[Sca-cooks] OT Meta challenge of logical contructions RE: menu planning for dietary restrictions

[grizly]

I humbly beg an indulgence from the list moderator and participants as I
will most certainly perform a rosary or act of charity in compensation for
same.  I wish to take this discussion into the meta-structure to try to
explain why I find difficulty in discussiing and debating with some of the
argument styles employed in the world around me, and in particular on the
list recently.  Tell me to stop when you are tired, and I will retire the
kitchen with grace and appreciation for your temperance and any patience you
can muster for me.

-----Original Message-----
'mandate', 'passing wagon', 'either pay and eat or not', 'informed
consent', 'fiduciary responsibility ', 'grown responsible adults', 'rude
and inconsiderate', 'nutritional extremist group'.

Just a guess on my part, but by your choice of phrases, it appears that
you're hostile to the idea of healthier menu planning. < < < < < < < <


No, I am actually quite in favor of individuals chosing for themselves what
choices they wish to make in amending their dietary habits to affect an
improvement in the overall picture of their health.  I personally also
include for myself choices in increasing my activity level, the times of day
in which I choose to eat and excercise, and increaseing water consumption to
genrally hydrate and lubricate the system. I am infavor of respecting each
individual's having the most possible true infroamtion in order to make
informed consent choices to participate or not participate in an activity
(which, BTW, was and is not a part of the whole smoking thing).

Hostility is overstaing my position, but I am adamantly opposed to what we
used to call "bipolar logic".  When faced with varying challenged to
reasoning, a person chooses varying rationalizations and legitimations for a
position.  Using two different, logical styles to defend and challenge

To wit:  A person described a recipe as period and used it as an example.
When questioned on the veracity of that statement, the defense was to
suggest that the original ascertion was never made, and then somerthing very
similar to, "I can only assume it was period, as the chef doesn't seem to go
for non-period dishes, from what I've observed."  Basically rather muddy
logic for a strong assertion.  The other, related logicla falacy is
demonstrated in the above text . . . when faced with a strong logical
argument, the person ignores the argument and challenges the person.

Same person uses detailed information from various internet websites and
research by varuious entities as a support for another position that is in
contention in our discussion.

The several logical fallacies employed to challenge my latest assertions
include:

* Appeal to the people (ad populum) by trying to evooke emotional argument
* Appeal against the arguer (ad hominum) by suggesting a slight against me
and my character
* Appeal to Motive in Place of Support arguing my motive instead of the
validity and veracity of the pemises and conclusions.
* Appeal to a red herring by placing aside the challenges levied to argue an
entirely new premise/conclusion without returning to the original argment
* Straw man tactic by distorting my personal affront to an exhorbitant
population so as to defeat the distortion more easily
* Intentionally missing the point of an assertion to create an opening for
another logical fallacy
* Begging the Question . . . patent ignoring of presented and supported
positions that are not agreement with the original argument simply for the
reason that they do not agree with the original argument

There are others, but I do not have the recent email thread saved to give
examples.  It came to me that the "discussions" go on so long and
occasionally get heated becasue the thread of the argument is so slippery
that no one can possit a goodm, logical challenge and let it stand as the
original assertion very often morphs or the argument focus changes.  If
someone out there . . . besides the part with whom I am debating . . . sees
something different from what I am experiencing as I read my computer
screen, then I sincerely want to know.

NOTE: This is  a general description of the experience I am having and not
to be contrued as the entirety of my premise and observation. This note
shall serve as defense against obsuring the point I am making to abjure a
new red herring.

I may have a vastly different interpretation of how these discussion start
out and develop over time.  My expereince of this set of circumstances I am
describing is not the same with every discussion on this list, but is very
limited in scope very recently to the one person with whom I am engaged in
discussion/debate.  Oh, we all take little liberties with logic here and
there, and we all know it is a part of how discussion happens . . . they are
often discarded as legitimate information and supportable positions are
entered into the debate.

At this point, I cannot discern where the debate actually is and where any
of us can make any sort of headway in making logical or illogical statements
that could make any difference in the understanding or validity of the
points that any have made.  While many are logically sound and have not been
refuted, they have been dismissed and the confronted premises morphed to
continue the argument.  I shall concede the field as insurmountable by any
means and will retire without passion or prejudice.

I am sincere in hearing from anyone who has experienced something different
in the recent threads about faest and menu contruction as relates to public
health and responsibility for nutritional choices.

franiccolo <at> mindspring.com

pacem et bonum,
niccolo difrancesco

(PS "cultre dopes" is a typo which reads simply . . . "The reality that the
surgeon General and any other agency out there describes a growing weight
control problem in our culture dopes not equate to a mandate to SCA and
other historical cooks . . . . ")