From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and war
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:33:56 GMT

altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>>
>>> Ted altar writes:B
>>>And I thought you were going to temper your flame baiting of us
>>>vegetarians.  Citing this so-called book review is not only irrelevant
>>>to this conference, but it is downright insulting to our intelligence.
>>> . . .>
>>Rich Young replies:
>
>>	1. The original exchange dealt with extremism and the evangelical
>>		attitude of some of the more militant vegetarians.  This
>>		review addresses the extremism in a common vegetarian
>>		belief system; while it may be annoying, it is hardly
>>		irrelevant.
>
>Citing more extremisms to combat someone's elses supposed extremism,
>is hardly good form.  This review of Singer's book on Animal Liberation
>does not address the "common vegetarian belief system" as such, but what
>he/she thinks is Singer's political agenda.  There are more relevant
>and scholarly sources you could turn to, like Dombrowski's "THE PHILOSOPHY
>VEGETARIANISM" or Barkas' "THE VEGETARIAN PASSION".

   I humbly beg to differ: the review addresses the contents of the book.  I
   neither support nor condemn either the book or the review; it was presented
   merely as another view of an issue.  As another poster has indicated, if
   you are not interested in reading it, hit "n", and it will die of its own
   inertia.

   "Hardly good form"?  Since when is it "bad form" to present an opposing
   view?  Only in YOUR view is the review extremist.  While it is generally
   uncomplimentary to the author, it is hardly extremist in tone or content.

>>	2. Tim Miley has, in past posts, stated that he doesn't GET t.p.a.,
>>		so it's clear that he (among others) would not have seen the
>>		review.
>
>And what is wrong with E-mail?

   Absolutely nothing.  In this case, however, it was not directed strictly
   to the attention of Mr. Miley (note the paranthetical inclusion of the
   phrase "among others" above), so e-mail would have been less than totally
   satisfactory.  Your post, however, is a personal rebuttal...and yet you
   apparently did not think e-mail to be entirely adequate.  I invite you
   herewith to respond to this post in e-mail, since you prefer it.

>>	3. The original poster of the review clearly states that, in
>>		deference to copyright laws, he's left out the author's
>>		name, and I suspect (but do not know) that this is the
>>		reason the source of the review is omitted as well.  In
>>		any case take it up (as I'm sure you will) with the
>>		original poster.
>
>Hmm, if this is so "clearly" stated, then how come you got the facts
>wrong?  Our sender of bad reviews simply asserted, "author's name withheld
>to protect them".  Now, that's pretty suspect if not simply bogus.
>If this review is published in a respectable source, then there is
>no need to protect the author.  If the author was really concerned,
>he/she could have used, or may indeed have used, a nom de plume
>(pen name).  No, it is simply intellectual dishonesty to not cite 
>the disreputable source for this so-called book review.

   I'll concede this point.  I read too much into the statement.  Idle
   speculation about the author's name and/or motives and/or options for
   anonymity accomplish little, however.  Nor do assumptions regarding the
   "disreputable" nature of the source, since you don't know any more about
   the source of the review than any other reader in this group...and it is,
   indisputably, a book review, not "so-called".  While it may or may not be
   a good one, or a fair one, it is a book review nonetheless, and the repute
   of the source remains unknown; you have let your anger color your
   judgement in use of language here.

>>	4. Whatever hostility may be present in the reviewer lends no more
>>		bias to the issue than the quasi-religious zeal of the
>>		reviewed author.  Note well that the reviewer DOES recommend
>>		reading of the book to understand the AR position...a hostile
>>		attitude indeed.
>
>Oh come on!  After poisoning the well with such a prejudicial review,
>how many people are going to bother to pick up the book, and those few
>who do might well do so, as the unknown author suggests, only to
>understand the book as our biased reviewer would have them do so. 
>To use a term from J. L. Austin, a philosopher of language,
>the "perlocutionary act", what the biased reviewer would effect
>by writing this review, is to create unsympathetic, closed-minded
>readers.

   It is impossible, I suppose, for you to admit the possibility that the
   reviewer really thinks the book is useful in the understanding of the
   author's position.  It is clearly stated that the book is well written,
   and it is clearly stated that the book is useful in understanding of the
   Animal Liberation position.  Why is it, one wonders, that you seem to
   see nefarious motives in so many things others write?  Especially when
   the writer doesn't agree with you?

>Yes, there is obvious hostility in this review.  Now, have you
>read Singer's book?  If not, then how can you make this claim about
>there being a "quasi-religious zeal" in Singer's writing, or do you
>accept as gospel this silly and hostile review by our unknown book
>reviewer published who knows where.   If you actually have
>read this book, then how about posting some choice quotes from
>Singer's book evincing this "quasi-religious zeal" for us all to see.
>I would recommend the t.p.a. conference for this, but do let
>us know if you intend to do this.

   Why is it up to me to defend the writings of someone else in this instance?
   If the reviewer is right, (s)he's right, if wrong, then wrong.  The stated
   opinions belong to the reviewer.  The salient point is that the opinions
   expressed are contrary to the belief of the more militant readers in this
   group.  One would do well to remember that the disputed text IS opinion...
   ...that of the reviewer.

>>	5. It would be of some interest to hear your definition of "flame
>>		bait", since it SEEMS to be ANY post which disagrees with
>>		your position.  If the posting of an alternative opinion
>>		is "flame bait", then my point about the evangelical
>>		attitude of militant vegetarians has been vindicated.
>
>Constructive postings of alternative views is fine.  But to be
>hectored by postings designed to incite the sensibilites of the
>particular shared interests of this conference in vegetarianism
>is quite a different matter.  Being bothered by silly reductios
>like "plant pain", being told that we vegetarianism are like 
>a relgious cult in our belief system, and being intellectually
>insulted by a disreputable and irrelevant book review 
>smacks of flame baiting to me.

   It would seem that there is more here than a simple desire to explore
   issues in peace.  There is a distinct personal animus at work which
   belies the acceptance of "constructive postings".  The "plant pain"
   discussion is now "silly" rather than an exploration of an issue, an
   attempt is being made to characterize this discussion as applicable to
   ALL vegetarians when it was made clear that this was not the case, and
   a simple book review has evoked concentrated vitriol, rather than reasoned
   dispute (in THIS forum, at least).  And of course we must not forget that
   I now seem to be the only poster who is required to substantiate every
   sentence with direct quotes from original and reviewed papers.  This is not
   intellectually honest and smacks of paranoia.  If I had intended my post to
   be flame bait as opposed to alternative opinion, I dare say I'd have been
   satisfied at the catch, since you've apparently found it impossible to
   answer without rancor.  As it happens, that was decidedly NOT my intent; I
   find little pleasure in purposely starting arguments just so that an
   argument can be had.

[...]

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg