Subject:
|
Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2001 04:59:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1457 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> So, if you REALLY want to read more about it, go to Yahoo, type
> in *farm animal abuse* and hit the search button. Try *animal slaughter* and
> *reality of fast food* as well and see what happens.
You assume too much. I did that already, or something close to it. Didn't
like the quality of sites I found, and thought I'd just (without any
aspersions being cast, which is why I just asked outright instead of
prefacing it with "I already looked and got crapola") ask for cites that
were fact based non diatribe.
Your first cite wasn't so hot, it being the front page of a site that
doesn't make it easy to find facts, so I asked for more and your subsequent
ones are better, because you presumably know the PETA site better than I do.
I'd rather see some non PETA stuff as well but you did find better stuff
there when encouraged to do so, which was good.
Yes, I could continue to keep searching to find information that supports
your assertions, but the onus is on you to back them up, not on me to do
your homework for you. Further, while blindly wandering into a cave is a
feasible way of mapping the cave, it's not the most effective. Far better to
take Frank with you if Frank already explored it and knows where the useful
stuff is. Same thing here. This is your hot button, presumably you know an
effective path into the issue. Search engines aren't it.
I'd expect the same thing if I were pushing one of my own hot buttons, and
Scott's aspersions aside, I have dug up stuff that was factual and
informative in the past. The first amendment is one of my hot buttons in
fact, and when I dug up a survey (from a non libertarian org, no less) that
I thought interesting and rather scary, you asked rather baldly why I
provide references to surveys.
Note carefully my response to the pig farm cite you gave. That was a more
factual cite than the first cite. So my response was reasoned and rather
supportive of doing something about it. What more can you ask for?
You are the one that needs to change your ways here, I think. I find your
constant assuming that everyone's attacking rather tiresome, especially
considering that you make no bones about lecturing other people about their
manners and their conduct here. Knock it off and stay on topic.
This is the last I'll say about your manners, this time, unless you keep
worrying at it. Stick to the facts, provide useful cites (like you did
elsewhere) and let the ideas flow freely. It's what the readership wants, as
well as what I want, and I would hope, unless you like sparring for its own
sake, what you want as well.
If you respond to this append the way I fear you might, and I don't respond
in turn, be sure that the following comment preapplies: "Same old, same old
DJ" because I'll save the readership and am NOT going to respond to
provocation, this time.
Surprise me. Don't respond to this post at all, or respond saying I'm right
about this and you're going to stay on topic instead of questioning motives
and being difficult. It's an important topic to you and to others. Lets
have a reasoned discussion of it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
