ant and dec wrote:
> 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?

If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
than not to.

Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
so don't bother pointing it out.

Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig
could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their
loving families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers.


>
>
>> 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?

Nothing at all. Except that with billions of us to choose from thinking
purely as a connoisseur of meat I wouldn't be eating a 42 year old
overweight male omnivore when I could have a teenage vegan instead. I'd
be fit only for sausages or pies. My granddad was a farmer. He knew what
to eat, food was his life. He always went for local grass-fed heifer
beef. I think aliens would think the same way.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?

They're too good at smugging it up to do much that you can put your
finger on. But you can tell, just like you don't have to see a man
engaged in sodomy to get a pretty good idea of whether or not he's ***,
but your observations would be easily taken apart by any competent
defence lawyer. It's obvious, but it wouldn't hold up in court.

>
>> 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.

How many times have you sat with somebody eating a salad who points out
that they also eat meat?

>
>> 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.

Carnivores don't wear badges and t shirts proclaiming their status for
the same reason that people don't wear "I didn't give money to charity"
badges. It is totally disingenuous to make out that vegetarians and
vegans do not want people to think they are morally superior because of
their diet, in exactly the same way that Christians do. People who
expect recognition for their moral probity make a point of not asking
for it but that doesn't mean they do not expect to get it and are hurt
when they don't get it.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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"?

What? Are you unfamilar with that usage? You admitted that some vegans
and vegetarians use that line of argument, therefore my points are
addressed at such people. If you are one it is addressed at you, and I
leave it with you to decide if you qualify.


>>>>
>>>> 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".
>

But he'd probably prefer yours.

>>>>
>>>> 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!

Me and my two atheist children will be celebrating it tomorrow too. My
Christian wife is out babysitting while some Jewish friends go out for a
Christmas drink. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

Meat is often the centrepiece of feasts because it is sharing food.
Herbivores don't share food and don't have much in the way of society,
they just use each other as bovine shields or the equivilent. If mankind
was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and socially
cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or not meat was
a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was doesn't make
an ought.


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org