dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:09:59 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
>>which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin.
>
>
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>
>
>>Eating animals and
>>yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
>>animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
>>So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
>>lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
>>make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
>>likely to eat a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than
>>one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
>>hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious.
>
>
> Maybe they'd kill us as vermin.
>
>
>>Acting like
>>hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked”
>>weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals
>>like deer and salmon?
>>Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>
>
> Human.
>

Unless we really need to.

>
>>Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
>>see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
>>the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. 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.
>>
>>We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
>>those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
>>assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
>>hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
>>lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>>
>>Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?
>>
>>There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
>>fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
>>raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
>>food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
>>just like pigs.
>
>
> Pigs are omnivores. I'm not even sure if they can digest celulose,
> but I doubt it. Chickens are omnivores. And it's the omnivores like
> chicken, turkey and pork that can really screw you up if you eat it
> undercooked. I'm guessing because of similarity in digestive systems
> or something like that, but never have heard anyone say anything
> about it.

Cows can't digest cellulose either. That seems to be rather good proof
that if there is a god he's probably not the smartest god he could
possibly be.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org