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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 08:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

S. Maizlich 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

snips

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.


Thanks. I can digest that steak pie in peace now.

It doesn't matter if the animal lives or doesn't, and if it lives it
will die no matter whether it was caused to live or just happened to
live. What matters is whether it lives or dies in avoidable suffering.
As long as human animal husbandry does not impose more stress or
suffering on an animal than it would be expected to experience in a life
unaffected by humanity then we have done nothing to be ashamed of. I am
quite confident that good animal husbandry can and often does meet that
test.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 08:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:

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


snips


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.


I think you know the answer to that as clearly as I do: pigs are (by
quite a distance) the smartest animal I regularly eat, the only thing
that comes close is pigeons and since I gave away my shotgun I haven't
felt the need to eat any of them.


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.


I see. Which part of the argument?


The part that says it is "better" for the pigs or other
domestic animals to "get to experience life" rather
than never doing so. That part. It has been
thoroughly discredited.


The porcine hospices? Have you got
any photographs?


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.



Like a wet t shirt competition in a stiff easterly breeze.



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".



This evening I'll be blurring the realms of reality with absinthe. But
jokes are good too.


I tried that stuff once. There wasn't enough left in
my friend's bottle to get to any realm-blurring.



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.


And I think you're being deliberately dense because it suits your cause.
Of course vegetarians want and expect to be seen as morally superior,


Not vegetarians; "vegans", also known as (so-called)
"ethical" vegetarians. Lots of people are vegetarian
for reasons other than ethics.

If restricted to "vegans", your observation is correct:
a wish to be seen as morally superior underlies the
belief system. The wish doesn't by itself entirely
invalidate the belief system, but it certainly gets it
off on shaky footing, and it never recovers.



but without asking for it specifically. Can you imagine anybody ever
answering the question "did you do that to be seen as morally superior?"
in the affirmative? If so please tell me what colour the sky is on your
home planet. Of course people do things in order to be seen as better
people but equally obviously they will always vehemently deny it. We
don't have to believe them.

It is a part of human nature. That is why poppies and paper lifeboats
exist and why people make stickers that say "My mummy gave blood today".
But if you ever ask them whether they did something to appear to be
morally superior they instantly make up a lot of lame excuses.

Vegetarians and vegans do not realistically expect the world to turn
vegetarian but they keep promoting vegetarianism because it allows them
*to be seen* as vegetarians. If nobody ate meat they wouldn't have
anybody to feel superior to so they'd have to give up something else or
actually do something worthy in and of itself.

If vegetarians were not regarded as morally superior and vegetarianism
was not seen as evidence of moral fibre then the Nazis wouldn't have
made so much of Hitler's spurious diet choices.

My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working,
so don't change it. The world will never go vegan. You're quite safe.
You will always have access to the moral high ground by simply not
eating certain foods. Just think, other people had to charge down
machine gun nests armed with a swagger stick, get beaten up by the Ku
Klux Klan or expel the infidels from Jerusalem to get what you get, all
you have to do is pretend to enjoy mung beans and tofu.


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.




Really? "I'm eating a salad but I'd like to point out to you that I'm
not a limp-wristed carrot-muncher I also eat meat"

What kind of leaves were in your salad? Where do you pick your mushrooms?

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.


There is a technical term for people who do that: ignorant ****s.



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.



Tell me, when was the last time you saw

a) a huntsman eat a fox

and

b) somebody wear hunting pink outside of a hunt organized event where
they knew they were not likely to be surrounded or outnumbered by oiks




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.



No, you mustn't. You may choose to, you may want to, but there is no
compulsion on you.

I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can anybody
prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something can't be
proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* Elvis isn't
running a whelk stall on Venus either.


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.


I suppose this is the only form of normality vegans ever achieve:
statistical.

snip




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! ;-)



You're obviously well out of the loop as far as meat eating goes. The
only thing that might interest an interstellar gormet about me would
perhaps be my liver.

snip


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.



No herbivorous species shares food. If you want to ingratiate yourself
with a gorilla you eat alongside them, or pretend to. You don't offer
them food. Pretty much the only food herbivores ever give away is milk.
But things are very different with meat, especially meat that is gained
via cooperative hunting. The complexity of social organization in a wolf
pack is orders of magnitude greater than in a flock of sheep.
Chimpanzees have their most interesting social behaviours when they are
cooperating on a hunt or sharing out the meat.

Collecting vegetable based material is mind numbing drudgery, gaining
meat usually requires sharp thinking and often social cooperation. It
doesn't take much in the way of IQ to outsmart a dandelion but you have
to have your wits about you to bring home the bacon. Because collecting
vegetable based food is a drudge sharing doesn't arise. The simplest way
of ensuring a fair distribution of vegetable based food is quite simply
to eat what you gather and never give any to anybody else ever, while
not deliberately getting in their way or shitting where they're grazing.
That is the recipe for vegetarian cooperation, with the only additions
being follow the herd and try and stay in the middle away from predators
and don't mate with your mother if there's another option available. No
vegetarian species is ever going to produce an intellectual titan or
ever get past the first step on the road to language because they don't
ever have anything worth saying beyond "get out of my way that female's
mine". The most intelligent herbivorous species is the elephant, I am
fairly certain that its intelligence is partly an offshoot of expanding
the brain to cope with the challenge of operating a prehensile trunk.
(They also have a prehensile penis but a penis never requires much
intelligence to operate, especially a big one) The rhino is clear
evidence that you can get by quite easily by being being a big
vegetarian as long as you're thick skinned and aggressive, intellectual
ability is a luxury that evolution has decided most herbivores can't
afford.

Vegetarian hominids are a bit of an evolutionary dead end. Huge jaws,
small brains. Given the option of adding a few more grams of body weight
to the bauplan of the herbivorous hominid evolutionary forces are likely
to go for extra thickness on the skull, bigger threatening canine teeth
or bigger testes, not more grey matter.


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.


While you refuse to eat meat a Welsh sheep farmer sucks on his shotgun
because he can't pay the bills while another farmer far away takes the
money he made from selling you the beans you pretend to enjoy he goes
off and buys a chicken. But don't worry, people will think better of you
for making your stand and being so moral. It does help you score with
the appropriate (to your choice) sex doesn't it?

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 08:34 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:

S. Maizlich 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

snips


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.



Thanks. I can digest that steak pie in peace now.

It doesn't matter if the animal lives or doesn't,


Right. But it's especially important to understand
that rationalizing one's meat consumption on the basis
that "at least" the animal got to live is a nasty
sophistry. Not only that, it's needless: no such
rationalization is necessary. To me, the biggest
problem with such rationalization and sophistry is it's
attempting to play the "vegans'" game on their terms,
and as their entire ethical motivation for playing the
game in the first place is morally disgusting, it puts
one in an ethical swamp where one needn't have gone in
the first place. The Logic of the Larder when advanced
by meat eaters as a rationale for their meat eating
always has an unserious quality to it; as if those who
advance it really are just trying to pull a rhetorical
trick, a fast one, on their "vegan" opponents.


and if it lives it
will die no matter whether it was caused to live or just happened to
live. What matters is whether it lives or dies in avoidable suffering.
As long as human animal husbandry does not impose more stress or
suffering on an animal than it would be expected to experience in a life
unaffected by humanity then we have done nothing to be ashamed of.


I'm not even sure this last is a requirement, simply
because the animals we raise domestically for our
consumption never *would* exist unaffected by humanity.
All that's needed is good-faith effort to keep the
amount of suffering low, and always to be seeking ways
to reduce it further.


I am quite confident that good animal husbandry can and often does
meet that test.


Of course it does.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 08:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dave 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

snip

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.



If people decide to avoid animal source food products for perceived
ethical reasons as the vast majority of vegans do then it follows
they must consider this to be a higher moral stance.


Quite. To say otherwise is simply being obtuse.

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. 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.
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."



Since you obviously have a problem with it perhaps you might like to
give
veg*ns some advice. Should they avoid acting in what they consider to
be the morally superior fashion in case it makes other people feel
uncomfortable? Show they avoid trying to educate people whom they
believe have similar moral values but eat animal products out of
ignorance?


If veg*ns want to carry on getting cheap moral superiority without
having to do anything really worthy they should carry on exactly as they
are doing. Veg*nism will never be an opportunity for moral superiority
if it is universal, so the struggle must go on for ever and must never
be allowed to succeed. Ensuring that they never make a united and
coherent front, that there are always several contradictory sets of
ideas on display and that they are seen to also endorse a variety of
alternative and counter-cultural causes. I especially commend the use of
the "it's all the same struggle comrade" approach whenever possible to
ensure that veg*nism is always associated with the kind of militant
animal rights people who torture the pets of laboratory workers to show
how bloody serious they are and associating veg*nism with drugs,
homosexuality, torching McDonalds and overturning BMWs is always a good
idea.

What about holding a march on Trafalgar Square under the banner of
"Vegans: kick a pigeon if you think meat is murder" and carry banners
that say "Vegans fart louder" or "Vegans: spit or swallow?"

How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or
killing of animals?


Badly. I'd be a bloody dangerous person if ever I was infected by
religion or moral absolutism. I know my capacity for bloody-mindedness
and it scares me.

Seriously, I can't do it. It would be like trying to imagine what I'd
think if I was a bat.

If I agreed with those views I wouldn't be me and I wouldn't have my
thoughts or my memories.

No, I didn't say vegans were all batty.

snip

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 09:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dave 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, 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. 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?


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."


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.



If people decide to avoid animal source food products for perceived
ethical reasons as the vast majority of vegans do then it follows
they must consider this to be a higher moral stance.


Right. At a minimum, it is a "better" (higher) moral
position than what they believe they would be on if
they, themselves, were not "vegan". But one doesn't
have to look too hard or deep to find that the
comparison is not between themselves as "vegans" vs.
their hypothetical selves as omnivores; one quickly
finds that instrinsic to "veganism" is a repulsive
comparison with non-"vegans".


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. 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.
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."



Since you obviously have a problem with it perhaps you might like to
give
veg*ns some advice. Should they avoid acting in what they consider to
be the morally superior fashion in case it makes other people feel
uncomfortable? Show they avoid trying to educate people whom they
believe have similar moral values but eat animal products out of
ignorance?
How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or
killing of animals?


As "veganism", both as a philosophy and as a practice,
is fatally flawed, I think the only reasonable advice
to give "vegans" is to discard "veganism". If they've
been away from eating meat for so long that they no
longer find it palatable, then I wouldn't encourage
them to eat meat; I'd simply say to continue with their
diet, and if asked why they're vegetarian (but no
longer "vegan"), simply to say that it's a habit and
it's what they like to eat. No philosophical
justification for it is necessary.



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.


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.


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.



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


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 09:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:

Dave 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


snip


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.




If people decide to avoid animal source food products for perceived
ethical reasons as the vast majority of vegans do then it follows
they must consider this to be a higher moral stance.


Quite. To say otherwise is simply being obtuse.

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. 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.
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."




Since you obviously have a problem with it perhaps you might like to
give
veg*ns some advice. Should they avoid acting in what they consider to
be the morally superior fashion in case it makes other people feel
uncomfortable? Show they avoid trying to educate people whom they
believe have similar moral values but eat animal products out of
ignorance?



If veg*ns want to carry on getting cheap moral superiority without
having to do anything really worthy they should carry on exactly as they
are doing. Veg*nism will never be an opportunity for moral superiority
if it is universal, so the struggle must go on for ever and must never
be allowed to succeed.


This is absolutely right, and it ties back to an
observation I made a long time ago concerning self
marginalization. "vegans" suffer from what can only be
called a form of mental illness, in which they derive a
perverse and pathological sense of well being from
being alienated from the larger society. For most
people, a feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and
mentally healthy people attempt to elminate it or
overcome it. Some people suffering from mental
pathology, however, come to embrace their feelings of
alienation, and seek to augment them. The consious
embrace of a marginalizing diet and belief system is a
pretty good way at achieving greater alienation. If
the entire world embraced "veganism", today's "vegans"
would no longer feel alienated based on that one
dimension. They don't *want* the world to "go 'vegan'".




Ensuring that they never make a united and
coherent front, that there are always several contradictory sets of
ideas on display and that they are seen to also endorse a variety of
alternative and counter-cultural causes. I especially commend the use of
the "it's all the same struggle comrade" approach whenever possible to
ensure that veg*nism is always associated with the kind of militant
animal rights people who torture the pets of laboratory workers to show
how bloody serious they are and associating veg*nism with drugs,
homosexuality, torching McDonalds and overturning BMWs is always a good
idea.


"veganism" *is* the dietary expression of "animal
rights" adherents.



What about holding a march on Trafalgar Square under the banner of
"Vegans: kick a pigeon if you think meat is murder" and carry banners
that say "Vegans fart louder" or "Vegans: spit or swallow?"

How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or
killing of animals?


Badly. I'd be a bloody dangerous person if ever I was infected by
religion or moral absolutism. I know my capacity for bloody-mindedness
and it scares me.

Seriously, I can't do it. It would be like trying to imagine what I'd
think if I was a bat.

If I agreed with those views I wouldn't be me and I wouldn't have my
thoughts or my memories.

No, I didn't say vegans were all batty.

snip

  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:02 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:

ant and dec wrote:

Martin Willett wrote:


First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
posted by the author

snips

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.


I think you know the answer to that as clearly as I do: pigs are (by
quite a distance) the smartest animal I regularly eat, the only thing
that comes close is pigeons and since I gave away my shotgun I haven't
felt the need to eat any of them.


I did think that "I'll draw the line just above what I normally eat" was
the answer. I just thought that you may have another more convincing
argument, but never mind.




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.


I see. Which part of the argument?


The BS part.

The porcine hospices? Have you got
any photographs?


Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...



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.



Like a wet t shirt competition in a stiff easterly breeze.


I did laugh (really!)




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".


This evening I'll be blurring the realms of reality with absinthe. But
jokes are good too.


Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...


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.


And I think you're being deliberately dense because it suits your cause.
Of course vegetarians want and expect to be seen as morally superior,
but without asking for it specifically. Can you imagine anybody ever
answering the question "did you do that to be seen as morally superior?"
in the affirmative? If so please tell me what colour the sky is on your
home planet. Of course people do things in order to be seen as better
people but equally obviously they will always vehemently deny it. We
don't have to believe them.


It was implicit that you made observations, yet you can't give any examples.


It is a part of human nature. That is why poppies and paper lifeboats
exist and why people make stickers that say "My mummy gave blood today".
But if you ever ask them whether they did something to appear to be
morally superior they instantly make up a lot of lame excuses.

Vegetarians and vegans do not realistically expect the world to turn
vegetarian but they keep promoting vegetarianism because it allows them
*to be seen* as vegetarians. If nobody ate meat they wouldn't have
anybody to feel superior to so they'd have to give up something else or
actually do something worthy in and of itself.


What utter crap. This is ALL in your mind, please provide SOME evidence
for these conclusions. You don't get it do you, it's YOUR mis perception
of vegetarians.


If vegetarians were not regarded as morally superior and vegetarianism
was not seen as evidence of moral fibre then the Nazis wouldn't have
made so much of Hitler's spurious diet choices.


More crap.


My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working,


What propaganda of mine?

so don't change it. The world will never go vegan.


Vegan / vegetarian. I've never asked anybody to choose any diet.

You're quite safe.
You will always have access to the moral high ground by simply not
eating certain foods. Just think, other people had to charge down
machine gun nests armed with a swagger stick, get beaten up by the Ku
Klux Klan or expel the infidels from Jerusalem to get what you get, all
you have to do is pretend to enjoy mung beans and tofu.


Are you drunk, or was that a another joke. Ha.....Ha...? BTW I don't eat
or even pretend to eat mung beans or tofu.



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.



Really? "I'm eating a salad but I'd like to point out to you that I'm
not a limp-wristed carrot-muncher I also eat meat"


I think you've got a problem with vegetarians! The common pattern of
events includes *others* pointing out my dietary choices, then the rest
of the table stating what they couldn't do without or can't understand
my choices, etc.



What kind of leaves were in your salad? Where do you pick your mushrooms?


Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...



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.


There is a technical term for people who do that: ignorant ****s.


Agreed.




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.


Tell me, when was the last time you saw

a) a huntsman eat a fox


Who said anything about a fox? Hunting pink is used in other hunts.

Anyway it's a clear a badge of "I eat meat" than any words on a tee shirt.


and

b) somebody wear hunting pink outside of a hunt organized event where
they knew they were not likely to be surrounded or outnumbered by oiks


I've never seen that, but I don't see that's got any bearing, as I've
never seen a "Meat is murder" tee shirt either.

The fact remains that some carnivores do wear badges proclaiming their
status, just as some vegans do.




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.


No, you mustn't. You may choose to, you may want to, but there is no
compulsion on you.


There is no other option.


I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can anybody
prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something can't be
proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* Elvis isn't
running a whelk stall on Venus either.


No, it was implicit in your response that the observation could be made.
Surely if you observe these vegetarians being smug, you can give any
examples; can't you?



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.


I suppose this is the only form of normality vegans ever achieve:
statistical.


Meaningless. Or was that another joke; Ha.....Ha...?


snip



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! ;-)


You're obviously well out of the loop as far as meat eating goes. The
only thing that might interest an interstellar gormet about me would
perhaps be my liver.


Pate de foie gras? Perhaps a bit too gras?



snip

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.


No herbivorous species shares food. If you want to ingratiate yourself
with a gorilla you eat alongside them, or pretend to. You don't offer
them food. Pretty much the only food herbivores ever give away is milk.
But things are very different with meat, especially meat that is gained
via cooperative hunting. The complexity of social organization in a wolf
pack is orders of magnitude greater than in a flock of sheep.
Chimpanzees have their most interesting social behaviours when they are
cooperating on a hunt or sharing out the meat.


Life at Sainsburys will never be the same!

Now pull yourself back to the REAL World for just one moment. I said
you'd lost the plot because you juxtaposed a meat centerpiece with a
herbivorous diet. I share meals just as any most other families do.
Traditionally meat is a the center of the a feast for no other reason
than custom and practice. All this stuff about herbivores is just plain
crap.



Collecting vegetable based material is mind numbing drudgery, gaining
meat usually requires sharp thinking and often social cooperation. It
doesn't take much in the way of IQ to outsmart a dandelion but you have
to have your wits about you to bring home the bacon. Because collecting
vegetable based food is a drudge sharing doesn't arise. The simplest way
of ensuring a fair distribution of vegetable based food is quite simply
to eat what you gather and never give any to anybody else ever, while
not deliberately getting in their way or shitting where they're grazing.
That is the recipe for vegetarian cooperation, with the only additions
being follow the herd and try and stay in the middle away from predators
and don't mate with your mother if there's another option available. No
vegetarian species is ever going to produce an intellectual titan or
ever get past the first step on the road to language because they don't
ever have anything worth saying beyond "get out of my way that female's
mine". The most intelligent herbivorous species is the elephant, I am
fairly certain that its intelligence is partly an offshoot of expanding
the brain to cope with the challenge of operating a prehensile trunk.
(They also have a prehensile penis but a penis never requires much
intelligence to operate, especially a big one) The rhino is clear
evidence that you can get by quite easily by being being a big
vegetarian as long as you're thick skinned and aggressive, intellectual
ability is a luxury that evolution has decided most herbivores can't
afford.

Vegetarian hominids are a bit of an evolutionary dead end. Huge jaws,
small brains. Given the option of adding a few more grams of body weight
to the bauplan of the herbivorous hominid evolutionary forces are likely
to go for extra thickness on the skull, bigger threatening canine teeth
or bigger testes, not more grey matter.


More crap following on from the earlier (lost) point.



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.


While you refuse to eat meat a Welsh sheep farmer sucks on his shotgun
because he can't pay the bills while another farmer far away takes the
money he made from selling you the beans you pretend to enjoy he goes
off and buys a chicken. But don't worry, people will think better of you
for making your stand and being so moral. It does help you score with
the appropriate (to your choice) sex doesn't it?


Now I'm responsible for a Welsh sheep farmers suicide? Or was that
another joke; Ha.....Ha...? The impact on any Welsh sheep farmer of my
choices has been insignificant, if that was the point you were alluding to.

The farmer's just as likely to go out of business because possibly you
but certainly most others don't give a shit where their meat comes from.

Why don't you answer the points I DID make rather than ones you like to
pontificate about?



  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"Dave" wrote

Martin Willett wrote:

[..]

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.


If people decide to avoid animal source food products for perceived
ethical reasons as the vast majority of vegans do then it follows
they must consider this to be a higher moral stance.


You would think it to be self-evident wouldn't you? Yet vegans consistently
deny it when confronted by it.

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. 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.
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."


Since you obviously have a problem with it perhaps you might like to
give
veg*ns some advice.


Futile.

Should they avoid acting in what they consider to
be the morally superior fashion in case it makes other people feel
uncomfortable?


The discomfort of others translates into comfort for the vegan.

Show they avoid trying to educate people whom they
believe have similar moral values but eat animal products out of
ignorance?
How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or
killing of animals?


The only hope for vegans is to sacrifice the comforting feeling they get by
making others uncomfortable while they subject their views to a criticial
assessment. It's not a likely scenario, how many people can give up a sure
sense of moral superiority for a mere hope of intellectual integrity?


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:17 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:


From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise
animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I
have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know
that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel.


I agree.

It can become cruel if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to
reduce the standards of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks
and supermarket buyers that are determining how cruel farming is.


As consumers I say we share that burden through our complacency.

[..]

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.




I like the cut of your jib.


Likewise skipper, you have given me quite a few belly laughs.



  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:25 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
Dutch wrote:
"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..?


Where is the response to this reply?

[..]

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?


You've already stated why.


Where's the content in that reply?

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?


Animals are dismembered, but there is no one deriving any pleasure (being
cruel) from it.


Are you claiming that death and suffering to animals is acceptable as long
as no cruelty is involved? Most slaughterhouse deaths are not cruel.

One is easily avoided.


Are you saying that morality hinges on "ease"?

[..]


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".


Yes we have a moral responsibility to the rest of the animal kingdom.


That is not the same as 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,


"wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously"!


Echo

agonize rudely about some microscopic bit of animal cells in some
condiment,


"agonize rudely"!


Echo

refer to statements like "Meat is Murder", or bring up issues like
"slaughterhouses" or "factory farming" in discussion,


What's wrong with bring-up issues like "slaughterhouses" or "factory
farming" in a discussion?


It comes down to the motives. Veg*ns derive satisfaction from the discomfort
of others.

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?


We have different ethics. "If you are "ethical" then what am I?"


Echo

[..]

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.


"peering self-righteously"!


Echo

I was all inclusive in my statement, yet you have misread it; possibly
purposly to pull out a dietary sub-set of vegetarians.




This post typifies your modus operandi.

You seem to have labeled me as a ve*gan, and have then go on to seemingly
purposely misinterpret my posts adding inflammatory words of no value
except to demonstrate your dislike.

From what I've seen so far your posts rarely add value.


And your non-responses and parroting of my remarks adds value?




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:34 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

S. Maizlich wrote:
ant and dec wrote:

pearl wrote:

"ant and dec" wrote in message
...

pearl wrote:

..

Thanks for that. Very interesting; of particular personal interest was
the anthropological articles on calcium and osteoporosis.


You're welcome.

:-)



The theory I was thinking of was the "brain food theory":


Brain food

Because meat is rich in calories and nutrients, easy-to-digest food,
early Homo lost the need for big intestines like apes and earlier
hominids had. This freed up energy for use by other organs. This
surplus
of energy seems to have been diverted to one organ in particular - the
brain. But scavenging meat from under the noses of big cats is a risky
business, so good scavengers needed to be smart. At this stage in our
evolution, a big brain was associated with greater intellect. Big
brains
require lots of energy to operate: the human brain uses 20% of the
body's total energy production. But the massive calorific hit provided
by meat kick-started an increase in the brain size of early humans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_...thought1.shtml



If that were the case, carnivores should have massive brains!

Mind you, this was written by Robert Winston who's has sold himself to
the food industry.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords...560223,00.html
http://www.omega3.co.uk/omega3/pages/omega_3.php




Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
Barton RA.
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of
species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged.
One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a
result of neural specializations or of biological constraints
affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates,
brain size variation is associated with visual specialization.
Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively
expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex
and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in
particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which
selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of
neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the
lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both
brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size).
Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these
results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous
species are products of selection on the ability to perceive
and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour.
The separate correlation between group size and visual brain
evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of
social information processing in the primate brain.

PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract



Thanks again.

I have moved my position on whether meat had a major part to play in
human evolution. I will read more, but on balance there seems little
evidence to support that it did.


It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.


I need to investigate more. The reference above seems to give a strong
case for a "visual specialization" evolution and it states that "no
consensus has emerged", but I'm happy learn and admit my ignorance on
brain evolution theories.

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:54 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:

ant and dec wrote:

Martin Willett wrote:


First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
posted by the author


snips


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.


I think you know the answer to that as clearly as I do: pigs are (by
quite a distance) the smartest animal I regularly eat, the only thing
that comes close is pigeons and since I gave away my shotgun I haven't
felt the need to eat any of them.



I did think that "I'll draw the line just above what I normally eat" was
the answer. I just thought that you may have another more convincing
argument, but never mind.




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.


I see. Which part of the argument?



The BS part.

The porcine hospices? Have you got

any photographs?



Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...



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.



Like a wet t shirt competition in a stiff easterly breeze.



I did laugh (really!)




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".



This evening I'll be blurring the realms of reality with absinthe. But
jokes are good too.



Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...


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.


And I think you're being deliberately dense because it suits your
cause. Of course vegetarians want and expect to be seen as morally
superior, but without asking for it specifically. Can you imagine
anybody ever answering the question "did you do that to be seen as
morally superior?" in the affirmative? If so please tell me what
colour the sky is on your home planet. Of course people do things in
order to be seen as better people but equally obviously they will
always vehemently deny it. We don't have to believe them.



It was implicit that you made observations, yet you can't give any
examples.


Most of the explicit examples of it I've seen are by
former "vegans" who have renounced at least that aspect
of their vegetarianism. Here's one such:
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ed_nolonger.htm

Most of the rest is exhibited implicitly in the
comments of participants in these newsgroups, among others.


It is a part of human nature. That is why poppies and paper lifeboats
exist and why people make stickers that say "My mummy gave blood
today". But if you ever ask them whether they did something to appear
to be morally superior they instantly make up a lot of lame excuses.

Vegetarians and vegans do not realistically expect the world to turn
vegetarian but they keep promoting vegetarianism because it allows
them *to be seen* as vegetarians. If nobody ate meat they wouldn't
have anybody to feel superior to so they'd have to give up something
else or actually do something worthy in and of itself.



What utter crap. This is ALL in your mind, please provide SOME evidence
for these conclusions. You don't get it do you, it's YOUR mis perception
of vegetarians.


If vegetarians were not regarded as morally superior and vegetarianism
was not seen as evidence of moral fibre then the Nazis wouldn't have
made so much of Hitler's spurious diet choices.



More crap.


My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working,



What propaganda of mine?

so don't change it. The world will never go vegan.



Vegan / vegetarian. I've never asked anybody to choose any diet.

You're quite safe. You will always have access to the moral high
ground by simply not eating certain foods. Just think, other people
had to charge down machine gun nests armed with a swagger stick, get
beaten up by the Ku Klux Klan or expel the infidels from Jerusalem to
get what you get, all you have to do is pretend to enjoy mung beans
and tofu.



Are you drunk, or was that a another joke. Ha.....Ha...? BTW I don't eat
or even pretend to eat mung beans or tofu.



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.




Really? "I'm eating a salad but I'd like to point out to you that I'm
not a limp-wristed carrot-muncher I also eat meat"



I think you've got a problem with vegetarians! The common pattern of
events includes *others* pointing out my dietary choices, then the rest
of the table stating what they couldn't do without or can't understand
my choices, etc.



What kind of leaves were in your salad? Where do you pick your mushrooms?



Ah I see another joke. Ha.....Ha...



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.


There is a technical term for people who do that: ignorant ****s.



Agreed.




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.



Tell me, when was the last time you saw

a) a huntsman eat a fox



Who said anything about a fox? Hunting pink is used in other hunts.

Anyway it's a clear a badge of "I eat meat" than any words on a tee shirt.


and

b) somebody wear hunting pink outside of a hunt organized event where
they knew they were not likely to be surrounded or outnumbered by oiks


I've never seen that, but I don't see that's got any bearing, as I've
never seen a "Meat is murder" tee shirt either.

The fact remains that some carnivores do wear badges proclaiming their
status, just as some vegans do.




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.



No, you mustn't. You may choose to, you may want to, but there is no
compulsion on you.



There is no other option.


I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can anybody
prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something can't be
proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* Elvis isn't
running a whelk stall on Venus either.



No, it was implicit in your response that the observation could be made.
Surely if you observe these vegetarians being smug, you can give any
examples; can't you?



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.


I suppose this is the only form of normality vegans ever achieve:
statistical.



Meaningless. Or was that another joke; Ha.....Ha...?


snip




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! ;-)



You're obviously well out of the loop as far as meat eating goes. The
only thing that might interest an interstellar gormet about me would
perhaps be my liver.



Pate de foie gras? Perhaps a bit too gras?



snip


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.



No herbivorous species shares food. If you want to ingratiate yourself
with a gorilla you eat alongside them, or pretend to. You don't offer
them food. Pretty much the only food herbivores ever give away is
milk. But things are very different with meat, especially meat that is
gained via cooperative hunting. The complexity of social organization
in a wolf pack is orders of magnitude greater than in a flock of
sheep. Chimpanzees have their most interesting social behaviours when
they are cooperating on a hunt or sharing out the meat.



Life at Sainsburys will never be the same!

Now pull yourself back to the REAL World for just one moment. I said
you'd lost the plot because you juxtaposed a meat centerpiece with a
herbivorous diet. I share meals just as any most other families do.
Traditionally meat is a the center of the a feast for no other reason
than custom and practice. All this stuff about herbivores is just plain
crap.



Collecting vegetable based material is mind numbing drudgery, gaining
meat usually requires sharp thinking and often social cooperation. It
doesn't take much in the way of IQ to outsmart a dandelion but you
have to have your wits about you to bring home the bacon. Because
collecting vegetable based food is a drudge sharing doesn't arise. The
simplest way of ensuring a fair distribution of vegetable based food
is quite simply to eat what you gather and never give any to anybody
else ever, while not deliberately getting in their way or shitting
where they're grazing. That is the recipe for vegetarian cooperation,
with the only additions being follow the herd and try and stay in the
middle away from predators and don't mate with your mother if there's
another option available. No vegetarian species is ever going to
produce an intellectual titan or ever get past the first step on the
road to language because they don't ever have anything worth saying
beyond "get out of my way that female's mine". The most intelligent
herbivorous species is the elephant, I am fairly certain that its
intelligence is partly an offshoot of expanding the brain to cope with
the challenge of operating a prehensile trunk. (They also have a
prehensile penis but a penis never requires much intelligence to
operate, especially a big one) The rhino is clear evidence that you
can get by quite easily by being being a big vegetarian as long as
you're thick skinned and aggressive, intellectual ability is a luxury
that evolution has decided most herbivores can't afford.

Vegetarian hominids are a bit of an evolutionary dead end. Huge jaws,
small brains. Given the option of adding a few more grams of body
weight to the bauplan of the herbivorous hominid evolutionary forces
are likely to go for extra thickness on the skull, bigger threatening
canine teeth or bigger testes, not more grey matter.



More crap following on from the earlier (lost) point.



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.


While you refuse to eat meat a Welsh sheep farmer sucks on his shotgun
because he can't pay the bills while another farmer far away takes the
money he made from selling you the beans you pretend to enjoy he goes
off and buys a chicken. But don't worry, people will think better of
you for making your stand and being so moral. It does help you score
with the appropriate (to your choice) sex doesn't it?



Now I'm responsible for a Welsh sheep farmers suicide? Or was that
another joke; Ha.....Ha...? The impact on any Welsh sheep farmer of my
choices has been insignificant, if that was the point you were alluding to.

The farmer's just as likely to go out of business because possibly you
but certainly most others don't give a shit where their meat comes from.

Why don't you answer the points I DID make rather than ones you like to
pontificate about?



  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 10:58 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:

S. Maizlich wrote:

ant and dec wrote:

pearl wrote:

"ant and dec" wrote in message
...

pearl wrote:


..

Thanks for that. Very interesting; of particular personal interest was
the anthropological articles on calcium and osteoporosis.



You're welcome.

:-)



The theory I was thinking of was the "brain food theory":


Brain food

Because meat is rich in calories and nutrients, easy-to-digest food,
early Homo lost the need for big intestines like apes and earlier
hominids had. This freed up energy for use by other organs. This
surplus
of energy seems to have been diverted to one organ in particular - the
brain. But scavenging meat from under the noses of big cats is a risky
business, so good scavengers needed to be smart. At this stage in our
evolution, a big brain was associated with greater intellect. Big
brains
require lots of energy to operate: the human brain uses 20% of the
body's total energy production. But the massive calorific hit provided
by meat kick-started an increase in the brain size of early humans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_...thought1.shtml




If that were the case, carnivores should have massive brains!

Mind you, this was written by Robert Winston who's has sold himself to
the food industry.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords...560223,00.html
http://www.omega3.co.uk/omega3/pages/omega_3.php





Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
Barton RA.
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of
species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged.
One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a
result of neural specializations or of biological constraints
affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates,
brain size variation is associated with visual specialization.
Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively
expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex
and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in
particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which
selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of
neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the
lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both
brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size).
Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these
results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous
species are products of selection on the ability to perceive
and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour.
The separate correlation between group size and visual brain
evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of
social information processing in the primate brain.

PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract




Thanks again.

I have moved my position on whether meat had a major part to play in
human evolution. I will read more, but on balance there seems little
evidence to support that it did.



It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.



I need to investigate more. The reference above seems to give a strong
case for a "visual specialization" evolution and it states that "no
consensus has emerged", but I'm happy learn and admit my ignorance on
brain evolution theories.


What is not in dispute is that the earliest hominids
and their pre-hominid ancestors *all* naturally ate
meat. To say then that meat played no role in their
evolution is just factually wrong.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2005, 11:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Leif Erikson wrote:
ant and dec wrote:

snip



It was implicit that you made observations, yet you can't give any
examples.


Most of the explicit examples of it I've seen are by former "vegans" who
have renounced at least that aspect of their vegetarianism. Here's one
such: http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ed_nolonger.htm


An interesting link. - Best to learn from others mistakes!


Most of the rest is exhibited implicitly in the comments of participants
in these newsgroups, among others.



This has been an interesting excursion into this group.

There appears to be the odd village idiot, and some accusing me of
things that they have absolutely no basis for doing so; but I'm
recognising them and will dismiss their posts where appropriate.



snip
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 12:38 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

[email protected] 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


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 07:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017