<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:37:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:22:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:04:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> I consider it to be very significant that the animals we raise
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> food,
>>>>>>> do NOT know they will be killed and eaten as Salt's Logic of the
>>>>>>> Talking
>>>>>>> "ar" Pig and Chicken Run dishonestly encourage people to believe
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Salt's essay on The Logic of the Larder does not imply that animals
>>>>>>know
>>>>>>they are destined to be killed and eaten.
>>>>>
>>>>> "what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
>>>>> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
>>>>> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
>>>>> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first
>>>>> determined
>>>>> to kill and devour me . . . "
>>>>>
>>>>>>The "talking pig" is an allegorical tool intended to address the
>>>>>>conscience
>>>>>>and attitudes of the reader/consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
>>>>> considered,
>>>>> nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery . . . "
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like in Chicken Run http://tinyurl.com/fgtu9 the attempt is
>>>>> made to
>>>>> create the contemptible and dishonest impression that the animals
>>>>> suffer
>>>>> from
>>>>> knowledge that they will be killed by humans. You make it obvious that
>>>>> you're
>>>>> in favor of "ar" when you oppose considering AW supporting facts like
>>>>> what
>>>>> the animals gain, while at the same time you promote "ar" supporting,
>>>>> dishonest
>>>>> kafkaesque fantasies like The Talking Pig and Chicken Run.
>>>>
>>>>So you don't understand what an allegory is..
>>>
>>> It's a supposedly moral story often involving animals,
>>
>>It's not the story, it's the means of telling it, it doesn't have to be a
>>moral story,
>
> It has a meaning or moral to it.

Of course it has a meaning.

>>and doesn't have to be animals, it can be anything. An old tree
>>or a house could talk about the seasons, the years and people passing by.
>
> It's still fantasy, bringing immediately to mind the question of
> whether
> or not a tree could have awareness

Not unless the reader is four years old, that's how juvenile this argument
of yours is.

> much less opinion about people
> passing by, and what that opinion--or any sort of thoughts--would be
> from the perspective of the tree. And then if it went on to knowing
> intimate things about the passers by, which just everyone could not
> know much less some damn tree they walk by sometimes, then it
> gets to idiocy and a person must stop and think: okay, so the tree
> has nothing to do with it other than as a lame excuse for the writer
> to present HIS/HER pov any way he/she wants to, simply by attempting
> to make it seem like the object has the ideas instead of who is actually
> trying to promote them.

Of course it's point of view of the author, what else could it be?

>The suggestion that a tree/pig could have
> ideas it could not is fantasy,

There's that juvenile objection again.

> and people like Salt use that sort of fantasy
> to promote their own ideas, and that's ALL it is.

That's not a valid criticism, everyone writes in order to present their
ideas, of course that's what it is. No-one has suggested otherwise.

> So Salt used the fantasy
> of a pig who suffers from the knowledge that he will be killed and
> butchered--all the way to knowing what sort of food he will be prepared
> as!--in his obvious attempt to get people to feel that pigs suffer from
> such knowledge.

That is NOT the message of this essay, it's your desperate, invalid,
strawman, juvenile objection.

> I've even had "aras"--probably you yourself--say
> something like: 'how would you like to live knowing you're going to
> be killed and eaten...'.

That would be an invalid argument, but that argument is never presented
here.

> Some people are fooled by it, and it's one of the
> dishonest things people like yourself want everyone to believe even if
> you don't quite believe it yourself. I know from personal experience that
> you're full of shit.

Since you're the one presenting silly strawman arguments I would question
where the pile of shit is sitting.

>>> and probably always
>>> a fantasy. We have yet to see one that is not a fantasy, and you're not
>>> capable of providing an example of one that is not.
>>
>>It's a rhetorical device used to create interest in literature.
>
> It's a trick to try to sneak people into accepting ideas or feelings
> about an issue or issues.

It's not a trick unless you are four or have an equivalent mentality.

> It's nothing more, unless it also has some
> humorous attempt behind it like my typing cow.

It's used to create reader interest, not to suggest that trees or pigs can
speak English, don't be an idiot.

>>You're using it as a lame excuse to dismiss an argument you don't like.
>
> What I'm using to dismiss the "argument" is the fact that you haven't
> supported one, or even really defined what "it" is.

"It" is moral thinking. Moral thinking excludes circular self-justifying
forms of argument such as The Logic of the Larder or anything like it. An
example would be a man who goes to Thailand to patronize child prostitutes,
then justifies it by saying that if it weren't for him the families of those
girls would probably go hungry, which is *true*, but it does not change
whether or not it is right for him to do it. The right or wrong of an act is
fundamental to the action, not based on or rationalized by some presumed
good outcome. I have presented countless such examples which form the
"dozens" I have alluded to.