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

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.

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

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

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

Martin Willett wrote:
> 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.

Yes. You have shown that the argument is not a recipe for avoiding
something it was never intended to avoid in the first place. Well done.
:-)

> 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

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!

>

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

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!

>
>

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.

> 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?

> >> 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

"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??

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."?

>
>

"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."?
>
>>

"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.

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.

On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
> How about rishathra?
>

Is that from Ringworld?

Feffer

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

>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>> How about rishathra?
>>
>
>Is that from Ringworld?
>
>Feffer

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

On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird > wrote:
>
>>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>> How about rishathra?
>>>
>>
>>Is that from Ringworld?
>>
>>Feffer
>
> Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just
> found out yesterday they were going to make a movie
> a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason
> dammit.

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

Feffy

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 03:48:58 -0000, Jeff Caird > wrote:

>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:29:05 -0000, Jeff Caird > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>> How about rishathra?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is that from Ringworld?
>>>
>>>Feffer
>>
>> Yes. I wondered if anyone was familiar with that. I just
>> found out yesterday they were going to make a movie
>> a few years ago, but it didn't work out for some reason
>> dammit.
>
>Just as well. Did you see what they did with Riverworld?
>
>Feffy

I'm not familiar with that at all. Not even with the concept.
It would probably be a better use of time to spend less of
it arguing with people in these ngs and reading something
else instead. What little reading I've done lately has been
Niven, since he's my favorite sci fi author. I'm reading
Ringworld's Children now, about 10 pages per month. That
would make a hell of a movie! I think the Integral Trees could
be awesome too.

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:09:59 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
>>which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin.
>
>
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>
>
>>Eating animals and
>>yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
>>animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
>>So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
>>lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
>>make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
>>likely to eat a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than
>>one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
>>hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious.
>
>
> Maybe they'd kill us as vermin.
>
>
>>Acting like
>>hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked”
>>weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals
>>like deer and salmon?
>>Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>
>
> Human.
>

Unless we really need to.

>
>>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

Martin Willett wrote:

> dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:09:59 +0000, Martin Willett
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> We detect the sin of hypocrisy, which for our species seems to be the
>>> ultimate sin.
>>
>>
>>
>> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
>> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
>> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
>> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
>> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their
>> life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing
>> whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

This is ****wit's own unique and turgid restatement of
the (Il)Logic of the Larder, a nonsense to which he
subscribes.

>>
>>
>>> 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.

In western civilization, there is a strong repulsion to
eating human corpses, even when necessary to survive.
However, no western society condones *killing* humans
for food even for survival.


>
>>
>>> 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.
>

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:09:59 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
>>>which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin.
>>
>>
>> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
>> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
>> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
>> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
>> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>>
>>
>>>Eating animals and
>>>yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
>>>animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
>>>So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
>>>lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
>>>make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
>>>likely to eat a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than
>>>one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
>>>hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious.
>>
>>
>> Maybe they'd kill us as vermin.
>>
>>
>>>Acting like
>>>hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked”
>>>weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals
>>>like deer and salmon?
>>>Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>>
>>
>> Human.
>>
>
>Unless we really need to.

Or change the rules of morality.

>>>Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
>>>see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
>>>the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
>>>carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
>>>that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as
>>>some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals
>>>that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't
>>>change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be
>>>a vegetarian.
>>>
>>>We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
>>>those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
>>>assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
>>>hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
>>>lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>>>
>>>Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?
>>>
>>>There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
>>>fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
>>>raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
>>>food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
>>>just like pigs.
>>
>>
>> Pigs are omnivores. I'm not even sure if they can digest celulose,
>> but I doubt it. Chickens are omnivores. And it's the omnivores like
>> chicken, turkey and pork that can really screw you up if you eat it
>> undercooked. I'm guessing because of similarity in digestive systems
>> or something like that, but never have heard anyone say anything
>> about it.
>
>Cows can't digest cellulose either.

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

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

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

<dh@.> wrote
> Martin Willett > wrote:

>>>>Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>>>
>>>
>>> Human.
>>>
>>
>>Unless we really need to.
>
> Or change the rules of morality.

That is not your prerogative ****wit. Where did you get the notion that you
can arbitrarily change the rules of human morality which have developed
through adaptive consensus over the milennia?

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:

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

If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
them.

Don't use a capital G for god unless you intend it to be a name, and
don't use the singular either, that will help you get a clearer bead on
what you are thinking about without having the language force
assumptions into the argument. If a god created animals that god (or
those gods) could have made herbivores able to digest cellulose directly
without relying on foreign bacteria, by secreting an enzyme only when it
was required in exactly the dose that was required according to the
animal's body's awareness of what it had eaten and the animal would not
be sidetracked by the process of reproducing and distributing those
bacteria.

Of course evolution doesn't bother with that route as the bacterial
quick and dirty fix does the job and produces a workable system with far
fewer steps, all of which are viable improvements. But a god who was
wise would know that a better solution would be possible, but it would
require an act of special creation.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
>> it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
>> will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
>> smarter way instead of the way they did.
>
>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
>them.

Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
better way.

>Don't use a capital G for god unless you intend it to be a name,

It's the name I use to refer to a creator, if there is one.

>and
>don't use the singular either,

If there is a creator, I believe "he" has a sort of individuality
of self regardless of how he might in some other way(s) share
identity with other beings. I also don't believe "he" would be
restricted to any particular physical form, much less gender, but
I refer to God as he out of convenience for myself.

>that will help you get a clearer bead on
>what you are thinking about without having the language force
>assumptions into the argument.

I've explained my beliefs.

>If a god created animals that god (or
>those gods)

If you consider the possibility of gods, what do you require
in order for a being to be one?

>could have made herbivores able to digest cellulose directly
>without relying on foreign bacteria, by secreting an enzyme only when it
>was required in exactly the dose that was required according to the
>animal's body's awareness of what it had eaten and the animal would not
>be sidetracked by the process of reproducing and distributing those
>bacteria.

Why did it develop as it did? Why do all animals need something
else to help them break down cellulose, but not to break down starch,
even though afaik they are both just complex sugar molecules?

>Of course evolution doesn't bother with that route as the bacterial
>quick and dirty fix does the job and produces a workable system with far
>fewer steps, all of which are viable improvements. But a god who was
>wise would know that a better solution would be possible, but it would
>require an act of special creation.

You will need to go into a lot of detail before I can believe you have
any idea about what God could have done better in that respect.

some woman deserve being eaten a few times a week :-)


Martin Willett > in :

> 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?

green cheese from the moon is ok.
don't eat little green aliens from mars.
don't eat anything from uranus (yeah, bad old joke, sorry)

> 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.

yeah, that one's a bit odd.

>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.

ime, dogs and pigs and many "domestic" birds are omnivores.
and i suppose ruminates are actually ranchers of invertebrate prey. i wonder if cows digests the weaker dying micro-organisms,
or if *all* those little guys "go over the edge".

> 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.

how surprising, some
http://www.janesoceania.com/vanuatu_tanna_visit/
say that everyone tastes like christians.


> 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...

so the cannibals should have eaten the livers from only the newborn missionaries :-)

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

hg wells would be last.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...ion/0812505158

> 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.

with hairy armpits and sandals and henna and dressed in flowers, hemp, black latex and razorblades!

>Card-carrying
> members of PETA would fetch a premium price.

yet historically christians have been favored as a meat source. hmmmm... perhaps the aliens like their meat "gamey".

> 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.

yes, die young, before the aliens come to harvest you.

> 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?

except that jesusallah wants your soul, not your hairy armpits. (persnikkety Feller ain't It)

> 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.

a line of just one bull will stretch your stomach.

> 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.

the strict monetarists will be in trouble if (whichever) aliens love to feast on bars of gold.

perhaps certain aliens will have an insatiable hunger for used condoms.

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

i will not spoil "war of the worlds" for you, by telling you the ending of the tale.

bon apetit.