ant and dec wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat anything
smarter than a pig, unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule
doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the
intelligence of pigs. Chimp chops? No thanks!

> >>
> It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
>
>> to the points I made.
>
>
> Does a diatribe have a point?

Why restrict yourself to one?

>
>>
>> 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

How is this a contradiction?

"The only carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish,
animals that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to
redefine as some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock
are animals that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and
ugly doesn't change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish
you cannot be a vegetarian."

>
>>
>> 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.

Oh come on. Veg*ns ooze their sense of moral superiority like Christians
and Buddhists, they use it as part of their locomotion, like slugs. Of
course they make a point of not *claiming* moral superiority while doing
all they can to ensure that other people get the message loud and clear.
Their entire bearing says "we're not claiming to be superior to you, oh
no, that would be rude and arrogant and not *nice*, but you do know that
you are inferior to us, don't you? You don't? Here, take a pamphlet,
it's all in there."

>
>
>> 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.

Quite. If the cap fits, wear it.

>
>>
>> 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.

People do not eat nasty animals. At least they don't like to think that
they do. Muslims for example are taught to vilify pigs as well as not to
eat them. I am not suggesting that species are objectively noble or
nasty, that isn't the point, but the perceptions vary. We don't eat rats
and cockroaches but we do eat prawns, which in turn eat marine carrion
and excrement, but we put that image from our minds, even to the point
of calling the alimentary canal of a prawn "just a vein", when in fact
it clearly is scum sucker shit.

>
>>
>> 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 endeavour to make a joke out of most things.

Sometimes I even succeed.

>
>>
>> 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!

Thanks, but it does annoy me when people are so quick to hang the
ready-made labels around people's necks. "He's just a troll." I am much
more than that.

>
>
>>
>> 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!
>

Good. My troll status is something I am very proud of. I am not your
common or garden troll. http://www.mwillett.org/troll.htm


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org