actually, I do grow some of my own food. I forage for wild plants and
mushrooms as well.

> > I don't see why you need a 'stopping rule'.
>
> You need a coherent explanation of why you're stopping
> your reduction at some non-zero level, and why that
> level is morally justified.

I don't think in terms of numbers of animal casualties because, as we
agree, I can't. I also don't have any coherent explanation for where
my boundaries are drawn. I have only my sense of what is better or
worse, and that's what I go by. Sorry, I know it's not much.

> [snip] It's pretty obvious, or ought to be, that the
> "...and eat them" component is irrelevant; it's the
> killing, other than in a true accident, that carries
> the moral problem that you perceive.

> It should also be obvious that the collateral deaths of
> animals in vegetable agriculture bears no moral
> resemblance whatever to the accidental deaths of humans
> in industry, because of the vast difference in the
> amount of care taken to avoid the deaths.

I think there's an abstraction between what we perceive as ethical and
the consequences it places on us. It's kind of like our laws. An
action can be against the law or not against the law - there's nothing
in between. But the range of laws vary in degree. Double-parking your
car is just as illegal as killing someone, though obviously and
necessarily with different consequences.

In terms of personal ethics, you're holding everyone who violates
their boundaries to the same consequences - severe condemnation
(you're sentencing the death penalty to double-parkers). What's worse
is you're generalizing everyone who sympathizes with the plight of
animals to the same rigid standards. It's just not that black and
white. Some people's ethical boundaries are not as fixed as other
people's, and they're not all in the same place. You need to allow for
some variability.

> Your stopping rule - the ceiling number - for meat
> animals is zero: you won't eat any meat at all. Your
> stopping rule for domestic animals *harmed* directly to
> provide you with some food is non-zero, as you've
> indicated you eat dairy, and milk cows are ultimately
> killed when their milk production decreases. Your
> stopping rule for animal CDs for vegetables and fruit
> is...well, what is it? What number of animal CDs is
> morally acceptable to you, given that you think killing
> animals unnecessarily in order for humans to eat is
> wrong? If you have some number in mind, how did you
> arrive at it, and how do you ensure that foods you eat
> don't surpass it?

My boundaries (stopping rules) are this. I will not eat meat because
a) I think it's healthier not to eat meat, b) the notion of putting
dead animal flesh in my mouth is repulsive. I occasionally eat dairy
and eggs even though I know that animals suffer and die as a
consequence. I don't like the fact that animals suffer and die as a
result of what I sometimes eat, but at least it's not putting dead
animal flesh in my mouth. The former is not a fixed boundary but the
latter is. Does it sound like I'm moving my boundaries to accommodate
convenience? Maybe, but that's where it's at. So condemn me.

[snip]
> However, in terms of what each type of individual
> BELIEVES is morally acceptable, the omnivore incurs no
> moral conflict based on CDs. How could he? He
> obviously doesn't believe it's wrong to kill animals
> deliberately in order to eat them, so why on earth
> would he ever consider that it might be wrong to kill
> them collaterally? It's a different story for the
> "vegan", or for anyone with "vegan" leanings, like you:
> because the collateral killing isn't necessary, and
> because NO effort is made to avoid it, there's a real
> moral problem for someone who says, flatly, that it's
> wrong to kill animals merely for human convenience.

I think that most vegans don't know about collateral deaths unless
they've stumbled onto this newsgroup. The ones who DO knowingly
contribute to collateral deaths do have an ethical dilemma. What
should they do? The first reaction is usually denial. We deal with a
lot of that in this newsgroup, and it is the source of a lot of
conflict and amusement. Once you get past that, then people probably
think of other ways to rationalize their behaviors (as I have done?)
by softening their boundaries and to begin to think in terms of
reduction of animal suffering and death. True AR/vegans must find ways
to conform to their rigid beliefs, just as you so rigidly hold them
to.

> > It's one of those things one continues to work on and improve.
>
> Come off it: how much effort had you EVER made to
> reduce your collateral death toll, before reading me or
> some other opponent of "ar"/"veganism" bring the issue
> up here?

To be honest, I had never heard, nor thought, of collateral animal
deaths before coming here. I eat organic whenever possible because I
know that pesticides kill animals and because of other environmental
reasons. But sometimes I do eat non-organic food. So there has always
been that somewhat unresolved dilemma hanging out there. Being here
and reading you brings it more to the forefront of my mind.

> I think that ANY reputable analysis of morality and
> virtue you can find will make plain that one cannot
> evaluate virtue by making any sort of comparison with
> others.

In the absolute sense, you're right.

>> I essentially agree with you that AR vegans and other such
>> activists should make it a life's 'project' to identify and
eliminate
>> all sources of AS&D (I'm getting tire of typing "animal suffering
>> and death")
>
> How about "harm", where it is understood we're talking
> about harm to animals?

Harm is implied with suffering.

>> I guess my point here is that it's good enough for a lot of
>> poeple to have a sense for the consequences for their
>> actions in lieu of actual proof. You are rigid in
>> demanding proof.
>
> Sure I am, because I feel that that "sense"
> emphatically is NOT good enough. It's lazy, both
> intellectually and physically.

Maybe so, but it's not totally unrealistic. We are reduced to a
'sense' because there is no good way to count. Everything in life
doesn't have to be absolute and quantifiable. Sometimes we have to
rely on our sense of things when there is little else. It is
reasonable to think that not eating meat products will reduce the
number of animals who suffer and die (including collateral
casualties), and that fewer animals who suffer and die is better. I
know we disagree but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

> >>>Well, the fact that she looks down her nose at you is her
> >>>problem, not yours.
> >>
> >>No, it wasn't; it was MY problem: I went into that
> >>store with a legitimate product request, and I got
> >>treated like dirt, because I also and unfortunately
> >>went into the store ignorant of the sanctimonious
> >>attitude of the staff towards the majority part of the
> >>public who don't share their extremist food beliefs.
> >
> >
> > Is this what set you off against AR/vegans?
>
> No.

What was it then?

> One has to look at costs and benefits of something
> before concluding that less of something is always
> better. There's a benefit to me in eating meat: I get
> complete protein, some other essential nutrients, and
> something that tastes really good, all in one package.

Okay, that's fine. Each to his own.

> There are also costs, one of which is, at the
> extreme, impaired health. I believe, based on
> mainstream health and nutrition information, that
> eating 4-8 ounces of lean meat in a meal is perfectly
> consistent with good health. Even if it isn't - if
> eating that much meat means I'm more likely to die at
> 83 than at 89 - the trade-off is worth it to me.

Interesting. I guess there are some things I might feel the same way
about.

> I'm
> going to die anyway, some day, but today I enjoy the
> meat, and I feel good, and I'm in apparent good health:
> my total cholesterol count is usually substantially
> under 200, my HDL/LDL ratio is usually extremely good,
> my triglycerides are usually extremely good, my blood
> pressure is typically about 115/65, my weight and
> appearance are good (about 150 lb on 5'6"; 30" waist,
> 39-40" chest; I lift weights). I can't see any reason
> at all not to eat some meat.

You're doing way better than most people. Do you do cardio exercises
too?

>> Okay, but you're tying ethics into things in which they don't
>> necessarily apply, at least in the same ways. We generally think
>> it's not ethical to murder other people, yet we murder animals as
>> a matter of course.
>
> No, we do not "murder" them. You know this. Murder
> has a specific LEGAL AND MORAL meaning that does not
> extend to cover animals.

Yes, you are right. Bad choice of words on my part.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>

>>As you acknowledge, all of that involvement is avoidable;
>>you could very carefully grow your own food, forage for
>>some of it, and avoid killing any animals.
>
>
> Actually, I do grow some of my own food. I forage for wild plants and
> mushrooms as well.
>
>
>>>I don't see why you need a 'stopping rule'.
>>
>>You need a coherent explanation of why you're stopping
>>your reduction at some non-zero level, and why that
>>level is morally justified.
>
>
> I don't think in terms of numbers of animal casualties because, as we
> agree, I can't. I also don't have any coherent explanation for where
> my boundaries are drawn. I have only my sense of what is better or
> worse, and that's what I go by. Sorry, I know it's not much.

You've made a remarkable admission, though.
Previously, you said you *did* have a coherent
explanation for why you stop at whatever level you do.

>
>
>>[snip] It's pretty obvious, or ought to be, that the
>>"...and eat them" component is irrelevant; it's the
>>killing, other than in a true accident, that carries
>>the moral problem that you perceive.
>
>
>>It should also be obvious that the collateral deaths of
>>animals in vegetable agriculture bears no moral
>>resemblance whatever to the accidental deaths of humans
>>in industry, because of the vast difference in the
>>amount of care taken to avoid the deaths.
>
>
> I think there's an abstraction between what we perceive as ethical and
> the consequences it places on us. It's kind of like our laws. An
> action can be against the law or not against the law - there's nothing
> in between. But the range of laws vary in degree. Double-parking your
> car is just as illegal as killing someone, though obviously and
> necessarily with different consequences.
>
> In terms of personal ethics, you're holding everyone who violates
> their boundaries to the same consequences - severe condemnation
> (you're sentencing the death penalty to double-parkers). What's worse
> is you're generalizing everyone who sympathizes with the plight of
> animals to the same rigid standards. It's just not that black and
> white. Some people's ethical boundaries are not as fixed as other
> people's, and they're not all in the same place. You need to allow for
> some variability.

I am only severely condemning people who have, based on
my accurate observation and my development of a
well-reasoned case:

- adopted an absolutist moral stance, which is
- predicated on an implied condemnation of other, less
"enlightened" people who don't adopt the stance;
- who are caught in a flagrant contradiction of their
supposed ethical position;
- who, finally, cling to the original position, despite
not being able to refute my case.

I believe that describes "vegans" well. You perhaps
don't believe it does. IF you agreed that that
description fit someone, wouldn't you agree that such a
person would be a toweringly sanctimonious hypocrite?

>
>
>>Your stopping rule - the ceiling number - for meat
>>animals is zero: you won't eat any meat at all. Your
>>stopping rule for domestic animals *harmed* directly to
>>provide you with some food is non-zero, as you've
>>indicated you eat dairy, and milk cows are ultimately
>>killed when their milk production decreases. Your
>>stopping rule for animal CDs for vegetables and fruit
>>is...well, what is it? What number of animal CDs is
>>morally acceptable to you, given that you think killing
>>animals unnecessarily in order for humans to eat is
>>wrong? If you have some number in mind, how did you
>>arrive at it, and how do you ensure that foods you eat
>>don't surpass it?
>
>
> My boundaries (stopping rules) are this. I will not eat meat because
> a) I think it's healthier not to eat meat, b) the notion of putting
> dead animal flesh in my mouth is repulsive. I occasionally eat dairy
> and eggs even though I know that animals suffer and die as a
> consequence. I don't like the fact that animals suffer and die as a
> result of what I sometimes eat, but at least it's not putting dead
> animal flesh in my mouth.

Those two are not morally comparable. Revulsion at
"dead animal flesh" is purely esthetic, while the harm
animals suffer is an ethical concern.

> The former is not a fixed boundary but the
> latter is. Does it sound like I'm moving my boundaries to accommodate
> convenience? Maybe, but that's where it's at. So condemn me.

My goal is not to condemn. My goal is to get anyone
who clings to the moral reasoning and conclusions
implied by "veganism" to abandon them. I only morally
condemn the sanctimony and hypocrisy, not the
irrational belief in something.

>
> [snip]
>
>>However, in terms of what each type of individual
>>BELIEVES is morally acceptable, the omnivore incurs no
>>moral conflict based on CDs. How could he? He
>>obviously doesn't believe it's wrong to kill animals
>>deliberately in order to eat them, so why on earth
>>would he ever consider that it might be wrong to kill
>>them collaterally? It's a different story for the
>>"vegan", or for anyone with "vegan" leanings, like you:
>> because the collateral killing isn't necessary, and
>>because NO effort is made to avoid it, there's a real
>>moral problem for someone who says, flatly, that it's
>>wrong to kill animals merely for human convenience.
>
>
> I think that most vegans don't know about collateral deaths unless
> they've stumbled onto this newsgroup.

That's not what the hardcore ideological "vegan"
polemicists who argue with me say. They maintain that
"vegans" are sufficiently smart to have realized that
even without anyone telling them. They're wrong, of
course, as the experience with dozens of "vegan" newbie
posters shows.

> The ones who DO knowingly
> contribute to collateral deaths do have an ethical dilemma. What
> should they do? The first reaction is usually denial. We deal with a
> lot of that in this newsgroup, and it is the source of a lot of
> conflict and amusement. Once you get past that, then people probably
> think of other ways to rationalize their behaviors (as I have done?)
> by softening their boundaries and to begin to think in terms of
> reduction of animal suffering and death. True AR/vegans must find ways
> to conform to their rigid beliefs, just as you so rigidly hold them
> to.

The worst, most hypocritical "vegan"/"ara" poster who
ever participated here, Karen Winter (aka "rat &
swan"), should have disappeared from a.a.e.v. (and
t.p.a.) permanently exactly three years ago today, Ash
Wedenesday, over that very issue. She was cornered,
completely defeated, over this very issue of animal
collateral deaths. She even conceded defeat, and said
she WAS withdrawing, permanently:

Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. After prayer
and thought, I feel honesty compels me
to admit publicly that I have no answer
to the long argument here in recent weeks.
I cannot defend my belief that my
involvement in collateral deaths is less
unethical than others' choices. I hereby
admit I am wrong, and I feel my only
honorable course is to withdraw from this
newsgroup. To leave without admitting my
lack of a defense for my actions and
beliefs would be dishonest and cowardly.
Karen Winter
27 February 2001
http://tinyurl.com/23owf

Of course, as a habitual liar, and being ADDICTED to
the ego-gratification that comes with having adopted a
moral pose that is predicated on unwarranted criticism
of those who don't believe as she does, she reneged.
She came back a few months later, spewing the most
unbelievably venomous hatred for the guy (not me) who
had done the most to show her the untenability of her
"vegan" pose, and she's remained ever since.

Rather than modify her stance, which really MUST amount
only to a rejection of her entire moral conclusion, she
instead has simply absolved herself of all
responsibility for CDs. She blames the rest of society
for her failure to behave in accordance with the moral
principles she claims to believe.

Unfortunately, she's typical. Few "vegans" modify or
abandon their moral pose. Most cling to it, entirely
irrationally, and to the extent they participate in the
debate over "animal rights" and what a belief in "ar"
DEMANDS of its adherents, act as if they've never heard
of CDs.

>
>
>>>It's one of those things one continues to work on and improve.
>>
>>Come off it: how much effort had you EVER made to
>>reduce your collateral death toll, before reading me or
>>some other opponent of "ar"/"veganism" bring the issue
>>up here?
>
>
> To be honest, I had never heard, nor thought, of collateral animal
> deaths before coming here.

Of course not. No one has. It is only due to
criticism of so-called "ethical vegetarianism", the
ugly longer name for the still uglier short name
"veganism", that any "vegan" has ever thought about the
issue at all. So, what do we have? We have people
arriving at far-reaching, absolutist moral conclusions
that are wholly unjustified.

> I eat organic whenever possible because I
> know that pesticides kill animals and because of other environmental
> reasons. But sometimes I do eat non-organic food. So there has always
> been that somewhat unresolved dilemma hanging out there. Being here
> and reading you brings it more to the forefront of my mind.

You're welcome. As I already said, I don't really want
to condemn anyone. I want people to think straight and
correctly, but especially so if what they've been
thinking for a while has contained a built-in and
wholly unwarranted moral condemnation of me and others
like me. All I'm trying to do is refute a poorly
reasoned moral conclusion, and show why it is bogus.
Any condemnation comes ONLY after someone demonstrates
bad faith: that is, acknowledges the flaw in the
reasoning, but clings to the false conclusion (with the
built-in condemnation) anyway. That kind of bad faith
is the very definition of sanctimonious hypocrisy, and
I condemn it, in very strong terms.

>
>
>>I think that ANY reputable analysis of morality and
>>virtue you can find will make plain that one cannot
>>evaluate virtue by making any sort of comparison with
>>others.
>
>
> In the absolute sense, you're right.
>
>
>>>I essentially agree with you that AR vegans and other such
>>>activists should make it a life's 'project' to identify and eliminate
>>>all sources of AS&D (I'm getting tire of typing "animal suffering
>>>and death")
>>
>>How about "harm", where it is understood we're talking
>>about harm to animals?
>
>
> Harm is implied with suffering.
>
>
>>>I guess my point here is that it's good enough for a lot of
>>>poeple to have a sense for the consequences for their
>>>actions in lieu of actual proof. You are rigid in
>>>demanding proof.
>>
>>Sure I am, because I feel that that "sense"
>>emphatically is NOT good enough. It's lazy, both
>>intellectually and physically.
>
>
> Maybe so, but it's not totally unrealistic.

It simply *cannot* serve as the basis for the
absolutist moral conclusion that "vegans" reach.

> We are reduced to a
> 'sense' because there is no good way to count. Everything in life
> doesn't have to be absolute and quantifiable.

But the conclusion "vegans" reach IS a morally absolute
one. If it's only based on some vague sense, then such
a conclusion is unwarranted.

> Sometimes we have to
> rely on our sense of things when there is little else. It is
> reasonable to think that not eating meat products will reduce the
> number of animals who suffer and die (including collateral
> casualties), and that fewer animals who suffer and die is better. I
> know we disagree but neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

All I'm saying is that the absolute, and absolutist,
moral conclusion "vegans" reach needs to be discarded.
Instead, they need to retreat to a MUCH weaker
intellectual position, one that takes into account all
the problems of which they were previously unaware, and
one that clearly cannot be expressed with the smug
certitude of the earlier, ignorance-based belief. The
position also requires far more words to describe it:
one can no longer sum oneself up by saying "I live a
cruelty-free 'lifestyle'", with all that implies.

I am here to tell you that in four and a half years of
arguing with "aras"/"vegans" in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a.,
you are only the second person who has shown any
movement at all. The other not only abandoned
"veganism" as any part of his belief system, but
actually resumed some limited meat consumption,
something he hadn't done for close to 20 years (for a
while, he had abandoned "veganism" but had remained
vegetarian, simply out of habit.)

>
>
>>>>>Well, the fact that she looks down her nose at you is her
>>>>>problem, not yours.
>>>>
>>>>No, it wasn't; it was MY problem: I went into that
>>>>store with a legitimate product request, and I got
>>>>treated like dirt, because I also and unfortunately
>>>>went into the store ignorant of the sanctimonious
>>>>attitude of the staff towards the majority part of the
>>>>public who don't share their extremist food beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this what set you off against AR/vegans?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> What was it then?

The same attitude expressed by explicit "vegans".

>
>
>>One has to look at costs and benefits of something
>>before concluding that less of something is always
>>better. There's a benefit to me in eating meat: I get
>>complete protein, some other essential nutrients, and
>>something that tastes really good, all in one package.
>
>
> Okay, that's fine. Each to his own.
>
>
>> There are also costs, one of which is, at the
>>extreme, impaired health. I believe, based on
>>mainstream health and nutrition information, that
>>eating 4-8 ounces of lean meat in a meal is perfectly
>>consistent with good health. Even if it isn't - if
>>eating that much meat means I'm more likely to die at
>>83 than at 89 - the trade-off is worth it to me.
>
>
> Interesting. I guess there are some things I might feel the same way
> about.

It should be obvious that everyone feels that way. No
one leads a completely risk-free life. How else do you
explain motorcycles, hang gliding, surfing, or hundreds
of other thrill-inducing but obviously risky
activities? My closest friend's father is about 86 or
87, and in fairly good health except for a balance
problem. He lives in the interior of BC, Canada. His
balance problem is slowly worsening, so that he has had
to move from using a cane to using a walker, but he
refuses to stop his daily walks (except in the worst
weather) of about a 2 mile round trip from his house
into the town and back. He takes these walks even when
there's ice on the sidewalks. He's fully aware of the
risk of a fall that could easily lead to a broken hip,
which at that age often is followed by death, but the
benefit he derives is clearly worth the risk to him.

>
>
>>I'm going to die anyway, some day, but today I enjoy the
>>meat, and I feel good, and I'm in apparent good health:
>> my total cholesterol count is usually substantially
>>under 200, my HDL/LDL ratio is usually extremely good,
>>my triglycerides are usually extremely good, my blood
>>pressure is typically about 115/65, my weight and
>>appearance are good (about 150 lb on 5'6"; 30" waist,
>>39-40" chest; I lift weights). I can't see any reason
>>at all not to eat some meat.
>
>
> You're doing way better than most people. Do you do cardio exercises
> too?

Some. I've been trying to increase it in recently. I
also do what someone once referred to as "supersets",
in which 3 or 4 related lifting exercises are done one
right after another. There's somewhat of a cardio
effect to it, although not as much as a more protracted
cardio workout. They'll definitely get you winded, though.

BTW, I'm doing this at age 51. I have friends the same
age who have been on blood pressure and/or
cholesterol-reduction medication for close to 10 years.

>
>
>>>Okay, but you're tying ethics into things in which they don't
>>>necessarily apply, at least in the same ways. We generally think
>>>it's not ethical to murder other people, yet we murder animals as
>>>a matter of course.
>>
>>No, we do not "murder" them. You know this. Murder
>>has a specific LEGAL AND MORAL meaning that does not
>>extend to cover animals.
>
>
> Yes, you are right. Bad choice of words on my part.
>
>
>
>

"pearl" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > pearl wrote:

[..]
> > >>>1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
> > >>>2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
> > >>>
> > >>><..>
> > >>>http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
> > >>>
> > >>>You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
> > >>>
> > >>>And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!
> > >>
> > >>That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, and over 3 years posting here.
> >
> > Irrelevant
>
> Only to you and etter- right smurfs the pair of you. Not to those
> trying to review the ongoing argument, or trying to reply to you.

It's a croc. With the variety of newsreaders and text formatting schemes used by different people there is no way to create this
imaginary ideal, particularly with ongoing arguments. Learn to scan and ignore formatting, besides it's long-past portions of the
message that become broken, not recent responses.

> > >>First of all, I don't perceive a problem. My eyes easily scan the broken
> > >>lines and gather the meaning from them.
> > >
> > >
> > > So?
> >
> > So get over it.
>
> Non sequitur.

It means learn to adapt and quit blaming others for your inadequacies.

> > > You've been asked many, many times by others.
> >
> > Bull_shit "many, many times" 2 or 3 times, until now only by you and
> > Nash,
>
> At least two or three times by each of us. Why haven't you complied?

Because I ignore rants from the likes of you and Nash.

> > screwballs both of you, see what I mean about credibility?
>
> You're the screwball lacking credibility here, dutch.

phffftt

> > >>Second problem, your credibility, or rather lack thereof.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're projecting.
> >
> > Not hardly
>
> Totally.

don't think so..

> > >>Also, I doubt if one person in 100 bothers to play with line length like
> > >>this, so to say it's negligent to *not* do so is pretty silly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Twit.
> >
> > The truth.
>
> Yes, - you're a raving twit, dutch.

Raving? Me? Do I need to reproduce *the list*?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > pearl wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >>>1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
> > > >>>2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
> > > >>>
> > > >>><..>
> > > >>>http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
> > > >>>
> > > >>>You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!
> > > >>
> > > >>That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and over 3 years posting here.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant
> >
> > Only to you and etter- right smurfs the pair of you. Not to those
> > trying to review the ongoing argument, or trying to reply to you.
>
> It's a croc. With the variety of newsreaders and text formatting schemes used by different people there is
no way to create this
> imaginary ideal, particularly with ongoing arguments. Learn to scan and ignore formatting, besides it's
long-past portions of the
> message that become broken, not recent responses.

Hoo BOY- are you DENSE. Learn to use your 'enter' key, dutch-
it's the one on the right hand side with a bent arrow symbol on it.
When you get to a NORMAL, AVERAGE LINE LENGTH ->X
USE IT!

<snip the usual time-wasting nonsense>

pearl wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
>>"pearl" > wrote
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>>>>1) _Type_ shorter lines of text.
>>>>>>>2) Lengthen your 'text settings' (86 or so).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><..>
>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yswjc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You can't get ANYTHING right, ball, you foul pompous windbag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And it's taken dutch over *3 years* to figure it out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be just over *2* years since you mentioned it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, and over 3 years posting here.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant
>>>
>>>Only to you and etter- right smurfs the pair of you. Not to those
>>>trying to review the ongoing argument, or trying to reply to you.
>>
>>It's a croc. With the variety of newsreaders and text formatting schemes used by different people there is
>
> no way to create this
>
>>imaginary ideal, particularly with ongoing arguments. Learn to scan and ignore formatting, besides it's
>
> long-past portions of the
>
>>message that become broken, not recent responses.
>
>
> Hoo BOY- are you DENSE.

Oh, and YOU have room to talk, huh, skank? LOOK at
that atrocity above, caused by YOUR ****ing horseshit
e-mail/news client.

Where do you figure you have any standing to criticize
anyone, you gullible shit-believing slut? What about:

prostitution
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"