Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bonduca · 03-15-2002, 05:08 AM

spin, if you will make a compilation of other posters in an apparent attempt to ridicule them, it is absurd to censure SK for quoting you in turn.

spin · 03-15-2002, 05:29 AM

SK:
-------------
How exactly does making up facts with no basis in reality and a holier-than-thou attitude qualify as "qualitative improvement"?
-------------

While not accepting your misguided analysis, the qualitative improvement involves logical connectives, no swearing, no non sequiturs.

Now explain your problem with:

"If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference."

Is it that you don't like the name Dahmer in the sentence, when it was his action which were being looked at in parallel with those who eat other animals?

"Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism..."

Did you read the books and articles I cited, giving clear references to people who actually did the work in the field, people like Richard Leakey and Donald Johanson?

"If tofu gets equal rights then I guess PJPSYCOs should as well. Sentient beings."

Read it in the context of PJPSYCO's comment and come back to me.

"...there is nothing 'moral' about your 'contract theory'. It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha."

As I was not attacking contract theory per se, but PB's abuse of its principles, what is your gripe?

"Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own."

Are we talking about the one who claims to be a "reptoid"?

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

spin · 03-15-2002, 05:32 AM

----------------
spin, if you will make a compilation of other posters in an apparent attempt to ridicule them, it is absurd to censure SK for quoting you in turn.
----------------

Do you feel ridiculed because I quoted your comment literally? Perhaps you might think about how you say things in the future.

There was no attempt to censure SK. I thanked SK.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

bonduca · 03-15-2002, 05:35 AM

Your "thanking" SK did not sound very complimentary. Your posts in general have been consistently bad-tempered and peevish. You may quote me as many times as you wish, though quoting scientific sources of your assertions would carry more weight than tantrums and insults.

Spin, can you present a reasonable statement of your beliefs about vegetarianism, free from comparisons to Dahmer or Nazis, and without referring to other posters in insulting terms? Can you respond to questions with scientific data, rather than quotes from Blake or Dahmer? If so, I would be much more interested in reading it than the sixteen pages of rant that we have here. Would you be kind enough to post this?

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

spin · 03-15-2002, 05:45 AM

bonduca:
-----------------
Spin, can you present a reasonable statement of your beliefs about vegetarianism, ...
-----------------

Yes.

bonduca:
-----------------
...free from comparisons to Dahmer or Nazis,
-----------------

Do you feel anything logically or evidentially wrong with the data culled from the parallels? If not, why not consider the parallels instead of choking on names?

bonduca:
-----------------
and without referring to other posters in insulting terms?
-----------------

I am happy to discuss issues. I'm waiting for an animal eater to do so.

bonduca:
-----------------
Can you respond to questions with scientific data, rather than quotes from Blake or Dahmer?
-----------------

Yes, I can.

Did you understand the poem by Blake. The observation is meaningful and relevant.

I did not quote from Dahmer, merely used his actions as a comparison with those of an eater of animals. Is there anything logically wrong with my comparison?

bonduca:
------------------
If so, I would be much more interested in reading it than the sixteen pages of rant that we have here.
------------------

I consider I have done little to no ranting, but you have difficulty understanding this because of the medium we are using. You cannot see my sentiments or reactions, so you cannot know whether I have been ranting or not. It is a normal practice for people who want to avoid things to depict their "opponents" in non-representative ways in attempts not to deal with substantive matters.

bonduca:
------------------
Would you be kind enough to post this?
------------------

I have been asking for a moral justification of the eating of other animals by the human animal.

spin · 03-15-2002, 05:50 AM

bonduca:
------------------
Your "thanking" SK did not sound very complimentary.
------------------

It mightn't have been complimentary, but I was sincere.

bonduca:
------------------
Your posts in general have been consistently bad-tempered and peevish. You may quote me as many times as you wish, though quoting scientific sources of your assertions would carry more weight than tantrums and insults.
------------------

If you would like to be responded to in a manner which you might find more acceptable, you might reconsider your own terminology and content, as indicated in your statement above.

You impute things on written communciations that you have no way of verifying.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-15-2002, 05:54 AM

Quote:

It is a normal practice for people who want to avoid things to depict their "opponents" in non-representative ways in attempts not to deal with substantive matters.

Spin,

People may indeed do this, but I don't think that Bonduca is guilty of that here.

I personally have no opinion on your vegetarianism. You could eat rocks for all I care. Yet, having read your posts, I too felt they were frequently unkind and seemed more intended to batter people into submission than to convince them logically.

Maybe that's not your intention, but it is how some people are receiving it.

Jeff

bonduca · 03-15-2002, 05:56 AM

spin, you have consistently been insulting to other posters ("jonnikins" being one example that springs to mind). Attempts at humor have been met with personal insults. I am not especially impressed by ethical "arguments" from those who cannot even address their own species with civility.

You have made statements regarding whether man is physically structured to consume meat. You have not defended these statements in a satisfactory manner. In fact, you frequently resort to insults and references to your hectic schedule, or the unavailibility of source material. Why make these statements, then, if you cannot defend them?

I find it hard to believe that a person who sincerely desired to win sympathy for a cause would approach it in a manner guaranteed to repel even the most sympathetic listener. I can only assume that you have made a grave error in judgement, or are simply looking for a fight.

Spin, you are probably a decent enough human being, but alienating others to this extent does not make you an effective apologist for vegetarianism.

spin · 03-15-2002, 06:19 AM

bonduca:
------------------
spin, you have consistently been insulting to other posters ("jonnikins" being one example that springs to mind).
------------------

Jonnikins is a real heavy insult there. Got anything a bit more juicy?

bonduca:
------------------
Attempts at humor have been met with personal insults.
------------------

I meet attempts at ridicule with what I think they deserve. There was little effort to insult, but usually to point out what the person is doing. Parody, ridicule and gratuitous levity at the sake of what is being discussed are a methodology whose aims should be clear to you.

bonduca:
------------------
I am not especially impressed by ethical "arguments" from those who cannot even address their own species with civility.
You have made statements regarding whether man is physically structured to consume meat.
------------------

There teeth are clearly ill-adapted as a comparison with most known meat eaters should make apparent. The canines are the smallest in the primate branch. They have no spacing between their teeth to allow for easier ripping of the meat.

bonduca:
------------------
You have not defended these statements in a satisfactory manner.
------------------

I would say that you've shown no inclination to judge fairly.

bonduca:
------------------
In fact, you frequently resort to insults and references to your hectic schedule, or the unavailibility of source material. Why make these statements, then, if you cannot defend them?
------------------

"hectic"?

I have mentioned specifically one instance of unavailability of source material, so I publically retracted the statement.

bonduca:
------------------
I find it hard to believe that a person who sincerely desired to win sympathy for a cause would approach it in a manner guaranteed to repel even the most sympathetic listener.
------------------

I'm not trying to win sympathy for anything. Winning sympathy is for Meg Ryan or Julia Roberts. I wouldn't mind a little evidence of logical analysis which reflects some form of defendable ethics.

bonduca:
------------------
I can only assume that you have made a grave error in judgement, or are simply looking for a fight.
------------------

You can make erroneous assumptions as much as you like. They won't help you deal with anything, but to the contrary they'll only make it more difficult for you. You should make assumptions on primary evidence and you are in no position to have primary evidence on what you are assuming about.

bonduca:
------------------
Spin, you are probably a decent enough human being, but alienating others to this extent does not make you an effective apologist for vegetarianism.
------------------

I have no problems being seen as alienating eaters of other animals. As I said sensitization is all I can hope for. Alienation is a form of sensitization.

Given the current state of the game, you should be able to appreciate the efforts of the feminists of the early nineteenth century. If you read Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, you'll see that one mechanism in the book is that a woman couldn't even inherit anything, as it would go to their husband on marriage. Women were still dying for the cause of feminism in the early twentieth century and women didn't get to vote until the twenties in some countries. But more people were becoming aware of the problems in the nineteenth century.

Feminists alienated very many people, men and women.

I think alienation is better than the "sty of contentment".

bonduca · 03-15-2002, 06:29 AM

Spin, people will not stop eating meat simply because you are rude to them. If anything, they will become resistant to your argument. What have you accomplished in sixteen pages? Has anyone been converted? Does anyone even appear to take you seriously?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 05:08 AM	#391
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	spin, if you will make a compilation of other posters in an apparent attempt to ridicule them, it is absurd to censure SK for quoting you in turn.

03-15-2002, 05:29 AM	#392
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	SK: ------------- How exactly does making up facts with no basis in reality and a holier-than-thou attitude qualify as "qualitative improvement"? ------------- While not accepting your misguided analysis, the qualitative improvement involves logical connectives, no swearing, no non sequiturs. Now explain your problem with: "If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference." Is it that you don't like the name Dahmer in the sentence, when it was his action which were being looked at in parallel with those who eat other animals? "Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism..." Did you read the books and articles I cited, giving clear references to people who actually did the work in the field, people like Richard Leakey and Donald Johanson? "If tofu gets equal rights then I guess PJPSYCOs should as well. Sentient beings." Read it in the context of PJPSYCO's comment and come back to me. "...there is nothing 'moral' about your 'contract theory'. It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha." As I was not attacking contract theory per se, but PB's abuse of its principles, what is your gripe? "Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own." Are we talking about the one who claims to be a "reptoid"? [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-15-2002, 05:32 AM	#393
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	---------------- spin, if you will make a compilation of other posters in an apparent attempt to ridicule them, it is absurd to censure SK for quoting you in turn. ---------------- Do you feel ridiculed because I quoted your comment literally? Perhaps you might think about how you say things in the future. There was no attempt to censure SK. I thanked SK. [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-15-2002, 05:35 AM	#394
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Your "thanking" SK did not sound very complimentary. Your posts in general have been consistently bad-tempered and peevish. You may quote me as many times as you wish, though quoting scientific sources of your assertions would carry more weight than tantrums and insults. Spin, can you present a reasonable statement of your beliefs about vegetarianism, free from comparisons to Dahmer or Nazis, and without referring to other posters in insulting terms? Can you respond to questions with scientific data, rather than quotes from Blake or Dahmer? If so, I would be much more interested in reading it than the sixteen pages of rant that we have here. Would you be kind enough to post this? [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

03-15-2002, 05:45 AM	#395
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	bonduca: ----------------- Spin, can you present a reasonable statement of your beliefs about vegetarianism, ... ----------------- Yes. bonduca: ----------------- ...free from comparisons to Dahmer or Nazis, ----------------- Do you feel anything logically or evidentially wrong with the data culled from the parallels? If not, why not consider the parallels instead of choking on names? bonduca: ----------------- and without referring to other posters in insulting terms? ----------------- I am happy to discuss issues. I'm waiting for an animal eater to do so. bonduca: ----------------- Can you respond to questions with scientific data, rather than quotes from Blake or Dahmer? ----------------- Yes, I can. Did you understand the poem by Blake. The observation is meaningful and relevant. I did not quote from Dahmer, merely used his actions as a comparison with those of an eater of animals. Is there anything logically wrong with my comparison? bonduca: ------------------ If so, I would be much more interested in reading it than the sixteen pages of rant that we have here. ------------------ I consider I have done little to no ranting, but you have difficulty understanding this because of the medium we are using. You cannot see my sentiments or reactions, so you cannot know whether I have been ranting or not. It is a normal practice for people who want to avoid things to depict their "opponents" in non-representative ways in attempts not to deal with substantive matters. bonduca: ------------------ Would you be kind enough to post this? ------------------ I have been asking for a moral justification of the eating of other animals by the human animal.

03-15-2002, 05:50 AM	#396
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	bonduca: ------------------ Your "thanking" SK did not sound very complimentary. ------------------ It mightn't have been complimentary, but I was sincere. bonduca: ------------------ Your posts in general have been consistently bad-tempered and peevish. You may quote me as many times as you wish, though quoting scientific sources of your assertions would carry more weight than tantrums and insults. ------------------ If you would like to be responded to in a manner which you might find more acceptable, you might reconsider your own terminology and content, as indicated in your statement above. You impute things on written communciations that you have no way of verifying.

03-15-2002, 05:56 AM	#398
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	spin, you have consistently been insulting to other posters ("jonnikins" being one example that springs to mind). Attempts at humor have been met with personal insults. I am not especially impressed by ethical "arguments" from those who cannot even address their own species with civility. You have made statements regarding whether man is physically structured to consume meat. You have not defended these statements in a satisfactory manner. In fact, you frequently resort to insults and references to your hectic schedule, or the unavailibility of source material. Why make these statements, then, if you cannot defend them? I find it hard to believe that a person who sincerely desired to win sympathy for a cause would approach it in a manner guaranteed to repel even the most sympathetic listener. I can only assume that you have made a grave error in judgement, or are simply looking for a fight. Spin, you are probably a decent enough human being, but alienating others to this extent does not make you an effective apologist for vegetarianism.

03-15-2002, 06:19 AM	#399
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	bonduca: ------------------ spin, you have consistently been insulting to other posters ("jonnikins" being one example that springs to mind). ------------------ Jonnikins is a real heavy insult there. Got anything a bit more juicy? bonduca: ------------------ Attempts at humor have been met with personal insults. ------------------ I meet attempts at ridicule with what I think they deserve. There was little effort to insult, but usually to point out what the person is doing. Parody, ridicule and gratuitous levity at the sake of what is being discussed are a methodology whose aims should be clear to you. bonduca: ------------------ I am not especially impressed by ethical "arguments" from those who cannot even address their own species with civility. You have made statements regarding whether man is physically structured to consume meat. ------------------ There teeth are clearly ill-adapted as a comparison with most known meat eaters should make apparent. The canines are the smallest in the primate branch. They have no spacing between their teeth to allow for easier ripping of the meat. bonduca: ------------------ You have not defended these statements in a satisfactory manner. ------------------ I would say that you've shown no inclination to judge fairly. bonduca: ------------------ In fact, you frequently resort to insults and references to your hectic schedule, or the unavailibility of source material. Why make these statements, then, if you cannot defend them? ------------------ "hectic"? I have mentioned specifically one instance of unavailability of source material, so I publically retracted the statement. bonduca: ------------------ I find it hard to believe that a person who sincerely desired to win sympathy for a cause would approach it in a manner guaranteed to repel even the most sympathetic listener. ------------------ I'm not trying to win sympathy for anything. Winning sympathy is for Meg Ryan or Julia Roberts. I wouldn't mind a little evidence of logical analysis which reflects some form of defendable ethics. bonduca: ------------------ I can only assume that you have made a grave error in judgement, or are simply looking for a fight. ------------------ You can make erroneous assumptions as much as you like. They won't help you deal with anything, but to the contrary they'll only make it more difficult for you. You should make assumptions on primary evidence and you are in no position to have primary evidence on what you are assuming about. bonduca: ------------------ Spin, you are probably a decent enough human being, but alienating others to this extent does not make you an effective apologist for vegetarianism. ------------------ I have no problems being seen as alienating eaters of other animals. As I said sensitization is all I can hope for. Alienation is a form of sensitization. Given the current state of the game, you should be able to appreciate the efforts of the feminists of the early nineteenth century. If you read Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, you'll see that one mechanism in the book is that a woman couldn't even inherit anything, as it would go to their husband on marriage. Women were still dying for the cause of feminism in the early twentieth century and women didn't get to vote until the twenties in some countries. But more people were becoming aware of the problems in the nineteenth century. Feminists alienated very many people, men and women. I think alienation is better than the "sty of contentment".

03-15-2002, 06:29 AM	#400
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Spin, people will not stop eating meat simply because you are rude to them. If anything, they will become resistant to your argument. What have you accomplished in sixteen pages? Has anyone been converted? Does anyone even appear to take you seriously?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.