From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and war
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 14:43:12 GMT

>>
>> 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".



>	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?

>	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.


>	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.

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.
.


>	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.


>	6. How do you know that the source of the review is NOT credible,
>		since, by your own admission, it's not given?  And how does
>		this justify the patently patronizing final sentence of
>		your post?

Well, Russell Lawrence and myself have provided our reasons on
the t.p.a.  I suggest that you give us your considered reply to our
worries there.  If you are referring to my suggestion to look up
reviews in the BOOK REVIEW INDEX, this was not intended as a 
patronizing remark, but as useful information for you and other
readers interested in a credible, non-partisan source where 
reviews of books can be found. 
.
                                       ted