Re: 's response to 's volatile subject line (was 's volatile re...)

[Guest guest]

I was tempted to post to this thread...

....but instead I just needed to bask in the fact

that there's vitriol on this list and I am NOT

involved for a change ;-)))))))

Wahoooo!

DMM

[Guest guest]

Hey guys, you all could lighten up. Get a grip, you sound like children who

got their feelings hurt because they didn't get their way.

Good Grief, Charlie Brown

's response to 's volatile subject

line (was 's volatile re...)

>

> >

> > 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 am not naive about anything, nor am I naive enough to

> think that all of the above can properly be addressed on

> a list like this, or be settled in any quick or decisive

> way in any case. So I want nothing to do with it. You

> take bites of what you chew, don't you? You don't try to

> put an entire sheep or cow or whatever in your mouth at

> once. So you already recognize the principle of being

> able to address one issue without having to address all

> others at the same time, which is impossible actually.

>

> > 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,

>

> Can you read? She got my goat because she bluntly told

> me I was " wrong " , but I was not factually wrong in any-

> thing I wrote. How was I wrong in her mind? I was wrong

> because I wasn't discussing what _she_ thought was important.

> There's a failure to separate issues in her mind, and

> apparently in yours as well.

>

> > and did so without the slightest hint of personal attack or

> > uncivility?

>

> We evidently have very difference notions of uncivility.

> " Wrong (full stop) " is uncivil. I wouldn't even talk to

> a child who was in error in this way, and I was _not_ in

> error.

>

> > 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.

>

> Yes, and I can see how that would color your perception of

> what is and isn't civil, what is and isn't inflammatory.

>

> > Further, her's was a valuable and appropriate response to your

> > exploration of a possibility that is very clearly both infeasible

> > and unethical.

>

> It is not clearly infeasible. As has already been posted

> by others, it has already been done. Neither is it clearly

> unethical. Both of these are your _opinion_. You tacitly

> admit here that you're judging appropriateness on the basis

> of your own agreement with her position. You should demand

> the same standard of civility from _both_ sides of an argument.

>

> > once the boundaries of the thought experiment are thusly

> > widened, other views (in this case, the SANE, BALANCED,

> > HUMANITARIAN ones) warrant broaching.

>

> Again I have to ask if you can read, since I've already

> said two or three times that she can broach anything she

> wishes, just not by saying I'm wrong about an entirely

> different matter than the one to which _she_ wishes to

> turn the focus. Note also, oh great model of civility,

> that you have just called my view " insane " , " imbalanced "

> and " inhumanitarian " .

>

> > > Does nobody else find such characterizations as

> > > " totally impractical conversation " to be contemptuous?

> >

> > I don't find them such.

>

> No of course you don't, but the standard against which

> you measure such things is hard to discern, since you've

> objected to less provocative statements than this made

> by _me_. A bias is obvious.

>

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

> > your lab meat idea is feasible.

>

> Then you need to re-read the post. That is not how it

> was phrased.

>

> > 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 didn't have to announce a restriction of any sort.

> _Technological_ feasibility is the _only_ sort that

> I brought up, and so technological feasibility was

> the sole issue upon which I could be corrected. If

> she wanted to include more, more power to her, but

> she should not have chosen a rude attack on a separate

> issue as her means.

>

> > 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),

>

> I don't need to " scan " my posts, I've _read_ them,

> and have put them all into one post to make it

> easier for everyone else to read them as well, and

> see what was actually said. Maybe you too should

> actually be _reading_ my posts rather than just

> scanning them before you criticize them. In any

> case, I'm a libertarian. I don't recognize any such

> thing as social, economic or political ethics, only

> personal. I'm responsible for my own actions alone,

> not those of society, the economy, or whatever other

> abstract notion you wish to throw in. You shall have

> to try to peddle your socialistic utopianism to someone

> else. Furthermore, this whole tack is not but a red

> herring, because it is _you_ and/or _Suze_ who are

> actually naive, if you really imagine that you can

> know all of the long-range social implications of

> _anything_. Such is far more complex and difficult

> to predict than you would have us believe, and really

> way beyond the scope of a list like this. I don't fail

> to broach such areas because I'm " naive " , haven't given

> any thought to them, or because I don't care, but rather

> I refuse to enter in on such a topic because I don't feel

> it's my responsibility to educate the members of this

> list on such matters. It's the same reason I didn't want

> to get into libertarianism when I first joined. It may

> come as a great shock to you, but I don't consider

> your or Suze fit to presume to be my teachers in ethics

> or politics, nor am I interested in taking on the job

> of instructor in the same to you, the latter being the

> _only_ proper relationship between you and me in this

> area, as far as I'm concerned.

>

> > and that you're attempting to defuse accurate and appropriate

> > criticism by misrepresenting the scope of what you were talking

> > about.

>

> Wrong (How does that sound/read?). It is actually you

> who are trying to defuse the fact that Suze was wrong

> in what she said to me, because you agree with her other

> premises, and are opposed to others of mine as well.

> You are both stooping to increasingly desperate and

> ridiculous extremes trying to cover your behinds.

>

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

>

> I'll worry about my own life, thank you.

>

> > 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.

>

> You have no idea what number of layers my worldview

> recognizes, and what reason do I have to believe that

> either you or Suze has the mental acumen to sort and

> evaluate layers _for_ me? This may again come as a

> shock to you, but I don't recognize either of you as

> authorities on anything. Why should I let either of

> you dictate to me what are and aren't the long-term

> ramifications of anything that most urguently demand

> discussion? I'll discuss what I wish, as you also may,

> and won't be taken to task for not touching upon what

> you or Suze personally consider more important. I want

> to discuss health and diet, if you or anybody else wants

> to rant about politics, please be my guest, but don't

> try to ram _your_ issues down _my_ throat, or forbid me

> from discussing what I want.

>

> > The sash or badge is probably unnecessary, because the internal

> > knowledge that one is attempting to practice and promote an ethical

> > lifestyle probably suffices.

>

> All fanatics excuse their excesses in pursuit of their

> so called " noble " cause in exactly the same way, including

> what they consider the necessary violation of others.

> I don't know that I would find either yours or Suze's

> causes, or means your willing to use in pursuing them,

> to be ethical. So why should I be willing to let you

> step on me on your way? This discussion is not the first

> on the list wherein you or Suze has demonstrated a clearly

> fanatical mind set.

>

> > 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.

>

> You're not my teacher, and you don't assign exercizes

> to me. If my conclusions differ from your own, it could

> as well be due to _your_ failure to do your homework, as

> it could be from _mine_. Again I have to wonder why I

> should defer to your interpretation as to which.

>

> > For someone who has such an unusual emotional sensitivity to animal

> > suffering, you have an astonishingly crass view towards humans.

>

> Humans can make decisions. Humans can take responsibility

> for their decisions. I'm not crass.

>

> > 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...

>

> Are you offering me a brightly colored sash and a

> shiny metal badge here? No, of course you couldn't

> be, because you've already stated that sarcasm of

> that sort is uncivil.Actually though, the sarcasm

> is the least offensive part - sarcasm doesn't tend

> to hurt unless it's based on the truth. It's the

> implication that I am, or at least am of such

> character that I should be, an immoral shill for the

> multi-nationals. This is slanderous for one thing,

> and demonstrative of a fanatic mind set for another.

> ( " if you're not with us, you're against us " ).

>

> > 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.

>

> There is no such thing as " ethical feasibility " . Feasibility

> belongs to the realm of practicality, not morality.

>

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

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

>

> Yes, why don't you. _I_ was surely willing to leave

> all that, and more, to others. Also, " obvious " is,

> again, _your_ characterization, and one with which

> nobody's required to agree.

>

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

> > excellent response.

>

> Yes it _was_ a successful one, and I shall keep trying,

> and I'm sure more often succeeding than not. Notice

> that you end below with " lighten up " . I might entreat

> you, Tom, and Suze to do the same. Also, Tom's response

> was only excellent in so far as the fact that his jokes

> _were_ funny, contrary to his insistence that they weren't.

>

> > 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.

>

> The characterization " radically unethical " is _yours_,

> not a necessary fact that one can use to justify a

> different standard of civility for themselves, as you

> imply. It is _your_ characterization, and as I've

> already pointed out, neither I nor anybody else here

> is required to defer to your interpretations. Although

> you have now been kind enough to finally reveal the

> approach you take in judging civility - if the individual

> is expounding what _you_ consider " sane, balanced,

> humanitarian " or " ethical " viewpoints, then they are

> given special license in tone and language when

> responding to those which _you_ consider to be lacking

> in the same.

>

> > , 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!

>

> Thank you, but please also appreciate my right not

> to join in Suze's and your political crusades, and

> the fact that " Wildly Angry Premenstrual Females " is

> hilarious, especially given the line of joking that

> was going on on the list!

>

>

>

>

>

>