Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: Martin Willett on 24 Dec 2005 10:59 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
From: ant and dec on 24 Dec 2005 10:59 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! >
From: ant and dec on 24 Dec 2005 11:17 Dutch wrote: > "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> 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."? > >
From: rick on 24 Dec 2005 12:44 "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> wrote in message news:415akaF1d45j6U1(a)individual.net... > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> 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."? > >>
From: Dutch on 24 Dec 2005 16:23
"ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> wrote in message news:415akaF1d45j6U1(a)individual.net... > Dutch wrote: >> "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> 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. |