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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-12-2005, 11:09 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

What can we do to stop aliens from eating us? How about swearing off
from eating meat?

There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
not to eat you?”

Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. 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. 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?

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.

I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore
or carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels
and badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes
just like lamb.

The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their
livers, which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A.
The higher an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the
higher the concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may
contain. Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies
and accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of
riding them from the body is to breastfeed...

If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want
to eat?

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on
a pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic.
Aliens would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC. Card-carrying
members of PETA would fetch a premium price.

If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
aliens. Or failing that, sausages.

Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.

What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?
Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
a line of bull.

Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?

There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.


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

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-12-2005, 02:39 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:


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.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-12-2005, 08:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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 strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
to the points I made.

I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
of them. What was incorrect?

Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance? Do you think I *couldn't*
find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
do so?

Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and deer
than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?

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.

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

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-12-2005, 09:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" wrote
Martin Willett wrote:


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


A factually incorrect


You mean the part about the aliens? LOL

diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.


Eating meat doesn't demand justification.

A troll.


You didn't actually take it seriously did you??


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 02:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


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 strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
to the points I made.

I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
of them. What was incorrect?

Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance? Do you think I *couldn't*
find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
do so?


You probably could but "I don't eat meat in case it causes me to be
eaten
by an alien" is a misrepresentation of the argument.

Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and deer
than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?

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.

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

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 04:59 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:


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.



It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
to the points I made.


Does a diatribe have a point?


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


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.


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.


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.


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 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!



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!


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 04:59 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:


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 strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
to the points I made.

I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
of them. What was incorrect?

Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance? Do you think I *couldn't*
find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
do so?



You probably could but "I don't eat meat in case it causes me to be
eaten
by an alien" is a misrepresentation of the argument.


I would say it was an instructive re-interpretation of the argument that
shows how truly fatuous the idea is. Veg*ns will often use the "how
would you like it if somebody ate you?" line of reasoning (well, they
think it's reasoning) without going on to flesh out the ramifications of
the argument. It is an argument by ellipses. You float the idea half
finished, let it trail in the air, and hope the other person will flesh
it out in a way that convinces them that you had a point.

Sorry about all the flesh in that paragraph, I can be such a meathead at
times.

So what does the argument actually mean? It is clearly not a recipe to
avoid being eaten by aliens as I have shown. Any carnivore would prefer
to eat a vegetarian rather than a carnivore if there was any preference
at all, and if they were the sort of sickos that got off on the idea of
eating sentient and intelligent beings they would probably prefer to eat
the upstanding morally superior vegan rather than the hypocrite who eats
bacon and tries not to think about pigs. I can conceive of no possible
scenario in which the alien would eat carnivorous people and invite
vegans around for an after dinner game of backgammon and a chat about
the moral superiority of not exploiting animals.

So if it is isn't about a defence mechanism against consumption by
aliens what is it? An invitation to eat your way to moral superiority?
"I can out-smug you, but you could join me on this high horse". Come on,
come clean.

First alien: This roast man is delicious. A vegan, I can tell. I love
the stuffing.

Second alien: Stuffing?

First alien: Yes, the nut stuffing, really tangy. What did you use to
stuff it? Nuts, mushrooms, onions a little garlic I think. I can see
sweetcorn, what else?

Second alien: I didn't have to stuff it. It wasn't empty.


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 05:17 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dutch 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


You mean the part about the aliens? LOL


No.


diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.


Eating meat doesn't demand justification.


I never said it did. I read it that he was attempting albeit in a light
hearted way, to give an adequate reason or grounds for (in other words
justify) his decision to eat meat.

Anybody can be asked to show adequate an reason or grounds for a decision.



A troll.


You didn't actually take it seriously did you??



He expected a serious comment. Should I have just written LOL "What a
wag."?



  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 05:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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.


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."



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
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 06:27 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:


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


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

A troll.


How do you make that out?



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



I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat anything
smarter than a pig,


How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you drawn
this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?

unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule
doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the
intelligence of pigs.


But not much respect for the pig?


Chimp chops? No thanks!


It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer

to the points I made.



Does a diatribe have a point?


Why restrict yourself to one?


We can move on, as the points are coming out.




I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely
one of them. What was incorrect?



Salmon, as *one* example is a carnivorous species that we eat as a
common food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon


How is this a contradiction?

"The only carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish,
animals that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to
redefine as some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock
are animals that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and
ugly doesn't change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish
you cannot be a vegetarian."


Sorry I missed that caveat. The article focused on not eating
carnivores, we eat carnivorous fish (and other things to a lesser
extent)what stops these hypothetical aliens 'fishing' for carnivorous
humans?




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?

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.

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.





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



It is used by some.


Quite. If the cap fits, wear it.


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

What "cap"?




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".




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



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


I endeavour to make a joke out of most things.

Sometimes I even succeed.



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



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


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


Agreed.





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



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

Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!


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



Perhaps a positive novelty troll?

PS. I may be away for a day or two. - Apparently there's a Christian
(traditionally meat centric) festival going on that I'm expected to take
part in!





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 06:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" wrote in message
...
Dutch 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


You mean the part about the aliens? LOL


No.


diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.


Eating meat doesn't demand justification.


I never said it did. I read it that he was attempting albeit in
a light hearted way, to give an adequate reason or grounds for
(in other words justify) his decision to eat meat.

=================
And, his reasons are just as viable as the reasons usenet vegans
give for not eating meat. Usenet vegan reasons are just as much
fantasy and delusion, eh?




Anybody can be asked to show adequate an reason or grounds for
a decision.



A troll.


You didn't actually take it seriously did you??



He expected a serious comment. Should I have just written LOL
"What a wag."?



  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 10:23 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 in message
...
Dutch 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


You mean the part about the aliens? LOL


No.


Which part did you find to be "factually incorrect"?

diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.


Eating meat doesn't demand justification.


I never said it did. I read it that he was attempting albeit in a light
hearted way, to give an adequate reason or grounds for (in other words
justify) his decision to eat meat.

Anybody can be asked to show adequate an reason or grounds for a decision.


I didn't interpret it that way. He was attempting to make light of the
emotional 'To Serve Mankind' argument contained in the admonishment "How
would you feel if aliens came to earth and saw *you* as food?"

A troll.


You didn't actually take it seriously did you??



He expected a serious comment. Should I have just written LOL "What a
wag."?


I didn't consider simply asserting that it was "factually incorrect" to be a
serious comment.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2005, 10:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" wrote
Martin Willett wrote:


[..]

I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat anything
smarter than a pig,


How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you drawn
this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?


It's not arbitrary, he gave the criterion, intelligence.

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?


That doesn't follow.

[..]

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.


Oh, puleeeze!


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 12:12 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
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:


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


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

A troll.



How do you make that out?



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



I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat
anything smarter than a pig,



How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you drawn
this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?

unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule

doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the
intelligence of pigs.



But not much respect for the pig?


If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
than not to.

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.




Chimp chops? No thanks!


It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer

to the points I made.



Does a diatribe have a point?



Why restrict yourself to one?



We can move on, as the points are coming out.




I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely
one of them. What was incorrect?



Salmon, as *one* example is a carnivorous species that we eat as a
common food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon



How is this a contradiction?

"The only carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish,
animals that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to
redefine as some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock
are animals that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed
and ugly doesn't change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat
fish you cannot be a vegetarian."



Sorry I missed that caveat. The article focused on not eating
carnivores, we eat carnivorous fish (and other things to a lesser
extent)what stops these hypothetical aliens 'fishing' for carnivorous
humans?


Nothing at all. Except that with billions of us to choose from thinking
purely as a connoisseur of meat I wouldn't be eating a 42 year old
overweight male omnivore when I could have a teenage vegan instead. I'd
be fit only for sausages or pies. My granddad was a farmer. He knew what
to eat, food was his life. He always went for local grass-fed heifer
beef. I think aliens would think the same way.





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.


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?


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"
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.






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



It is used by some.



Quite. If the cap fits, wear it.



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

What "cap"?


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



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.


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



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



I endeavour to make a joke out of most things.

Sometimes I even succeed.



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



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



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



Agreed.





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



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

Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!


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




Perhaps a positive novelty troll?

PS. I may be away for a day or two. - Apparently there's a Christian
(traditionally meat centric) festival going on that I'm expected to take
part in!


Me and my two atheist children will be celebrating it tomorrow too. My
Christian wife is out babysitting while some Jewish friends go out for a
Christmas drink. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

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. 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.


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2005, 01:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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.

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.

[...]
What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?
Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
a line of bull.


It's impossible to know if God does not exist. It doesn't matter if
he does not exist either...it only matters if he does. Merry Christmas.

Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?

There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
they could be poisonous to us.


How about rishathra?

Elements that are rare on our planet tend
to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.


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


I would expect beings with such technology to be able to produce
pretty much whatever kind of food they want without having to grow
it, or if not quite to that extent at least be able to produce food they
can live and thrive on that way. So far I can't help but think they
would treat us pretty much as a curiosity or something, unless they
wanted to exterminate us in which case I don't believe they would
have much trouble. It's not like we could do anything to defend
ourselves from much of an attack from space. All they have to do
is stand back and throw a few rocks at us, or put something between
us and Sol.


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 11:56 PM
The most food ever eaten... Andy General Cooking 40 13-12-2006 05:01 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 09:55 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