C. James Strutz wrote:

> "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.

Non sequitur, on two counts. First, it's not about any
problems caused by what you do or don't eat. It's
about your supposed ethical reasoning behind the
choices. Those questions are intended to illustrate
that the reasoning is lousy, and I think you can see
it; that's why you won't answer them.

Second, your answer is also a non sequitur because it
comes in response to my statement that you didn't
answer questions you have claimed to answer. Bluntly,
you are lying: you are claiming repeatedly to have
answered some questions that you have not answered.

Tell us in your own words, SeeJames: Why won't you
answer the questions? Don't tell us it's because you
have already answered them; that's a lie.

>
>
>>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!).

No, I am right, as usual. You've already told us in
the past that you are vegetarian, and you made clear by
implication that it's for quasi-ethical reasons

***My position has always been*** that it's morally
better
to minimize animal suffering and death than to do
nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.
SeeJames Strut - November 3, 2003 [emphasis added]
http://tinyurl.com/2kedr


So you LIED, SeeJames; you are vegetarian for
(pseudo)ethical reasons, as I have said and as the
quote makes plain, but you lied above and said "wrong
on all counts" when one of my explicit "counts" is that
you are vegetarian for (pseudo)ethical reasons.

You are establishing a reputation as a liar, SeeJames:
you lie about your motives, and you lie about having
answered questions. Habitual lying works against your
self-portrayal as an "ethical" person, SeeJames.

>
>
>>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.

***My position has always been*** that it's morally
better
to minimize animal suffering and death than to do
nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.

That's advancing a cause, SeeJames.

> You make me feel
> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing, leading and
> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.

I already told you there are no circular questions,
SeeJames. Why did you repeat that baseless charge?

Why won't you answer the questions, SeeJames? Stop
with the flimsy lie that it's because it makes you feel
like a source of entertainment; that clearly isn't the
reason. Either answer the questions, or tell us
HONESTLY why you won't. I want to hear it in your words.

>
>
>>>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.

No, you didn't. Anyway, you were talking about MY
supposedly "circular" questions, and there are none.

> He learned it from you.

He hasn't done it.

>
>
>>>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...

Very much.

Why won't you answer the questions? You write reams
avoiding them, ****ing away your time and others' time.
Why won't you simply answer the questions? Here they
are again, since you obviously are ignoring the most
recent post that contains them:

My questions, and the dialogue leading to them, is
entirely civil and respectful. Tell me what's uncivil
or disrespectful about the question at the end of this
exchange, a question you have thus far refused to answer:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?

SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.

Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


Same with this one:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?

SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.

Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?

SeeJames:
> I don't know.

Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And with this one:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?