Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 12:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:12:43 +0000, Martin Willett wrote:

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.


One "ARA" amusingly pasted the fact that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
as if he were able to understand the fact, but later revealed that
he can not:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

some mystical "value to the animals"
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means, may
not and should not be used as an argument for raising them.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I find that the truth is often both sad and hilarious at the same time
with these people. It's incredible really. This for example: why did
Dutch paste something that they don't understand much less agree
with? I've asked him many times, but he refuses to say why.

Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
so don't bother pointing it out.


The desperation of "ARAs" is made obvious by Dutch's hero Goo,
who proclaims to the world that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: .com

No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: k.net

Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
[...]
Life is not a benefit for farm
animals
[...]
Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
[...]
Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Message-ID: . net

An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
etc, etc... Again it's sadly amusing to find "ARAs" are so desperate
for people to feel that no livestock benefit from farming, that they
insist life could never be a benefit for anything including themselves.

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.


The "ARAs" even have an "AR" pig fantasy which they believe
somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming.
I'll include what I believe they humorously consider to be the "refutation":
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

[...]
"For mark, I pray
thee, that 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. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
A talking pig who knows he will be killed--and btw made into ham and
sausages, etc...there are about 20 or so odd subfantasies in their talking
pig fantasy--is certainly an anthropomorphic distortion of reality if not
sophistry. And it is *most!!!* certainly bullshit, making me wonder how it
could possibly be self-serving for anyone other than "ARAs". (Dutch and
Goo hilariously insist they are "AR" opponents, though neither are capable
of providing any example(s) of their opposition, nor can anyone else afaik.)

[...]
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"
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.


Which is why there are people like Dutch and Goo who maniacally
oppose people considering that some farm animals benefit from farming,
because it suggests that some thing(s) could be ethically equivalent
or superior to veganism. Just the suggestion causes incredible cognitive
dissonance for them, so they desperately/amusingly try to make it go away.
Anyone interested in observing cognitive dissonance inspired reactions
can get fine examples by pointing out to "ARAs" that some farm animals
benefit from farming. I encourage you to give it a try. Dutch would be a
good subject, and so would Goo who recently is posting as--and probably
considers himself to be--Leif Erikson and S. Maizlich, along with however
many others I'm not aware of.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 01:38 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"Martin Willett" wrote
ant and dec wrote:


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.


I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here who has
already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
may feel that he
would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
existence to argue
from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
non-existent, he talks
nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of
which we can
predicate nothing.

When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
"into the world," we
cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
bargain with him, and a
very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any
such quibble, in
which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
connection, is it necessary to
enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
there be, we have no
reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
thus equally the
argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
preexistence, or non-
existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions.


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 04:29 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Jeff Caird
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

On 2005-12-25, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
How about rishathra?


Is that from Ringworld?

Feffer
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 06:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dutch wrote:
"Martin Willett" wrote

ant and dec wrote:



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.



I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here who has
already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
may feel that he
would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
existence to argue
from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
non-existent, he talks
nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of
which we can
predicate nothing.

When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
"into the world," we
cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
bargain with him, and a
very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any
such quibble, in
which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
connection, is it necessary to
enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
there be, we have no
reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
thus equally the
argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
preexistence, or non-
existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions.



Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to
conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or
do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most
comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must
have been"?

Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 07:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


"Martin Willett" wrote
ant and dec wrote:


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.


I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
now, but


Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of domestic animals, so of course YOU/"ARAs"
are getting another dose of cognitive dissonance.

that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
called "The Logic of the Larder"


Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives
The Logic of the Larder? Of course when I see Logic of the Larder, I
understand what you're really referring to is your hero Salt's Logic of the
Fantastic "AR" Talking Pig, and nothing else. I also understand that there
are no such pigs, and most likely never will be. There are billions of farm
animals' lives to consider however, for those of us able to consider them.

and there is one fruitcake here who has
already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.


It's just something I've been doing because I hate the mental restrictions
YOU/"ARAs" would impose on everyone if you could, but I doubt that
I've made even half as many posts promoting consideration of the
animals' lives as YOU/"ARAs" have made opposing the suggestion.
Goo alone has probably made far more than twice as many posts
opposing the suggestion as I've made encouraging it.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
may feel that he
would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
existence to argue
from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
non-existent, he talks
nonsense,


You pasted the fact that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
even though you continue to prove it's something you can't
understand.

by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of
which we can
predicate nothing.

When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
"into the world," we


Could consider Christmas...well...some of us can and others can
not.

cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
bargain with him,

__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

Hear that ****wit? The pig says . . .
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
and a very shabby one,


I've been asking for years what YOU/"ARAs" have to offer that
is better, and what it would be better for. So far the best you've been
able to say is that it would be or could be better for mice, frogs and
ground hogs if we eliminate all livestock. Is it really my fault if I can't
see any ethical superiority in that because YOU/"ARAs" are totally
incapable of explaining it? The superiority is not obvious, which even
you should be able to understand if only because of your complete
inability to explain how it would be. What YOU/"ARAs" need to
explain is why it would be superior to make the huge CHANGE of
eliminating ALL livestock for the supposed benefit of mice, frogs and
ground hogs, and whatever else is dinging around inside your hollow
skull.

on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any
such quibble, in
which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
connection, is it necessary to
enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
there be, we have no
reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence;


Which always brings us back to wondering why you pasted the fact
that life could have positive value to animals, when you obviously can't
understand the fact much less consider it to be signifant in regards to
human influence on animals. And also brings up the question of why
you pasted this when you obviously can't consider it to be signifant in
regards to human influence on animals.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "apostate"
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT

Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
and
thus equally the
argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
preexistence, or non-
existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions.


YOU/"ARAs" promote grotesque ideas imo, like:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

Life does not justify death
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
You
"Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit."

The pig doesn't know, and you couldn't explain anything to him
about it if you tried. That dishonest grotesquery is self serving
to YOU/"ARAs" apparently, and it is most obviously bullshit.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 07:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird wrote:

On 2005-12-25, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
How about rishathra?


Is that from Ringworld?

Feffer


Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just
found out yesterday they were going to make a movie
a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason
dammit.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 07:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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


A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the
consumption of meat.

A troll.



How do you make that out?



It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of
your own hypocrisy.



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.


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.





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.




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".






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.



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. 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.



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.

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.

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.








Do you think I *couldn't* find evidence of such an argument being
deployed if I could be arsed to do so?



It is used by some.


Quite. If the cap fits, wear it.



There's nothing wrong with asking that particular hypothetical question.

What "cap"?


What? Are you unfamilar with that usage? You admitted that some vegans
and vegetarians use that line of argument, therefore my points are
addressed at such people. If you are one it is addressed at you, and I
leave it with you to decide if you qualify.


I just wondered if the "cap" embraced a much wider scope than just that
of the usage. In this case it is a cap I have worn, but probably would
not again.




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! ;-)



In what way did I justify the consumption of meat? I didn't. I
simply took apart one of the arguments sometimes used against meat
eating and showed it to be rather farcical.



You've recognised your own hypocrisy, and have attempted to make
joke out of it.


I endeavour to make a joke out of most things.

Sometimes I even succeed.



I posted this here because I was looking to see if anybody could
come up with any good case against me. Of course the original piece
was designed to be humorous (do veg*ns do humour?) and was not
intended to win any debate. I run a website that tackles dozens of
issues, I don't have a single-issue agenda. I've been doing this
kind of stuff for six years now and I've never been hounded out of
any newsgroup and neither has any newsgroup ever disbanded because
they've been blown away by the power of my analysis and rapier-like
wit (with the possible exception of alt.religion.christian.amish,
but I think they had a few philosophical difficulties before I
showed up). I am here to stimulate a conversation, not a
conversion. I haven't insulted you so I'd appreciate it if you
didn't insult me. If you don't want to engage with me then fine,
don't do it. But please don't do other people's thinking for them
by hanging a ready-made hate label round my neck.



I don't hate you. From what I can see you seem a quite a nice guy!


Thanks, but it does annoy me when people are so quick to hang the
ready-made labels around people's necks. "He's just a troll." I am
much more than that.



Agreed.





I've just re-read your post. Is "A Troll" your usual signature? I
apologize if I misinterpreted the nature of your post.



If you were looking for a good case against you, perhaps you should
have written something for that purpose.

Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!


Good. My troll status is something I am very proud of. I am not your
common or garden troll. http://www.mwillett.org/troll.htm




Perhaps a positive novelty troll?

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.

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.



  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"ant and dec" wrote in message ...
Martin Willett wrote:

..
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.


'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first appearance
of this pattern the fundamental problem in human origins research.
The common association between stone tools and the bones of
large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests to many that it
may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo erectus nearly
two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant foods,
yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting serves some
other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship (Hawkes et al. 1991).
Whatever it is, reliable support for children must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult time
of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods younger
children can procure for themselves are unavailable. Mothers respond
by provisioning youngsters with foods they themselves can procure
daily and at relatively high rates, but that their children cannot, largely
because of handling requirements. Tubers, which require substantial
upper body strength and endurance to collect and the ability to
control fire in processing, are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new infants
(Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to both
daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship, with
important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt.../oconnell.html

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
the interglacials. '
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
to by physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.
As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20
...'
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html

"..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on roots,
fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands make it easy
for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate strength of his
jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the others, and the
tubular character of his molars, permit him neither to graze, nor to
devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared by cooking."
-- Cuvier, Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73

After a careful and exhaustive study into comparative anatomy,
European scientist, Dr. Richard Lehne came to the conclusion,

"Quite apart from the physiological findings of nutritional science,
which perpetually alter and are always in an unsettled form,
comparative anatomy proves - and is supported by the millions-
of-years-old documents of palaeozoology - that human teeth in
their ideal form have a purely frugivorous character."
...'
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...air/asthma.htm



  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"Martin Willett" wrote
Dutch wrote:
"Martin Willett" wrote

ant and dec wrote:



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.



I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to
*not* living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state.
This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here
who has already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote
this idea.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in
existence may feel that he
would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma
of existence to argue
from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
non-existent, he talks
nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that
of which we can
predicate nothing.

When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
"into the world," we
cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
bargain with him, and a
very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by
any such quibble, in
which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
connection, is it necessary to
enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
there be, we have no
reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
thus equally the
argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
preexistence, or non-
existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions.


Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to
conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or do
you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most
comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must
have been"?


I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture the
essence of my argument here. In the current context you said about
livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to". "Not to"
implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where the fallacy lies.
If such a state exists, then in order to call it inferior to "living and
dying" we must know something about it, and I submit that we don't. If it
doesn't exist then the statement cannot logically be made. As the author
above says, we make such statements with "the terra firma of existence to
argue from", and a very pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can*
say something quite similar to your statement to summarize the morality of
breeding livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us,
and we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can
fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It is the
"ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that contains the valid
moral principle here.

Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?


I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would
inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.

I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time since
someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address these
issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your insights.



  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


[email protected] wrote
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


"Martin Willett" wrote
ant and dec wrote:


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.


I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
to
now, but


Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,


That's got nothing to do with it dipshit. I don't dispute that *using animal
products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
domestic animals" to use your awkward wording. My argument is simply
examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would
never exist at all..."




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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


A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the
consumption of meat.

A troll.




How do you make that out?




It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of
your own hypocrisy.



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?

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.


No, that's illogical thinking. When you compare two
things, the things must exist in order for the
comparison to make sense. It is patently absurd to say
that existing (no matter what the quality of life) is
better than never existing.

What does it mean for something to be "better" for some
entity? It means that the entity either must perceive
itself to be, or objectively seen by others as being,
better off THAN IT WAS BEFORE. That is, the entity's
welfare must have *improved* from what it was before.
But prior to existing, there was no entity, and so
there was no welfare of the entity. Thus, we see that
is is plainly absurd to talk about existence, per se,
making the entity "better off". Existence is what
establishes an entity's welfare; it does *not* improve it.

This false belief that it is better to exist than never
to exist leads to an infamous bit of illogic called the
Logic of the Larder, taken from the title of a famous
essay on this very topic. It leads someone to conclude
that he is doing a domestic animal he kills and eats
some kind of "favor" by causing it to exist. But the
person who wishes to eat meat cannot justify his meat
eating by saying he made the animal better off by
having caused it to exist. It is obvious that a person
who attempts to engage in this illogic harbors some
kind of doubts over the ethical justice of eating meat,
and is frantically trying to rationalize his diet by
making some aspect of it seem "other-directed". But
it's a dead end.


Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
so don't bother pointing it out.


No, the qualifier is irrelevant. It is the *entire*
concept that is flawed.



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.


And therein lies the *correct* justification for eating
meat: there is nothing inherently wrong with killing
an animal. Predators do it all the time, and there is
no moral dimension to their doing it. As long as one
isn't intentionally inflicting needless suffering on
animals, no rationale for the basic act of killing them
to eat them is needed.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

[email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


"Martin Willett" wrote

ant and dec wrote:


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.


I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
now, but



Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,


No. There is no moral credit to be taken for causing
domestic animals to exist. The animals are in no way
"better off" for having come into existence.



that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
called "The Logic of the Larder"



Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives
The Logic of the Larder?


Everyone who thinks about it seriously and correctly.


and there is one fruitcake here who has
already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.



It's just something I've been doing because


Because you stupidly subscribe to the Illogic of the
Larder.



http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
may feel that he
would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
existence to argue
from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
non-existent, he talks
nonsense,

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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


A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the
consumption of meat.

A troll.




How do you make that out?




It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a
mollifying device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your
recognition of your own hypocrisy.



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.


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.


Right. There is only one long-term participant in this
or related newsgroups who subscribes to the bullshit
Illogic of the Larder: a 47-year-old Atlanta (Georgia)
area ****wit and homosexual named David Harrison who is
better known by most of the other regular participants
here as ****wit. ****wit believes that coming into
existence -per se- is a good thing for the entity that
comes into existence
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 08:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"ant and dec" wrote
Martin Willett wrote:


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.


We all draw the line somewhere. Why do you believe that it is all right to
destroy animal populations in order to grow vegetables, fruit, grain,
cotton..?

[..]

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.


Why is it complete BS? When animals die in crop fields they are often
cruelly dismembered or else are poisoned and die slowly of internal
hemorrhaging. Why is that all right and a bolt through the brain is not?

[..]


I think you're blurring the realms of hypothesis and reality under the
pretense of a "joke".


I think you are blurring human rights and our relationship with the rest of
the animal kingdom under the pretense of "morality".

[..]

You claim to observe this moral superiority, yet you can't give any
examples? I think it's a figment of your imagination.


You are in denial. Every time a veg*n announces that they don't eat meat,
wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously at a piece of meat, agonize rudely about
some microscopic bit of animal cells in some condiment, refer to statements
like "Meat is Murder", or bring up issues like "slaughterhouses" or "factory
farming" in discussion, they are implicitly setting themselves up as moral
paragons. In fact another way vegans describe themselves is "Ethical
Vegetarians". If you are "ethical" then what am I?

[..]

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.


The practise of abstaining from all animal products in food is no less
blindly following custom than any other choice. Perhaps vegetarians should
spend more time look closely at the impact of their own food choices instead
of just peering self-righteously at the choices others make.


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 03:48 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Jeff Caird
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

On 2005-12-25, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird wrote:

On 2005-12-25, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
How about rishathra?


Is that from Ringworld?

Feffer


Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just
found out yesterday they were going to make a movie
a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason
dammit.


Just as well. Did you see what they did with Riverworld?

Feffy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Have you ever eaten....... Denise in NH General Cooking 9 22-04-2009 05:59 PM
Anyone eaten Fox ? Steve Y General Cooking 13 26-01-2007 10:56 PM
The most food ever eaten... Andy General Cooking 40 13-12-2006 04:01 PM
How many of these has Kibo eaten? Adam Funk General Cooking 1 19-06-2006 08:32 PM
How many of these has Kibo eaten? Adam Funk General Cooking 0 19-06-2006 07:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017