On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, 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. ·
>>
>>
>>>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.

Or change the rules of morality.

>>>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.

Yeah all right, and neither can termites...but they can still live off it. And I
still don't know about pigs.

>That seems to be rather good proof
>that if there is a god he's probably not the smartest god he could
>possibly be.

How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
smarter way instead of the way they did.