Vegetarian Discussion: Gaverick Metheny Rebuttal (Davis Debunked)

Gaverick Metheny Rebuttal (Davis Debunked)
Posts: 16

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

LarryLook
2007-06-09 23:34:28 EST
You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well reasoned
and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very one
sided view.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gaverick+matheny%22+rebuttal+%22steven+davis%22&hl=en&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2006-24,GWYA:en&start=10&sa=N
The antivegetarians arguments suffer from two big flaws:
1. They have the numbers all wrong. They grossly inflate the number of
deaths associated with a bowl of carrots.
2. They can't see the problem with killing important animals for no reason.
For example some are not against hunting for sport (not food) or are not
against eating dolphin when one could just as well eating vegetables or a
less important animal (like a squid or clam).



Dutch
2007-06-10 01:06:55 EST
"LarryLook" <Larry@noemail.com> wrote

> You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well reasoned
> and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very one
> sided view.

Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two valid
points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example he raises
the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the Davis
studies.

> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gaverick+matheny%22+rebuttal+%22steven+davis%22&hl=en&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2006-24,GWYA:en&start=10&sa=N
> The antivegetarians arguments suffer from two big flaws:
> 1. They have the numbers all wrong. They grossly inflate the number of
> deaths associated with a bowl of carrots.

Show where anyone has ever suggested such a number, that's just another
strawman Larry.

> 2. They can't see the problem with killing important animals for no
> reason.

There's another strawman, this group is about killing animals for FOOD
Larry, a valid reason, not for no reason.

> For example some are not against hunting for sport (not food) or are not
> against eating dolphin

And another strawman, nobody here has suggesting eating dolphin meat in the
7 years I have been reading this group.

> when one could just as well eating vegetables or a less important animal
> (like a squid or clam).

Your pattern never deviates. For the life of me I can't understand why you
stumble into this newsgroup every few months just to make a complete ass of
yourself.



D*@.
2007-06-11 11:42:00 EST
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:34:28 -0400, "LarryLook" <Larry@noemail.com> wrote:

>You hear lots about Steven Davis here,

Good.

>but little about the well reasoned
>and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny.

LOL.

>It's sad - one gets a very one
>sided view.
>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gaverick+matheny%22+rebuttal+%22steven+davis%22&hl=en&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2006-24,GWYA:en&start=10&sa=N
>The antivegetarians arguments suffer from two big flaws:
>1. They have the numbers all wrong. They grossly inflate the number of
>deaths associated with a bowl of carrots.

Rice is the big killer, though other grains take their share too.

>2. They can't see the problem with killing important animals for no reason.

Who does that?

>For example some are not against hunting for sport (not food)

Many people consider human hunting to be a more humane
method of population control than starvation, disease, and
non-human predators, because it is.

>or are not
>against eating dolphin when one could just as well eating vegetables

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

Rupert
2007-06-11 20:38:24 EST
On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>
> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well reasoned
> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very one
> > sided view.
>
> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two valid
> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example he raises
> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the Davis
> studies.
>

If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?


Dutch
2007-06-11 21:21:02 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>>
>> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well
>> > reasoned
>> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very one
>> > sided view.
>>
>> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two valid
>> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example he
>> raises
>> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the Davis
>> studies.
>>
>
> If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
> presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
> position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
> opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?

That's not what strawman means. A strawman fallacy is invoked when an
argument is used which explicitly or implicitly attributes to one's opponent
a position which they did not present. Since Matheny's essay is supposedly
specifically a rebuttal of the Davis et al research, any mention of "factory
farming" is a strawman.


Rupert
2007-06-12 01:06:59 EST
On Jun 12, 11:21 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>
> >> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well
> >> > reasoned
> >> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very one
> >> > sided view.
>
> >> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two valid
> >> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example he
> >> raises
> >> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the Davis
> >> studies.
>
> > If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
> > presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
> > position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
> > opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?
>
> That's not what strawman means. A strawman fallacy is invoked when an
> argument is used which explicitly or implicitly attributes to one's opponent
> a position which they did not present. Since Matheny's essay is supposedly
> specifically a rebuttal of the Davis et al research, any mention of "factory
> farming" is a strawman.

Not unless he explicitly or implicitly attributes to Davis a position
which he didn't present. As I say, you're welcome to show me an
example of him doing this.


Dutch
2007-06-12 02:01:30 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181624819.778339.23810@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 11:21 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>>
>> >> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well
>> >> > reasoned
>> >> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very
>> >> > one
>> >> > sided view.
>>
>> >> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two valid
>> >> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example he
>> >> raises
>> >> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the Davis
>> >> studies.
>>
>> > If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
>> > presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
>> > position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
>> > opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?
>>
>> That's not what strawman means. A strawman fallacy is invoked when an
>> argument is used which explicitly or implicitly attributes to one's
>> opponent
>> a position which they did not present. Since Matheny's essay is
>> supposedly
>> specifically a rebuttal of the Davis et al research, any mention of
>> "factory
>> farming" is a strawman.
>
> Not unless he explicitly or implicitly attributes to Davis a position
> which he didn't present. As I say, you're welcome to show me an
> example of him doing this.

sigh.. the Matheny essay is TITLED "Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism
from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal" therefore anything in the essay
which raises any significant arguments against issues not in the Davis
proposal, like factory farming, are strawmen. For a smart guy, you are
really dense at times.






Rupert
2007-06-12 02:06:23 EST
On Jun 12, 4:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181624819.778339.23810@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 11:21 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> > On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>
> >> >> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well
> >> >> > reasoned
> >> >> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a very
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > sided view.
>
> >> >> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two valid
> >> >> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example he
> >> >> raises
> >> >> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the Davis
> >> >> studies.
>
> >> > If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
> >> > presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
> >> > position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
> >> > opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?
>
> >> That's not what strawman means. A strawman fallacy is invoked when an
> >> argument is used which explicitly or implicitly attributes to one's
> >> opponent
> >> a position which they did not present. Since Matheny's essay is
> >> supposedly
> >> specifically a rebuttal of the Davis et al research, any mention of
> >> "factory
> >> farming" is a strawman.
>
> > Not unless he explicitly or implicitly attributes to Davis a position
> > which he didn't present. As I say, you're welcome to show me an
> > example of him doing this.
>
> sigh.. the Matheny essay is TITLED "Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism
> from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal" therefore anything in the essay
> which raises any significant arguments against issues not in the Davis
> proposal, like factory farming, are strawmen. For a smart guy, you are
> really dense at times.

Well, I'm afraid I'm not being dense, and you're talking nonsense.
Matheny is perfectly entitled to comment on issues other than Davis'
argument.


Dutch
2007-06-12 05:04:33 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181628383.364510.160670@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 4:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181624819.778339.23810@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 11:21 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >> > On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>>
>> >> >> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well
>> >> >> > reasoned
>> >> >> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a
>> >> >> > very
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > sided view.
>>
>> >> >> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two
>> >> >> valid
>> >> >> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example
>> >> >> he
>> >> >> raises
>> >> >> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the
>> >> >> Davis
>> >> >> studies.
>>
>> >> > If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
>> >> > presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
>> >> > position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
>> >> > opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?
>>
>> >> That's not what strawman means. A strawman fallacy is invoked when an
>> >> argument is used which explicitly or implicitly attributes to one's
>> >> opponent
>> >> a position which they did not present. Since Matheny's essay is
>> >> supposedly
>> >> specifically a rebuttal of the Davis et al research, any mention of
>> >> "factory
>> >> farming" is a strawman.
>>
>> > Not unless he explicitly or implicitly attributes to Davis a position
>> > which he didn't present. As I say, you're welcome to show me an
>> > example of him doing this.
>>
>> sigh.. the Matheny essay is TITLED "Least harm: a defense of
>> vegetarianism
>> from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal" therefore anything in the essay
>> which raises any significant arguments against issues not in the Davis
>> proposal, like factory farming, are strawmen. For a smart guy, you are
>> really dense at times.
>
> Well, I'm afraid I'm not being dense, and you're talking nonsense.

You're dense, and stubborn, and I'm not talking nonsense.

> Matheny is perfectly entitled to comment on issues other than Davis'
> argument.

Sure he is, he's entitled to say whatever he pleases, but it's pummeling a
strawman to raise the issue of abuse of animals in factory farming in an
essay that is specifically supposed to be a rebuttal of an argument which
says absolutely nothing about factory farming. Factory farming is completely
immaterial to the topic under discussion, he raises it for effect, and it's
a fallacy. END OF STORY sheesh




Rupert
2007-06-12 10:03:41 EST
On Jun 12, 7:04 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181628383.364510.160670@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 4:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181624819.778339.23810@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 12, 11:21 am, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> >> > On Jun 10, 3:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "LarryLook" <L...@noemail.com> wrote
>
> >> >> >> > You hear lots about Steven Davis here, but little about the well
> >> >> >> > reasoned
> >> >> >> > and sound rebuttal by Gaverick Metheny. It's sad - one gets a
> >> >> >> > very
> >> >> >> > one
> >> >> >> > sided view.
>
> >> >> >> Nonsense, Matheny is frequently quoted here. He makes one or two
> >> >> >> valid
> >> >> >> points, but his essay is mainly composed of strawmen, for example
> >> >> >> he
> >> >> >> raises
> >> >> >> the issue of factory farming, which has nothing to do with the
> >> >> >> Davis
> >> >> >> studies.
>
> >> >> > If Gaverick Matheny's essay is "mainly composed of strawmen", then
> >> >> > presumably it must be the case that he incorrectly attributes a
> >> >> > position to his opponent which is weaker than the position which his
> >> >> > opponent actually holds. Can you give one example of him doing this?
>
> >> >> That's not what strawman means. A strawman fallacy is invoked when an
> >> >> argument is used which explicitly or implicitly attributes to one's
> >> >> opponent
> >> >> a position which they did not present. Since Matheny's essay is
> >> >> supposedly
> >> >> specifically a rebuttal of the Davis et al research, any mention of
> >> >> "factory
> >> >> farming" is a strawman.
>
> >> > Not unless he explicitly or implicitly attributes to Davis a position
> >> > which he didn't present. As I say, you're welcome to show me an
> >> > example of him doing this.
>
> >> sigh.. the Matheny essay is TITLED "Least harm: a defense of
> >> vegetarianism
> >> from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal" therefore anything in the essay
> >> which raises any significant arguments against issues not in the Davis
> >> proposal, like factory farming, are strawmen. For a smart guy, you are
> >> really dense at times.
>
> > Well, I'm afraid I'm not being dense, and you're talking nonsense.
>
> You're dense, and stubborn, and I'm not talking nonsense.
>
> > Matheny is perfectly entitled to comment on issues other than Davis'
> > argument.
>
> Sure he is, he's entitled to say whatever he pleases, but it's pummeling a
> strawman to raise the issue of abuse of animals in factory farming in an
> essay that is specifically supposed to be a rebuttal of an argument which
> says absolutely nothing about factory farming. Factory farming is completely
> immaterial to the topic under discussion, he raises it for effect, and it's
> a fallacy. END OF STORY sheesh- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's not a fallacy. There's no reason why he shouldn't raise the topic
of factory-farming in the context of that essay. It's a perfectly
reasonable subject to raise in that context. You're being ridiculous.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron