View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:
> 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,


How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you drawn
this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?

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.


But not much respect for the pig?


>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?


We can move on, as the points are coming out.

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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."


Sorry I missed that caveat. The article focused on not eating
carnivores, we eat carnivorous fish (and other things to a lesser
extent)what stops these hypothetical aliens 'fishing' for carnivorous
humans?

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.


I think this is a problem of your perception. Do you think I ooze moral
superiority like a slug, and why? Can you could give some examples of
personal experience as evidence?

> 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.


They don't claim it, because most don't feel (in my experience) or have
a higher moral position.

> 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."


Again this is your misguided (self?) perception.


>
>>
>>
>>> 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.


There's nothing wrong with asking that particular hypothetical question.

What "cap"?

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.


I'm sure an alien wouldn't mind cleaning your "vein".

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.


Agreed.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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



Perhaps a positive novelty troll?

PS. I may be away for a day or two. - Apparently there's a Christian
(traditionally meat centric) festival going on that I'm expected to take
part in!

>
>