Dave wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>>Dave 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 strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
>>>>to the points I made.
>>>>
>>>>I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
>>>>of them. What was incorrect?
>>>>
>>>>Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
>>>>eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance? Do you think I *couldn't*
>>>>find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
>>>>do so?
>>>
>>>
>>>You probably could but "I don't eat meat in case it causes me to be
>>>eaten
>>>by an alien" is a misrepresentation of the argument.
>>
>>I would say it was an instructive re-interpretation of the argument that
>>shows how truly fatuous the idea is. Veg*ns will often use the "how
>>would you like it if somebody ate you?" line of reasoning (well, they
>>think it's reasoning) without going on to flesh out the ramifications of
>>the argument. It is an argument by ellipses. You float the idea half
>>finished, let it trail in the air, and hope the other person will flesh
>>it out in a way that convinces them that you had a point.
>>
>>Sorry about all the flesh in that paragraph, I can be such a meathead at
>>times.
>>
>>So what does the argument actually mean? It is clearly not a recipe to
>>avoid being eaten by aliens as I have shown.
>
>
> Yes. You have shown that the argument is not a recipe for avoiding
> something it was never intended to avoid in the first place. Well done.
> :-)
>

Does this mean nobody will ever use the "what would you think if
something tried to eat you?" line again? I doubt it somehow.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org