Martin Willett wrote:

> 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. ·

This is ****wit's own unique and turgid restatement of
the (Il)Logic of the Larder, a nonsense to which he
subscribes.

>>
>>
>>> 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.

In western civilization, there is a strong repulsion to
eating human corpses, even when necessary to survive.
However, no western society condones *killing* humans
for food even for survival.


>
>>
>>> 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.
>