From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: an idea
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:59:38 GMT

 
Ted Wayn Altar writes:
>>In quoting my words, note how you "ommitted" the argument and evidence
>>I give to support my conclusion.  What's the matter, are you not
>>able or willing to address the argument and evidence on its own terms?`
>
>No, Ted, I'm figuring that people here have already seen it once.
>And your "evidence" doesn't necessarily support your conclusion.
>Remmeber, we're not talking science here; this is: "Look what Rich
>said about Macdougall and Robbins!
>
 
Remember, even this kind of discourse also it rules of evidence and
standards of rationality.  What I provided was a cited FACT that
belies what has been declared.  This constitutes a rational argument
that you have simply dismissed and ignored.
 
 
 
>This is mudslinging and calumny of the worst sort!"  Well, maybe.
 
You got to be joking!
 
Look, I didn't write the passage in question that so slanderously
and without any justification reviled and thereby dismissed Robins 
and McDougall.  Where is the open-minded, critical intelligence in 
such a scurrilous review of Robins and McDougal's books?
 
I simply quoted this earlier posted message of Rich's as proper 
evidence.  Something I have entreated you to also do so that the
standards of debate here may be elevated from glib opinions
merely based upon vague remembrance and cursory impressions.
 
 
>I don't think you can present "evidence" that this 
>is so, because the premise is definitely arguable.
 
Care to be less vague and lay out the argument, its main premises
and the conclusion which they would support?
 
 
>
>>Is mere sarcasm and nasal noise the best that you have to offer?
>
>Sometimes.
 
That's too bad and I see no reason why such noise should be posted.
It serves no good purpose but to flame.
 
Now, I think we all should show sufficient restraint to keep 
our sarcastic remarks to oneself, unless one is willing to 
responsibly back them up with sufficient facts and rational argument.
How about it?
 
 
>
>Ted, it's perfectly legitimate to question the motivations of
>popular health writers like Macdougall and Robbins or anyone
else.
 
NO it is not, when no reason or evidence or fact is provided to
even *suggest* that Robbins is motivated by GREED let alone directly
*prove* that he is.  I don't know about American Law, but here in
Canada the imputation of motives that cannot be proven beyond
doubt constitutes slander.  Tell me, how are you going to prove
what is going on in the mind of Robbins when he writes his books?
This is what you would have to prove otherwise Robbins would win
his case of being slandered.  Plain and simple.  A similar
STANDARD of evidence should maybe here apply, so that if you
are going to question motivations, at least have the 
conscientiousness, fair-mindedness and honesty to support your 
charges with verifiable fact and valid argument
 
 
 
>By that I mean not that such questions are a priori correct, or
>that sticking to factual matters isn't preferable, but simply that
>you can't call such skepticism calumny and spite; these are public
>figures operating in the public arena.
 
I'm all for a healthy skepticism that would ask fair and serious
questions, that would rationally cite verifiable counter-examples
and provide alternative facts properly referenced for all to
authenticate.
 
But there is indeed a difference between skepticism and calumny,
which you confusedly obscure if you really think Rich's
UNSUBSTANTIATED and DEFAMATORY remarks about John Robbins and
McDougall is rational or fair comment.  It is not and this is
self-evident to most readers.
 
 
>You're reacting as if it constituted blasphemy.
 
Well, this is a mistaken impression on your part.  In point of
fact, I myself have criticized particular points in Robbins book,
but at least I stay with the facts at hand, give supporting
evidence to my critical remarks, and have no need to resort to
silly and slanderous remarks to make my case.
 
Maybe I can more freely afford a rational examination of Robbin's
book since I, at least, have no need to defend my current eating
practice.  After all, I became a vegetarian because of the
ethical argument and I would remain one even if there were health
disadvantages.  Of course, it happily turns out that I can have
my vegan cake with the icing of empirical evidence supporting its
health advantages, unequalled by any modified meat-eating diet
that we know of.  ;-)
 
                                               ted
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg