Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 05:15 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 09:02:06 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him
to commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the
arguer promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's
very frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about
that proposition and would like to argue it honestly.


Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to
philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and
goes off to bother someone else.

Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a
carnivore or an herbivore?


I've been vegan for over dozen years if we overlook
the anchovies found in Worcester sauce, which I
subsequently dropped since finding out about them
a couple of years ago.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 05:39 PM
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cool. I tried being veggie for a while, but lapsed in particularly
spectacular fashion by getting ****ed and rolling home to my strict
veggie g/f while eating a kebab!

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 06:26 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 09:39:11 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Cool. I tried being veggie for a while, but lapsed in particularly
spectacular fashion by getting ****ed and rolling home to my strict
veggie g/f while eating a kebab!


Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like
you told her, or did she believe her lying eyes
instead? They have a habit of doing that.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 07:50 PM
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that.

Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me)
some hysterical laughter!

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 08:04 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 11:50:41 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or
did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that.


Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me)
some hysterical laughter!


Fortunately for her, rather, because if I were in that
position I would argue;

1) If Derek was eating a kebab, then there would be
evidence of kebabs about him.
2) There is evidence of kebabs about him
therefore
3) Derek was eating a kebab.

You should have told her she was affirming the
consequent! ;-)


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 09:06 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote

Dutch wrote:
... when I say I recognize rights in animals.

Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
weird.


No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal has
a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse. Failure to respect
these rights will result in sanctions and legal penalties just as if you
violated the right of a human.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 09:09 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote
On 23 Sep 2005 07:08:32 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for
you, liar Ditch.


And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.


It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the
issue, not a counter-argument, stupid.


No, it sure isn't an argument.


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 09:13 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sleepyhead" wrote
Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!


You didn't misjudge him, you had him dead to rights.

So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
set of arguments about animal-rights et al.


Don't be persuaded by Derek's spinology. There is a rational explanation for
every quote. I don't bother to refute them any more because everyone who
knows Derek and I knows it already.


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 09:14 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On 23 Sep 2005 08:18:55 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!

So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
set of arguments about animal-rights et al.


Exactly, Simon. That's my only gripe. If he at last rests
on one side of the debate instead of changing it when
asked to explain his current position, I wouldn't mind
at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit,
and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer
promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very
frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about
that proposition and would like to argue it honestly.


You're a dirty liar and a game player Derek, you know exactly where I stand.
You deliberately consconstrue and misrepresent people's positions to further
your own interests, whatever they are.


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 09:16 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sleepyhead" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him to
commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer
promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very frustrating
after five years if in fact you're genuine about that proposition and
would like to argue it honestly.


Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to
philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and
goes off to bother someone else.


Not at all. I caution you, do NOT be cajoled by Derek.

Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a
carnivore or an herbivore?


He's an Animal Rights Activist




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 11:33 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sleepyhead" wrote

Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!

So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
set of arguments about animal-rights et al.


Simon, let me just explain one thing and you can take it from there.

In my view there are at least two distinct understandings of the phrase
"animal rights". Most people I would submit take it to mean the movement to
recognize that animals can suffer, that they have needs, and that they are
not mere objects. The idea is to address conditions where animals such as
livestock are made to endure insufferable pain, abuse and indignity, NOT to
end all use of animals. This is also called "AW" or animal welfare, but in
common parlance it is called animal rights, and we say for example that
'pets have a right to be protected from abusive owners'. The other meaning
is a movement which believes that all use of or domestication of animals is
inherently unjust. These people, called "ARAs", also vegans, do not believe
in eating meat, using animal products in any way, animal research, in many
cases even keeping of companion animals is considered immoral. I refer to
this as "Animal Rights", or "AR" with capitals. I place myself in the first
group, Derek is in the second group. He undertands this distinction fully,
but ignores it deliberately when he produces all these quotes that purport
to show that I am inconsistent. Derek is very dishonest, it is apparently
the only way he thinks he can win arguments, and in that he may be right.


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-09-2005, 07:06 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote
On 23 Sep 2005 11:50:41 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or
did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that.


Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me)
some hysterical laughter!


Fortunately for her, rather, because if I were in that
position I would argue;

1) If Derek was eating a kebab, then there would be
evidence of kebabs about him.
2) There is evidence of kebabs about him
therefore
3) Derek was eating a kebab.

You should have told her she was affirming the
consequent! ;-)


In other words try to bullshit your way out of it. Good lesson.


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-09-2005, 07:09 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote
On 23 Sep 2005 07:39:37 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue


1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
minds because of the Law of Derek


The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the
problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth
while at the same time criticising those who do
promote animal rights genuinely.


That's a lie, and you know it. The problem you have with me is that I have
ripped so many of your stupid arguments that you have declared me your
mortal enemy. PERIOD



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-09-2005, 10:45 AM
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:
On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:

I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
provided didn't he?


If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
terms accurately and clearly.


Viz:

"According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."

Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural
causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely
necessaryn for the existence of meat. Gotcha!

If you still have a problem
understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?


There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'.
When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
appropriate for me. That is all.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:01 AM
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:

On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:

I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
provided didn't he?


If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
terms accurately and clearly.


Viz: "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."

Meat can be sourced from animals who have died of natural
causes and therefore the killing of animals is not always
absolutely necessary for the existence of meat. Gotcha!

If you still have a problem
understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?


There is stupid about using the nym 'Pesco-vegan'. It's
just that, when I decided that rules like "avoid all
meat and dairy produce" were a little too simplistic,
Pesco-vegan" no longer seemed a particulaly appropriate
nym for me. BTW, I still hold that pesco-veganism makes
more sense than lacto-vegetarianism.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? lack of conscience General Cooking 0 22-09-2015 11:15 PM
More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! Ted[_2_] General Cooking 0 06-09-2007 03:48 AM
OT Hypocrites; Doug Perkins General Cooking 13 20-06-2005 03:48 PM
Hypocrites; [email protected] General Cooking 0 20-06-2005 01:33 AM
Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead jeff stier General Cooking 17 05-06-2004 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017