Ok, maybe I was generalizing a bit too much. I know for sure that McD here Sweden use domestic raw materials and I have seen the same statements at their restaurants in Germany and France when I´ve been there.
I guess saying that you use 100% british beef is not good marketing in Britain right now.´
/Andreas
PLD:
Come now. Wrestling is “Sport’s entertainment.” Nobody’s deceiving anybody.
I also left the Washington Post out of my accusation. You noticed it, and I again left it out. I never called them or insinuated they were a chick Tract.
I thought my little WWF riff was a nice little bit of evidence. Apparently you haven’t chosen to visit the site.
Such disinformation is unlike you.
You still haven’t answered my question concerning what Minty has said that you are endorsing.
Scylla, I simply wish to point out that I never said you were lying about the Foley thing. And while I think it’s possible Foley is lying, I rather doubt it. I find it much more likely that he’s (probably unintentionally) leaving out important details, not that he’s fabricating. No, my point is that either there is more to the story that would prevent a successful defamation case (and I agree with spoke-'s suggestion that an editing waiver would not be enough) or Foley’s lawyers are as ignorant as you are about defamtion law.
You are, on the other hand, lying when you state that I claimed to have argued in front of the Supreme Court. Of course, anybody with half a brain has already realized that, but it seems likely that the dumbest percentile is the only one your baseless complaints have a prayer with anyway.
The thing that makes really me giggle here is your total lack of knowledge of defamation law, even as you continue to insist I’m full of shit. Meanwhile, only one of us has cited any actual law. [Michael Palin]This isn’t even an argument![/Michael Palin] If you’re going to come to a pissing contest, bring along at least a bit of water, eh?
If you’ve got specific objections to any claims I’ve made here, put 'em on the record and I’ll swat 'em down when I have the time later today or tonight. In fact, I’ll have some cites for your little “Those cases aren’t television!” complaint this afternoon. (Sneak preview: Yes, Virginia, you can defame somebody on television.)
But if you just want to wallow in your own ignorance, go right ahead. You’re doing a pretty good job of that lately.
I do know that the WWF has brought suit against the PTC for defamation, in linking the WWF to the deaths of 2 children in what the PTC claimed was a wrestling related incident inspired by WWF TV.
That was the incident that spawned the 20/20 report, and both sides were quoted, with Mick Foley and Vince McMahon representing the WWF.
So, they certainly seem willing to file defamation suits. If what Mick Foley says is not true, then why haven’t they filed against 20/20?
pldennison’s words:
pldennison, you know and I know exactly what types of images you were trying to conjure up with that little nugget. You weren’t just talking about the slaughter process. If you contend otherwise now, you are being disingenuous.
Just admit that you didn’t know what you were talking about. You’ll feel much better. And isn’t feeling good about yourself the reason you became a vegetarian?
Minty:
I see. I interpreted the “me” part as a claim that you had argued there twice on this issue when in fact you are referring to having cited it twice (though I couldn’t get to the cites.)
My apologies for the misinterpretation.
Minty:
But it ain’t no cause to call me a liar.
That’s about as ham-handed as your cry of “bullshit” that started this argument. Now your saying “There’s probably more to the story.” That’s a lot different than saying “bullshit.” Which is what you said, which is calling someone a liar, contrary to your backpedalling.
jab1:
Did anyone, anywhere in this thread, say that plants have a nervous system? Or that plants feel pain in the way that humans and animals perceive pain?
Plants have a survival “instinct.” Plants react to negative, noxious stimuli. What’s the most direct way that nature tells a living organism, “Hey, what you are experiencing right now is an immediate threat to your survival?” By making it UNPLEASANT – PAINFUL – so that the experience is departed from as quickly as possible. This reaction is evident in microbes.
It may not be “pain” as defined by the experience an animal with a central nervous system suffers, but it’s something similar. And who’s the “idiot” for claiming that isn’t so?
And, by the way, you might find this interesting:
Are you NUTS? Are you going to sit here with a straight face and deny that you said, two pages ago on this very thread:
You must really, really think I am genuinely stupid.
spoke: I said exactly what I meant and meant exactly what I said. If you don’t like it, too bad for you. I’ll continue to use the phrase in the future to refer to the entire process. If it bothers you, don’t read my posts. But don’t you ever call me a liar without evidence.
kabbes wrote:
May I suggest a fourth choice?
See, the problem with giving in to alarmism is that the next time there’s an e. coli scare (strawberries) or a cyanide scare (grapes), or a pesticide scare, well then you’ll have to give up fruits and vegetables, because you never know which are safe and which aren’t. And then what will you eat?
Oh Jesus Christ, PLD!
Did you bother to read the next fucking line?
Don’t you think that that last sentence indicates I was being facetious, and recognizing the validity of the source?
Especially considering how I went on to address and concede the issue raised by the Post’s articles I find your misinterpretation of that post startling.
Stop playing games, please.
pldennison’s words:
[/quote]
…reducing the demand for meat reduces the number of animals subjected to horrific factory-farm rearing…
[/quote]
Factory farm you said. Factory farm rearing you said. I’m still waiting for you to give me directions to one of these “factory farms,” or at least to tell me what a “factory farm” is.
Tell me, does all this backpedalling make your legs tired?
pldennison said:
Well, he could always go to the Dennison School, and be personally attacking, insulting and more focused on how smart he is and how dumb you are, rather than debating the issues. I suppose.
So, PL, judging by your statements about the “horrors of factory farming,” are we to surmise that you do, indeed, feel that your eating practices are right, and consumers of the factory-farming meat product are wrong? That you are more moral than they? That you are more intelligent, enlightened or compassionate?
If not, do you mean to say that this is a horrible, terrible practice of which you want no part – but it’s cool, anyway, for millions of others? Rather qualified and tepid moral outrage, if so.
[sub](This oughta be interesting …)[/sub]
I really shouldn’t get involved in this train wreck, but I couldn’t let this one go…Milossarian, do you really not see the gaping logical chasm between “plants react to physical stimuli” and “plants feel pain”???
The BBC article you quoted is only describing the mechanism by which plants react to stimuli. The fact that the writer of the article calls it a “kind of” nervous system does not imply that the researchers have determined that the plant has feelings. It only implies that the writer of the article thought of a good analogy.
Besides, pain isn’t the mechanism by which “nature tells a living organism” not to do something, evolution is. The microbes which don’t recoil from sharp objects don’t feel pain, they just die and don’t reproduce. Pain does tell creatures with brains not to do something stupid twice, but that’s a wee bit more complicated than a plant turning to face the sun.
Oh good god, Scylla, is my cry of “bullshit” what you’re flying off the handle about? Let’s take a second look at what I said bullshit to back there on page 4. Here’s the exact quote:
And it’s still bullshit for anyone to claim that there’s nothing you can do about such blatant misrepresentation.
Don’t believe me? Fine. But the Restatement (Second) of Torts says there is a cause of action for false light publicity when the defendant “gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light . . . if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.” Liability would ultimately be a jury question, of course, but it’s easily arguable that approval of little kids beating the shit out of each other is “highly offensive,” and that misrepresenting approval of such by switching quotes is “reckless disregard of falsity.” Ka-ching, Mick Foley becomes even wealthier.
Notice also that I never claimed you were lying about the facts; the most I said about anyone possibly fibbing was “Either Mick is misrepresenting what happenend or he’s got potted plants for lawyers.” And I’ve seen enough bad lawyers to know that the second option is easily as likely as the first.
As for me calling you a liar over saying that I’d argued in front of the Supreme Court, I retract my accusation of dishonesty. I’m quite surprised you misread that post as a claim of personal experience, however. First you cried out for citations, followed by my posting of two U.S. Supreme Court cases, one from the 9th Circuit, and one from the D.C. Circuit. You responded by citing the WWF web site. Considering that context, I’m surprised to hear you misread my list of our respective authorities having something to do with my experience arguing cases. Nevertheless, I’ll take your word for it that that’s what happened and chalk this up as a misunderstanding.
Finally, although I doubt defeamation-via-television is really an issue for you anymore, here’s a case I happen to know about because it’s a recent one from the supreme court of my own state. Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc. (Tex. 2001). Although the defendant won this case because the public-figure plaintiff failed to provide “clear and convincing” evidence of actual malice, notice that the court also holds the plaintiff established the broadcast’s implications were false and defamatory.
Minty:
Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. Are there any other explanations other than incompetance why the case might not be pursued (under contract to WWF, I don’t know if Mick would have been able to act on his own.) In your opinion could the current defamation suit that the WWF is persecuting against the Parental Television Council haver something to do with it (it’s concerning the subject matter of the 20/20 report?)
Minty:
Well, it was the “twice” that threw me in conjunction with you’re saying you had written about it. I thought you were saying that you had argued twice before the Supreme Court on defamation issues without bothering to tell us how it applied to the subject at hand.
Again, my misinterpretation. I thought you were putting yourself out there as Mr. Hotshit-I-don’t-need-to-back-up-anything-I-say. In fact that was not what you were doing and I apologize again.
Obviously though when discussing Veggies and Wrestling, things are bound to get out hand 
Sure, there are all kinds of reasons the lawyers might not have wanted to pursue a defamation claim. But without Foley telling us what they were, it’s just speculation. I’d damn sure check out all of the following possibilities if he walked into my office, but I’d also make sure that he understood precisely why a lawsuit would be a bad idea, if that were the case.
As explained above, I don’t think a “content-editing waiver” would stop a suit. Courts construe waivers of liability very narrowly, and I doubt the form would have said anything about “ABC can take your spoken words and apply them to anything we feel like.” Hell, if that were the case, they could take Foley saying “Yeah!” to some random question and use it in response to “Did you kill Nicole Simpson?” Even if it did say so, spoke- was right that waivers of liability for intentional torts would be very tough to enforce, for policy reasons.
I doubt very much that WWF’s lawsuit against PTC has anything to do with the decision not to sue 20/20. First, they’re separate entities, so it’s hard to see how a suit against one would affect the other. Besides, it’s usually in a plaintiff’s interests to sue as many defendants and for as many claims as possible.
(Incidentally, news organizations are generally not liable for repeating newsworthy defamatory accusations made by someone else, so neither Foley nor WWF would be able to tag ABC for repeating any defamatory things that PTC said.)
I suppose it’s possible that the contract between Foley and WWF gives WWF the right to control Foley’s publicity, much like the “Survivor” cast memmbers signed over their own rights to publicity to Mark Burnet. But that still wouldn’t explain why Foley’s lawyers told explained the decision in terms of being able to do nothing about the industry practice. Nor does it explain why WWF isn’t suing ABC, if they “own” Foley’s right of publicity.
Pretty much the only legal reason I can think of why Foley might not be able to sue the shit out of ABC for their shennanigans is that he might not have a reputation capable of being damaged. Defamation damages are for injury to a person’s reputation, and it’s a principle of defamation law that if the “victim” has no reputation worth saving, there’s no harm done in piling on more crap, even if it’s false. So feel free to slander Charles Manson all you want. However, that’s really only reserved for the worst kinds of plaintiffs, and I seriously doubt Mick Foley qualifies. I suppose the quotation switcheroo might not be injurious if he’s gone on the record elsewhere approving of unsupervised 12-year-olds smacking each other over the head with light bulbs, but that’s also a stretch.
Basically, though, I’d love to know what the real reason is why they told him not to sue. It darned sure isn’t because 20/20 is privileged to misattribute quotations in the way Foley says they did.
**
No. Explain it to me.
I understand that plants don’t have a central nervous system, therefore don’t experience pain as we animals with a CNS do. How many more times do I have to say that?
However, has there been a lot of research into what feelings, senses, etc., a plant perceives on a plant level? Or just a lot of people guffawing, like here?
I seem to have found one researcher who is studying the matter, and she shows evidence that an entire plant responds to touch on one part of it. It responds to touch, but doesn’t respond to “painful” stimuli?
**
So? What’s your point? It is by this mechanism that a plant reacts to negative stimuli; i.e. “feels pain in that special, plant way.”
Do you have evidence that plants do not have a form of chemical nervous system? That a plant does not experience anything even remotely similar, on a plant level, to pain when damaged or as it is destroyed? Present it. The Rice University researcher has presented hers.
Pain is pain, however sentient the creature may be. It hurts. That living creature suffers, at whatever level of suffering that may be. No?
Isn’t there a certain sub-group of vegetarians who feels this same way? That only eat fruit, vegetables and nuts that have fallen or detached from a plant naturally?
Damn, this has become a train-wreck, hasn’t it?
Well, here’s Cecil’s take on the question of plants and sensation.
Frankly, no reputable scientists will even consider the question. As I said before, plants don’t have brains or nervous systems, so there’s no mechanism for a plant to sense anything, not even pain. The idea of a chemical nervous system is interesting, but the evidence isn’t there.
The Skeptical Dictionary debunks Cleve Backster, the author of “The Secret Life of Plants.”
And [url=“http://www.animal-rights.com/arsec5q.htm”]animal-rights.com[/irl] has this to say.
[quote]
With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable felt pain plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. They possess complex and specialized sense organs, they possess complex and specialized structures for processing information and for centrally orchestrating appropriate behaviors in accordance with mental representations, integrations, and reorganizations of that information. The proper attribution of felt pain in these animals is well justified. It is not for plants, by any stretch of the imagination
[quote]