2 ms·

Ah. Well, then I don't think we have anything to discuss; you're either introducing a non-sequitur, or you're shitting on someone who is taking personal respons

Ah. Well, then I don't think we have anything to discuss; you're either introducing a non-sequitur, or you're shitting on someone who is taking personal responsibility for their actions. And yes, a person who eats less meat eats less meat, which is another way to say that you're introducing a non-sequitur about something which is nothing like your bus example.

enord 9y ago
Hmm, I think you're giving me short shrift here. I'm not taking the piss on purpose at least, and (since you seem to hold personal responsibility dearly) I really feel it's important to raise the point of whether we are constructively addressing important issues or not. I'm confused about the person who eats less meat non-sequitur. It feels like you're shoving me around a bit there.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The person who got short shrift is the person you initially replied to. They proposed individual virtue, and you used that as an excuse to raise a different point that you like talking about. As for the bus thing, the people responsible for reducing deaths around buses are responsible for actually solving the problem. So I agree that they should not do ineffective things like they did in your story. Meanwhile, a person eating less meat is not responsible for making sure that overall meat consumption falls. So there's no relationship between the two situations, and that's the non-sequitur. Sorry that I didn't get this point across effectively.
  - enord 9y ago
    I'm afraid GP literally stated his proposal as related to the general situation (thread topic), and if not then his post would be a non-sequitur making my reply a non-non-sequitur or just a regular old sequitur. And yes, I used his proposal of individual virtue as an "excuse" to raise a point about the role and reason of individual virtue in the topic at hand, it's called "having a discussion." Why should I leave virtuous people alone on the internet? Is he some kind of unassailable saint of meat-moderation who must be protected from non-sequiturs and sequiturs alike? Whose toes are sore here?
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      The toes which are sore are those of "discussion".

enord 9y ago

Hmm, I think you're giving me short shrift here. I'm not taking the piss on purpose at least, and (since you seem to hold personal responsibility dearly) I really feel it's important to raise the point of whether we are constructively addressing important issues or not. I'm confused about the person who eats less meat non-sequitur. It feels like you're shoving me around a bit there.

greglindahl 9y ago
The person who got short shrift is the person you initially replied to. They proposed individual virtue, and you used that as an excuse to raise a different point that you like talking about. As for the bus thing, the people responsible for reducing deaths around buses are responsible for actually solving the problem. So I agree that they should not do ineffective things like they did in your story. Meanwhile, a person eating less meat is not responsible for making sure that overall meat consumption falls. So there's no relationship between the two situations, and that's the non-sequitur. Sorry that I didn't get this point across effectively.
- enord 9y ago
  I'm afraid GP literally stated his proposal as related to the general situation (thread topic), and if not then his post would be a non-sequitur making my reply a non-non-sequitur or just a regular old sequitur. And yes, I used his proposal of individual virtue as an "excuse" to raise a point about the role and reason of individual virtue in the topic at hand, it's called "having a discussion." Why should I leave virtuous people alone on the internet? Is he some kind of unassailable saint of meat-moderation who must be protected from non-sequiturs and sequiturs alike? Whose toes are sore here?
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The toes which are sore are those of "discussion".