Martin Willett wrote:
> 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?

I'd like you to answer this point.

>>
>> 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.

This line of thinking is very often pulled apart as being complete BS.
by both camps. I see some have already pointed this out.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.

I think you're blurring the realms of hypothesis and reality under the
pretense of a "joke".

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

You claim to observe this moral superiority, yet you can't give any
examples? I think it's a figment of your imagination.

>
>>
>>> 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?

Occasionally. This reminds me of when I sat next to someone in a
restaurant, who said they were vegetarian, then went on to order the
duck! - Perhaps this is a meat eater trying to claim this mythical
"moral high ground", that doesn't really exist.

>
>>
>>> 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"

Of course they do! What about "hunting pink" as just one example.

> 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.

Unless you can give some evidence that this applies to the general
ve*gan population, I must consider this as a figment of your imagination.

There are irritating vegan zealots just as there are irritating
Christians, but they are few and far between, as you would get on the
"ends" of a normal population distribution.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

I just wondered if the "cap" embraced a much wider scope than just that
of the usage. In this case it is a cap I have worn, but probably would
not again.

>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

I don't think they'll be that picky, more likely to go after the one
that ate all the pies! The prize porker! ;-)

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

Yep.

>
> 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.

I think you've lost the plot here. Perhaps you've seen too many "turkey
on the table" movies.

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.

I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution. You and I are
fortunate to have a choice of what we eat. Perhaps more should think
about their choices, in particular what impact those choices have,
rather than blindly follow customs and practice.

>
>