Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: Dutch on 24 Dec 2005 16:28 "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> 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!
From: dh on 24 Dec 2005 19:36 On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:09:59 +0000, Martin Willett <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> 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.
From: dh on 24 Dec 2005 19:40 On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:12:43 +0000, Martin Willett <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most >of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die >than not to. One "ARA" amusingly pasted the fact that: _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <tl6u464lepm55d(a)news.supernews.com> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? as if he were able to understand the fact, but later revealed that he can not: _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <11ml08i82fjqnd7(a)news.supernews.com> some mystical "value to the animals" ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <11miousl3a1je03(a)news.supernews.com> Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means, may not and should not be used as an argument for raising them. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I find that the truth is often both sad and hilarious at the same time with these people. It's incredible really. This for example: why did Dutch paste something that they don't understand much less agree with? I've asked him many times, but he refuses to say why. >Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, >so don't bother pointing it out. The desperation of "ARAs" is made obvious by Dutch's hero Goo, who proclaims to the world that: _________________________________________________________ From: "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32(a)yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1110311850.747016.292610(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? _________________________________________________________ From: Rudy Canoza <someguy(a)ph.con> Message-ID: <OPZ_d.15548$qf2.13408(a)newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Life is not a benefit for farm animals. [...] Life is not a benefit for farm animals [...] Life is not a benefit for farm animals. [...] Life is not a benefit for farm animals. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? _________________________________________________________ From: Rudy Canoza <someguy(a)ph.con> Message-ID: <3nn%d.1833$Vi3.1092(a)newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? etc, etc... Again it's sadly amusing to find "ARAs" are so desperate for people to feel that no livestock benefit from farming, that they insist life could never be a benefit for anything including themselves. >Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig >could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their >loving families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers. The "ARAs" even have an "AR" pig fantasy which they believe somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. I'll include what I believe they humorously consider to be the "refutation": _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no(a)email.com> Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff(a)news.supernews.com> Speak for yourself please fuckwit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen. [...] "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered." Hear that fuckwit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh, then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit. Spare all of us, fuckwit. We don't need it, nobody needs it. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? A talking pig who knows he will be killed--and btw made into ham and sausages, etc...there are about 20 or so odd subfantasies in their talking pig fantasy--is certainly an anthropomorphic distortion of reality if not sophistry. And it is *most!!!* certainly bullshit, making me wonder how it could possibly be self-serving for anyone other than "ARAs". (Dutch and Goo hilariously insist they are "AR" opponents, though neither are capable of providing any example(s) of their opposition, nor can anyone else afaik.) [...] >Carnivores don't wear badges and t shirts proclaiming their status for >the same reason that people don't wear "I didn't give money to charity" >badges. It is totally disingenuous to make out that vegetarians and >vegans do not want people to think they are morally superior because of >their diet, in exactly the same way that Christians do. People who >expect recognition for their moral probity make a point of not asking >for it but that doesn't mean they do not expect to get it and are hurt >when they don't get it. Which is why there are people like Dutch and Goo who maniacally oppose people considering that some farm animals benefit from farming, because it suggests that some thing(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to veganism. Just the suggestion causes incredible cognitive dissonance for them, so they desperately/amusingly try to make it go away. Anyone interested in observing cognitive dissonance inspired reactions can get fine examples by pointing out to "ARAs" that some farm animals benefit from farming. I encourage you to give it a try. Dutch would be a good subject, and so would Goo who recently is posting as--and probably considers himself to be--Leif Erikson and S. Maizlich, along with however many others I'm not aware of.
From: Dutch on 24 Dec 2005 20:38 "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote > ant and dec wrote: >> But not much respect for the pig? > > If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most > of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die > than not to. > > Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so > don't bother pointing it out. I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not* living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here who has already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea. http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we can predicate nothing. When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence, or non- existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning based on such comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions.
From: Jeff Caird on 24 Dec 2005 23:29
On 2005-12-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote: > How about rishathra? > Is that from Ringworld? Feffer |