Martin Willett wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>> posted by the author
>>>
>>
>> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the consumption
>> of meat.
>>
>> A troll.
>
> How do you make that out?

It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of your
own hypocrisy.


>>
It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
> to the points I made.

Does a diatribe have a point?

>
> I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
> of them. What was incorrect?

Salmon, as *one* example is a carnivorous species that we eat as a
common food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon

>
> Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
> eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance?

What higher moral stance? Different morals perhaps. Why do you feel they
claim a higher moral stance and why? Perhaps it's your perception of
your own morality.


>Do you think I *couldn't*
> find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
> do so?

It is used by some.

>
> Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and deer
> than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?

More people eat salmon than tapeworms, none are more "noble" or "nasty"
than each other.

>
> In what way did I justify the consumption of meat? I didn't. I simply
> took apart one of the arguments sometimes used against meat eating and
> showed it to be rather farcical.

You've recognised your own hypocrisy, and have attempted to make joke
out of it.

>
> I posted this here because I was looking to see if anybody could come up
> with any good case against me. Of course the original piece was designed
> to be humorous (do veg*ns do humour?) and was not intended to win any
> debate. I run a website that tackles dozens of issues, I don't have a
> single-issue agenda. I've been doing this kind of stuff for six years
> now and I've never been hounded out of any newsgroup and neither has any
> newsgroup ever disbanded because they've been blown away by the power of
> my analysis and rapier-like wit (with the possible exception of
> alt.religion.christian.amish, but I think they had a few philosophical
> difficulties before I showed up). I am here to stimulate a conversation,
> not a conversion. I haven't insulted you so I'd appreciate it if you
> didn't insult me. If you don't want to engage with me then fine, don't
> do it. But please don't do other people's thinking for them by hanging a
> ready-made hate label round my neck.

I don't hate you. From what I can see you seem a quite a nice guy!


>
> I've just re-read your post. Is "A Troll" your usual signature? I
> apologize if I misinterpreted the nature of your post.

If you were looking for a good case against you, perhaps you should have
written something for that purpose.

Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!

>