From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Quibbling.  Was: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:09:14 GMT

In article <C074sD.DKt@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > The questions I posed were related to the "current thread" when I
> > originally posed them.  Now that they have been ignored for some weeks,
> > they may not be related to the "current thread."
> 
> Let's stick with our prime example:

No, lets consider all of the questions that you left unanswered.  Let us
not use one potentially bad example to condemn all others.  Likewise, don't
attempt to conflate all animal research by citing a couple of potentially
"bad" examples.

> It's now obvious that there never, ever, was a time when my 
> presence or absence from a meeting in Athens, Georgia was 
> "pertinent" to our discussion.  Yet, you posed this question many 
> times and insisted that I was "evading" your questions.  

I was correct to say that you were evading all of my questions on the list.
 I was incorrect to say that all, rather than most, of them were pertinent
to animal issues.

>[...]
> 
> Martin, you're contradicting prior statements in which you insisted
> that *all* your questions were pertinent.

Yes.  I again admit that the one question about your presence in Athens was
not relevant to animal issues.  Why can't you leave it at that?

>Rather than waste my time, 
> why don't you repost your list of questions, and fully explain why you
> think they're relevant to the debate?

It is already done. 
   
> 
>[...]
> The problem with your rationale is that you assume that your statements
> are true until they're proven false to your satisfaction.

Untrue.

>Needless to
> say, this doesn't stop you from applying more rigid standards to your
> opponents.

Also untrue.

>For those of us who know that a given statement is false,
> your attitude seems thoroughly unreasonable.   I'm not saying this to
> offend you, BTW.  Rather, I'm hoping that you will be exercise some
> conservative restraint before jumping to conclusions.

You and I have both been guilty of posting information that has later been
shown to be incorrect.  The difference between you and me is that I am
capable of admitting my errors.

> Modified question #3:  
> 
> Don't you think it might be more reasonable for you to shoulder 
> the burden of proving your claims, rather than expecting your 
> opponents to prove that your claims are wrong?  

A loaded question.  You are making unfounded assumptions about my
intentions.

>[...]
> You're giving yourself too much credit, Martin, and you're (once again)
> assuming that you understand my motivation.

No, I'm not.

>[...]
> > Again, if you choose to respond to a particular post, yet fail to answer
> > questions that are posed repeatedly without providing good reason, you are
> > evading the questions.
> 
> You're jumping to a conclusion.

No, I'm not.
 
> Modified question #4:
> 
> Is it reasonable for non-omniscient thinkers to pretend that they
> understand the inner motives of their opponents?

The inner motives of my opponents are beside the point.
 
> Modified question #5:
> 
> If it's unreasonable to assume that a usenet reader who uses a killfile
> is "evading" another poster's arguments, why would it be reasonable to
> assume that a usenet poster who doesn't wish to waste his time on silly 
> or uninteresting arguments is seeking to "evade" a particular set of 
> questions?  [Hint: Do you understand the fallacy of the "missing middle"?]

What purpose are you serving by bringing up the issue of a "killfile?"  Is
it reasonable to repose the questions in "modified" from, then claim that
they are "unanswered?"

>[...]
> >>> The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
> >>> misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
> >>> opinion.  
> >>
> >> How do you know, Martin?   Did you interview the reporter who wrote
> >> the article?  
> > 
> > No.
> 
> Then how do you know?

It is my opinion.
 
>[...]
> Why, then, are you so willing to "predict" the ideas, motivation,
> personal attributes, and so on, of your opponents?

I do not.

> >>If not, why did
> >> you assume that PETA was responsible for the WP's statement that the
> >> case against Taub had been dismissed on technical grounds?
> > 
> > I did not assume that PETA was "responsible."  This post is missing from my
> > archive as well.  If memory serves, I indicated that WP's assessment of the
> > Appeals Court opinion was misleading and the same as PETA's.
> 
> Your memory is faulty.  I took the liberty (see above) of editing back 
> in the statement from your previous posting that you conveniently deleted:
> 
> ======================================================================
> The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
> misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
> opinion.  
> ======================================================================
> 
> Has it occurred to you that the reporter from the WP was capable of
> thinking independently... without "swallowing" PETA's arguments,
> as it were?   If the reporter had, indeed, done his homework, don't
> you think that it was unfair for you to impugn his integrity by making 
> the statement above?

Because of practical limitations with deadlines, etc.  Reporters are often
unable to double-check information in press releases prior to publication. 
I do not in any way suggest that the WP reporter was being unethical.  He
was simply mistaken.  If he had done his homework, he would realize that it
is misleading to say that Taub's sole conviction was overturned on a
technicality.  The Appeals Court opinion said much more.

Because the WP reporter and PETA made the same erroneous conclusion about
the Appeals Court's opinion, it is not unreasonable for me to have the
OPINION that he/she might have obtained his/her information from PETA,
rather than reading the entire Appeals Court opinion.  Of course, the
reporter could have made the erroneous conclusion independently.  The
opinion is erroneous nonetheless.

> Be advised that I'm going to consider questions 6 & 7 to be unanswered 
> until these points are resolved.

I hope that everything has been answered to your satisfaction.  If not,
please take it to e-mail.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO