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

[Guest guest]

>

> 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!