Martin Willett wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> 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
> <snips>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I think you know the answer to that as clearly as I do: pigs are (by
> quite a distance) the smartest animal I regularly eat, the only thing
> that comes close is pigeons and since I gave away my shotgun I haven't
> felt the need to eat any of them.

I did think that "I'll draw the line just above what I normally eat" was
the answer. I just thought that you may have another more convincing
argument, but never mind.


>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I see. Which part of the argument?

The BS part.

The porcine hospices? Have you got
> any photographs?

Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...

>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Like a wet t shirt competition in a stiff easterly breeze.

I did laugh (really!)

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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".
>
> This evening I'll be blurring the realms of reality with absinthe. But
> jokes are good too.

Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...

>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> And I think you're being deliberately dense because it suits your cause.
> Of course vegetarians want and expect to be seen as morally superior,
> but without asking for it specifically. Can you imagine anybody ever
> answering the question "did you do that to be seen as morally superior?"
> in the affirmative? If so please tell me what colour the sky is on your
> home planet. Of course people do things in order to be seen as better
> people but equally obviously they will always vehemently deny it. We
> don't have to believe them.

It was implicit that you made observations, yet you can't give any examples.

>
> It is a part of human nature. That is why poppies and paper lifeboats
> exist and why people make stickers that say "My mummy gave blood today".
> But if you ever ask them whether they did something to appear to be
> morally superior they instantly make up a lot of lame excuses.
>
> Vegetarians and vegans do not realistically expect the world to turn
> vegetarian but they keep promoting vegetarianism because it allows them
> *to be seen* as vegetarians. If nobody ate meat they wouldn't have
> anybody to feel superior to so they'd have to give up something else or
> actually do something worthy in and of itself.

What utter crap. This is ALL in your mind, please provide SOME evidence
for these conclusions. You don't get it do you, it's YOUR mis perception
of vegetarians.

>
> If vegetarians were not regarded as morally superior and vegetarianism
> was not seen as evidence of moral fibre then the Nazis wouldn't have
> made so much of Hitler's spurious diet choices.

More crap.

>
> My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working,

What propaganda of mine?

> so don't change it. The world will never go vegan.

Vegan / vegetarian. I've never asked anybody to choose any diet.

>You're quite safe.
> You will always have access to the moral high ground by simply not
> eating certain foods. Just think, other people had to charge down
> machine gun nests armed with a swagger stick, get beaten up by the Ku
> Klux Klan or expel the infidels from Jerusalem to get what you get, all
> you have to do is pretend to enjoy mung beans and tofu.

Are you drunk, or was that a another joke. Ha.....Ha...? BTW I don't eat
or even pretend to eat mung beans or tofu.

>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Really? "I'm eating a salad but I'd like to point out to you that I'm
> not a limp-wristed carrot-muncher I also eat meat"

I think you've got a problem with vegetarians! The common pattern of
events includes *others* pointing out my dietary choices, then the rest
of the table stating what they couldn't do without or can't understand
my choices, etc.


>
> What kind of leaves were in your salad? Where do you pick your mushrooms?

Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...


>
>> 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.
>>
>
> There is a technical term for people who do that: ignorant ****s.

Agreed.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Tell me, when was the last time you saw
>
> a) a huntsman eat a fox

Who said anything about a fox? Hunting pink is used in other hunts.

Anyway it's a clear a badge of "I eat meat" than any words on a tee shirt.

>
> and
>
> b) somebody wear hunting pink outside of a hunt organized event where
> they knew they were not likely to be surrounded or outnumbered by oiks
>

I've never seen that, but I don't see that's got any bearing, as I've
never seen a "Meat is murder" tee shirt either.

The fact remains that some carnivores do wear badges proclaiming their
status, just as some vegans do.

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> No, you mustn't. You may choose to, you may want to, but there is no
> compulsion on you.

There is no other option.

>
> I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can anybody
> prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something can't be
> proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* Elvis isn't
> running a whelk stall on Venus either.

No, it was implicit in your response that the observation could be made.
Surely if you observe these vegetarians being smug, you can give any
examples; can't you?

>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I suppose this is the only form of normality vegans ever achieve:
> statistical.

Meaningless. Or was that another joke; Ha.....Ha...?

>
> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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! ;-)
>
> You're obviously well out of the loop as far as meat eating goes. The
> only thing that might interest an interstellar gormet about me would
> perhaps be my liver.

Pate de foie gras? Perhaps a bit too gras?


>
> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> No herbivorous species shares food. If you want to ingratiate yourself
> with a gorilla you eat alongside them, or pretend to. You don't offer
> them food. Pretty much the only food herbivores ever give away is milk.
> But things are very different with meat, especially meat that is gained
> via cooperative hunting. The complexity of social organization in a wolf
> pack is orders of magnitude greater than in a flock of sheep.
> Chimpanzees have their most interesting social behaviours when they are
> cooperating on a hunt or sharing out the meat.

Life at Sainsburys will never be the same!

Now pull yourself back to the REAL World for just one moment. I said
you'd lost the plot because you juxtaposed a meat centerpiece with a
herbivorous diet. I share meals just as any most other families do.
Traditionally meat is a the center of the a feast for no other reason
than custom and practice. All this stuff about herbivores is just plain
crap.


>
> Collecting vegetable based material is mind numbing drudgery, gaining
> meat usually requires sharp thinking and often social cooperation. It
> doesn't take much in the way of IQ to outsmart a dandelion but you have
> to have your wits about you to bring home the bacon. Because collecting
> vegetable based food is a drudge sharing doesn't arise. The simplest way
> of ensuring a fair distribution of vegetable based food is quite simply
> to eat what you gather and never give any to anybody else ever, while
> not deliberately getting in their way or shitting where they're grazing.
> That is the recipe for vegetarian cooperation, with the only additions
> being follow the herd and try and stay in the middle away from predators
> and don't mate with your mother if there's another option available. No
> vegetarian species is ever going to produce an intellectual titan or
> ever get past the first step on the road to language because they don't
> ever have anything worth saying beyond "get out of my way that female's
> mine". The most intelligent herbivorous species is the elephant, I am
> fairly certain that its intelligence is partly an offshoot of expanding
> the brain to cope with the challenge of operating a prehensile trunk.
> (They also have a prehensile penis but a penis never requires much
> intelligence to operate, especially a big one) The rhino is clear
> evidence that you can get by quite easily by being being a big
> vegetarian as long as you're thick skinned and aggressive, intellectual
> ability is a luxury that evolution has decided most herbivores can't
> afford.
>
> Vegetarian hominids are a bit of an evolutionary dead end. Huge jaws,
> small brains. Given the option of adding a few more grams of body weight
> to the bauplan of the herbivorous hominid evolutionary forces are likely
> to go for extra thickness on the skull, bigger threatening canine teeth
> or bigger testes, not more grey matter.

More crap following on from the earlier (lost) point.

>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> While you refuse to eat meat a Welsh sheep farmer sucks on his shotgun
> because he can't pay the bills while another farmer far away takes the
> money he made from selling you the beans you pretend to enjoy he goes
> off and buys a chicken. But don't worry, people will think better of you
> for making your stand and being so moral. It does help you score with
> the appropriate (to your choice) sex doesn't it?

Now I'm responsible for a Welsh sheep farmers suicide? Or was that
another joke; Ha.....Ha...? The impact on any Welsh sheep farmer of my
choices has been insignificant, if that was the point you were alluding to.

The farmer's just as likely to go out of business because possibly you
but certainly most others don't give a shit where their meat comes from.

Why don't you answer the points I DID make rather than ones you like to
pontificate about?


>