"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> >>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> >>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> >>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> >>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
> >>>
> >>>And why do you care what I think?
> >>
> >>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
> >
> >
> > No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
and
> > previous threads.
>
> You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
> times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
> playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
> pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
> this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
> what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
> you in a hard spot.

There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't eat,
and related or unrelated ethics.

> Although you're not "vegan", you
> have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
> and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
> make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.

Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun intended!).

> You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
> "provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
> more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
> semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
> you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
> you play games and whiff off.

Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make me feel
like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing, leading and
circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.

> > You already know my position on vegetarian and related
> > issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>
> There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
> good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
> them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
> at least sharp enough to see where answering the
> questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
> argument embodied in any of the questions.

I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles. He
learned it from you.

> > personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
> > entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>
> There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
> what you're afraid of.

Hardly...