's volatile response to Suze

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> you wrote in message #32767

>

> " you are WAY more trusting of the small group of human beings

> controlling such a project and their funder$ than i am. "

>

> Now while I didn't really consider this inflammatory or

> anything like that, I didn't like the implication that I

> was naive, and I especially didn't like it, being as it

> was based on what you considered the attendant political

> and/or economic issues. Bases upon which I never argued

> anything, and so based upon which I resented your calling

> me " trusting " . Again, I didn't consider it inflammatory,

> but I definitely did not want to leave the charge of naivete

> unanswered. So in message #32776 I wrote

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Whether there is such an implication, and whether you like it or not,

you are naive on this topic, either due to naivete about the reality

of what you call political and/or economic (but which are also

psychological and sociological) issues, or naivete about the

relevance of these issues to your topic of interest. Failing to deal

with the total set of ramifications for a major change to human

cultural practice is dangerous and unethical.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> " I'm not trusting of anybody, ... " and " We're discussing the

> feasability of producing nutritious meat in culture mediums,

> not what choices some commercial food producer might

> make in the future when using such technology. "

>

> Your reply to this one, message #32811 is where you

> first really get my goat, when you write (emphasis mine)

>

> " WRONG. it is not logical to dissociate the two because " a "

> doesn't exist in a vacuum and is not an end in and of itself.

> it WILL be followed by " b " so we clearly have to look at what

> " b " is too. this is the reality, the practicality of it. if you

> JUST want to have an interesting but TOTALLY IMPRACTICAL

> CONVERSATION about the theoretical benefits/drawbacks of such

> meat, then that is another issue. I'M MORE INTERESTED in the

> PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS of such technology as *that* is what

> would affect us, NOT THE THEORIES. "

>

> and

>

> " AS A WAPF CHAPTER LEADER, I'M much MORE CONCERNED with the

> PRACTICALITY of any situation, NOT LOVELY DISCUSSIONS on

> THEORETICAL models that will NEVER BE practiced in REALITY.

> my community wants nutrient dense foods and they want to

> support the local economy. if for no other reason, the

> hydroponic meat scenario, in practical terms, would probably

> only be practiced by agribusiness (which i'm guessing are

> the current funders), not small family farms, and from that

> perspective alone, it will further erode consumer's choice

> and erode local economies. "

>

> You have every right to be more interested in, or concerned

> with anything you want, and I never contested that fact, but

> I'm not " wrong " for discussing something other than your

> interests.

>

> So first I'm told I'm naive because I discuss the feasability

> of culturing meat without bothering to consider what Suze

> considers other more important ramifications. When I

> protest against _that_, I'm flatly told " wrong. " , and that the

> conversation that I chose to engage in was " totally impractical "

> and one in which she was not " interested " , after which she

> went on to detail just what she _is_ interested in.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Suze got your goat because she replied to your musings on a topic

with extremely relevant and important musings on the same topic

expressing views that probably everyone else on the list other than

you would agree with, and did so without the slightest hint of

personal attack or uncivility? Then that's one easy goat to get.

I agree with everything in these excerpts of Suze's posts, and could

see myself making exactly the same points if I were to have responded

to that thread. Further, her's was a valuable and appropriate

response to your exploration of a possibility that is very clearly

both infeasible and unethical. Thought experiments like this one

about making meat in a lab are wonderful exercises, but you were

making claims about the goodness of such a practice, not just it's

purely scientific feasibility, and once the boundaries of the thought

experiment are thusly widened, other views (in this case, the sane,

balanced, humanitarian ones) warrant broaching.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> My thread

> was further denigrated as " a lovely discussion on theoretical

> models that will never be practiced in reality " , followed by

> further detail about what her community wants and how my

> interest doesn't serve that in any way. It is to these words

> that I referred when I wrote " Suze expressed contempt for

> the posting of anything not relevent to her grand mission in

> life. " Does nobody else find such characterizations as

> " totally impractical conversation " to be contemptuous?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I don't find them such.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> I replied to this one in message #32879 with

>

> " How can you tell me that I'm wrong? I'm telling you what

> _I_ was talking about. I think I know what subject _I'm_

> talking about. " and " I'm telling you I'm not interested in

> any political incidentals, and I never brought them up, so

> you've no right to criticize or correct me on such points.

> If that's what interests you, and you want to turn the thread

> in that direction, then by all means do so, but don't do it by

> attacking me. Just append your own thoughts in reply to one of

> the messages in the thread. "

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I believe Suze's use of the word " wrong " refers to a claim that your

lab meat idea is feasible. Feasibility includes social, economic,

ethical, political feasibility, not just scientific feasibility, and

I believe you didn't restrict yourself only to the latter type of

feasibility claims. I believe that if you scan your posts you will

find that you did talk about a broader type of feasibility (i.e.

including ethical feasibility, which partially subsumes social,

economic, and political feasibility), and that you're attempting to

defuse accurate and appropriate criticism by misrepresenting the

scope of what you were talking about. This point covers the next

large section of your post as well, deleted here for readibility.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> " I'm on this list too, and I don't give a damn about supporting

> small family farmers. Whoever will give me the product I want

> at the best price, I'll support. I don't romanticize the small

> family farm, nor am I a technophobe. "

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The product? How about the process you want, like a good life?

There is no hope for a worldview that isolates a dialectic of product

and price without also dealing with the multiple layers of processual

and contextual issues. Gee, that reminds me of the post about the

Indian shoe workers and similar cases, a pretty good example here.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> " That's lovely for you! I'm guessing that some sort of

> brightly colored sash or shiny badge comes along with

> that position? "

@@@@@@@@@@@@

The sash or badge is probably unnecessary, because the internal

knowledge that one is attempting to practice and promote an ethical

lifestyle probably suffices.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> " I'm not concerned with _your_ community or _your_ local economy.

> The only " community " with which I'm concerned is my own family

> and circle of friends. Furthermore, _I_ participate in a _world_

> economy, and don't give one whit about propping up inviable local

> enterprises that _ought_ to die a natural death. "

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Hmm, as math professors like to say when they don't feel like wasting

class time proving something that their students could figure out

quickly on their own, I'll leave it as an " exercise " to find the

severe horrors lurking in the above viewpoint. Multiple solutions

exist.

For someone who has such an unusual emotional sensitivity to animal

suffering, you have an astonishingly crass view towards humans.

Maybe you should seek employment in the PR department of a large

multi-national corporation that markets products that threaten human

health and happiness. Make a lot of copies of your resume, because

you'll have a lot of choices...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> " Many many people now grow plants at home hydroponically,

> and I can tell you that I would grow meat this way too if

> I could, before I would eat anything that came from a

> slaughterhouse.

>

> And _that's_ what _I'm_ talking about! ;-) "

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ah, there it is, a clear piece of evidence that you're not just

talking about scientific feasibility, but also ethical feasibility

( " I would... " )! How convenient to have it laid so bare thusly within

this post.

I'll leave the obvious arguments about the importance of soil, etc,

to those with more knowledge and interest in this area...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> > her role as the leader of some " Wildly Angry Premenstrual

> > Females " (that's what WAPF stands for, right?).

> >

> > ---->is this an attempt at wit?

>

> Yes, and a successful one.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Nope, not a successful one. Don't keep trying. I defer to Tom's

excellent response.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Your real

> intent is just to show further contempt for my posts, just

> as you did before.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

If someone's posts promote radically unethical viewpoints (i.e.

that " hydroponic meat " is better than natural meat raised according

to socio-economically sustainable practices), I would certainly hope

other list members show contempt for them with clear intent.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> > not that you have to share those views, in fact dissenting

> > opinions are welcomed and encouraged, and for the most part

> > are what makes this forum interesting.

>

> Well thank you your highness. Are you a list-owner or

> moderator of this group? Is that the reason you feel

> you can take such a condescending tone with me?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

, I don't share your perception that there was a condescending

tone there. I appreciate your sharp intelligence and willingness to

pursue contentious lines of reasoning, but lighten up!

Mike

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/4/03 11:59:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

cassiusdio@... writes:

>

> Now it may be that you're an extreme descriptivist and think that any

> common crime of grammar or diction ought become law (My former

> roommate was a research assistant in cognitive science at town

> and quite the descriptivist, which runs rampant in that particular

> lab.). Well, Garner also lays out his thoughts on prescriptivism

> versus descriptivism in the introduction to said work, and he makes a

> good case for the former. It's a great reference that I highly

> recommend if you aren't familiar with it; Lord knows my grammar,

> diction, and style have improved from reading it.

Tom,

Obviously grammatic rules are of divine origin and therefore carry authority

in and of themselves.

;-)

[Guest guest]

Wow, a very thorough and thoughtful post, Mike. I concur and couldn't

have said it better than you did.

OFFTOPIC: *But* because you mentioned that you're in linguistics, I

have to give you a little beef! " Thusly " is no more a word than

" seldomly " , or " quicklyly " , for that matter. In his authoritative " A

Dictionary of Modern American Usage " Garner speaks thus:

" Thus " itself being an adverb, it needs no " -ly " . Although the nonword

" thusly " has appeared in otherwise respectable writing, it remains a

serious lapse.

Now it may be that you're an extreme descriptivist and think that any

common crime of grammar or diction ought become law (My former

roommate was a research assistant in cognitive science at town

and quite the descriptivist, which runs rampant in that particular

lab.). Well, Garner also lays out his thoughts on prescriptivism

versus descriptivism in the introduction to said work, and he makes a

good case for the former. It's a great reference that I highly

recommend if you aren't familiar with it; Lord knows my grammar,

diction, and style have improved from reading it.

Tom