"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.
>
> Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
> still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread. Since
> you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was wrong with it.
If you go back and look at it (
http://tinyurl.com/38bk2), I jumped into that
thread: a) to point out that tofu has very little saturated fat, b) to
remind you that people are entitled to their own opinions without being
subjected to political labeling (you had aggressively challenged the
previous poster's aversion to eggs in mayonnaise and accused him of being
politically liberal!), c) I tried to make a joke about taking potato salad
to BK after you had dissed the previous poster's comment connecting
unhealthy food (mayonnaise in potato salad) to BK as "non sequitur" - he was
trying to make a point which you completely ignored - or didn't get, d) and
I asked you to clarify your comment about Erik Marcus liking BK's veggie
burger. I didn't assail you...
> >>>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.
>
> I did no such thing.
I very clearly showed that you did. Now you are lying.
> > He learned it from you.
>
> Why can't you be civil for one thread?
I've tried. Discussions in which you or Jon Ball participate somehow don't
stay civil for very long. I should point out that it's that way with you and
most everyone else on this ng. So the problem's not with me.
> >>There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
> >>what you're afraid of.
> >
> > Hardly...
>
> When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
> whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry to
> the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is all
> you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives are
> wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster as
> uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive." You've
> even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again and
> again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
> address issues.
I've tried to answer your questions. You have been trying to get me in a
position (based on lies and fallacies) to admit some perceived ethical
dilemma. I don't have an ethical dilemma and you are frustrated with my
answers.