Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: ant and dec on 26 Dec 2005 06:27 Martin Willett wrote: > Dutch wrote: >> "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >> >>> Dutch wrote: >>> >>>> "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. >>> >>> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards >>> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise >>> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you >>> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what your >>> principles "must have been"? >> >> >> I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture >> the essence of my argument here. In the current context you said >> about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to". >> "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where >> the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to call it >> inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about it, and I >> submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement cannot >> logically be made. As the author above says, we make such statements >> with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very >> pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say something quite >> similar to your statement to summarize the morality of breeding >> livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us, and >> we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can >> fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It >> is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that >> contains the valid moral principle here. >> > > From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise > animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I > have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know > that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel > if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards > of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket > buyers that are determining how cruel farming is. > > I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because > some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is > a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing > on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not > trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent > it. > > If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue > with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed > directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a > consequence. Do you buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or particularly care where it comes from? > > >>> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin? >> >> >> I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would >> inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others. >> >> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time >> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address >> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your >> insights. >> >> >> > > I like the cut of your jib. > > (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is > nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.) > > I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better than > the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has the > same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a > hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute > to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly > capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit > permission. > What prompted this rethink? Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. - Perhaps you're more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant. What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your want to kill and eat a species? Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and wrong?
From: ant and dec on 26 Dec 2005 06:50 Dutch wrote: > "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? >> I'd like you to answer this point. > > We all draw the line somewhere. Why do you believe that it is all right to > destroy animal populations in order to grow vegetables, fruit, grain, > cotton..? > > [..] > >>> Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig could >>> face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their loving >>> families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers. >> This line of thinking is very often pulled apart as being complete BS. by >> both camps. I see some have already pointed this out. > > Why is it complete BS? You've already stated why. >When animals die in crop fields they are often > cruelly dismembered or else are poisoned and die slowly of internal > hemorrhaging. Why is that all right and a bolt through the brain is not? Animals are dismembered, but there is no one deriving any pleasure (being cruel) from it. One is easily avoided. > > [..] > > >> I think you're blurring the realms of hypothesis and reality under the >> pretense of a "joke". > > I think you are blurring human rights and our relationship with the rest of > the animal kingdom under the pretense of "morality". Yes we have a moral responsibility to the rest of the animal kingdom. > > [..] > >> You claim to observe this moral superiority, yet you can't give any >> examples? I think it's a figment of your imagination. > > You are in denial. Every time a veg*n announces that they don't eat meat, > wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously at a piece of meat, "wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously"! >agonize rudely about > some microscopic bit of animal cells in some condiment, "agonize rudely"! >refer to statements > like "Meat is Murder", or bring up issues like "slaughterhouses" or "factory > farming" in discussion, What's wrong with bring-up issues like "slaughterhouses" or "factory farming" in a discussion? >they are implicitly setting themselves up as moral > paragons. In fact another way vegans describe themselves is "Ethical > Vegetarians". If you are "ethical" then what am I? We have different ethics. "If you are "ethical" then what am I?" > > [..] > >> If mankind >>> was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and socially >>> cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or not meat was >>> a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was doesn't make >>> an ought. >> I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution. You and I are >> fortunate to have a choice of what we eat. Perhaps more should think about >> their choices, in particular what impact those choices have, rather than >> blindly follow customs and practice. > > The practise of abstaining from all animal products in food is no less > blindly following custom than any other choice. Perhaps vegetarians should > spend more time look closely at the impact of their own food choices instead > of just peering self-righteously at the choices others make. "peering self-righteously"! I was all inclusive in my statement, yet you have misread it; possibly purposly to pull out a dietary sub-set of vegetarians. > > This post typifies your modus operandi. You seem to have labeled me as a ve*gan, and have then go on to seemingly purposely misinterpret my posts adding inflammatory words of no value except to demonstrate your dislike. From what I've seen so far your posts rarely add value.
From: rick on 26 Dec 2005 09:44 "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> wrote in message news:41a2ctF1e34t4U1(a)individual.net... > Martin Willett wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >>> "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote >>> >>>> Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>>> "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. >>>> >>>> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work >>>> upwards >>>> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a >>>> surprise >>>> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy >>>> stances you >>>> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what >>>> your >>>> principles "must have been"? >>> >>> >>> I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite >>> capture >>> the essence of my argument here. In the current context you >>> said >>> about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than >>> not to". >>> "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's >>> where >>> the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to >>> call it >>> inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about >>> it, and I >>> submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement >>> cannot >>> logically be made. As the author above says, we make such >>> statements >>> with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very >>> pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say >>> something quite >>> similar to your statement to summarize the morality of >>> breeding >>> livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for >>> us, and >>> we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no >>> person can >>> fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am >>> getting at? It >>> is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that >>> contains the valid moral principle here. >>> >> >> From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to >> raise >> animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in >> action, I have seen animals being cared for by my mother and >> by her father. I know that farming is not by its fundamental >> nature cruel. It can become cruel if the drive to keep down >> food prices is allowed to reduce the standards of husbandry to >> unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket buyers >> that are determining how cruel farming is. >> >> I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just >> because some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I >> think drink driving is a terrible thing but I don't see how >> going teetotal myself and whingeing on about it to anybody who >> will listen (while making out that I'm not trying to portray >> myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent it. >> >> If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is >> an issue with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should >> be addressed directly and I will have no problem in paying >> more for food as a consequence. > > Do you buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or > particularly care where it comes from? > ============================== Like you, I have no idea where the fruits and veggies I eat come from specifically. I know that much of it is imported, very little is actually local, and that it requires lots of processing and transportation. Now, as to the beef I eat, I know exactly where it comes from. Not more than a few miles away. Is completely grass-fed, never goes to a feedlot or fed any grains, never given any hormones, and is not given anti-biotics as a standard practice. It goes to a local slaughter house, and then to my freezer. The whole process occurs completely without minutes of my house. > >> >> >>>> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin? >>> >>> >>> I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty >>> would inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others. >>> >>> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long >>> time >>> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to >>> address >>> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share >>> your >>> insights. >>> >>> >>> >> >> I like the cut of your jib. >> >> (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the >> origin is >> nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.) >> >> I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is >> better than the not eating anything smarter than a pig >> principle but also has the same virtue of not making me change >> my ways and not painting me as a hypocrite in the front of >> ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute to the death of >> any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly >> capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me >> explicit permission. >> > > What prompted this rethink? > > Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. - > Perhaps you're more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant. > > What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on > your want to kill and eat a species? > > Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right > and wrong? ======================== What a coincidence, neither can usenet vegans.... >
From: rick on 26 Dec 2005 09:51 "ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> wrote in message news:41a3nbF1dvovkU1(a)individual.net... > Dutch wrote: >> "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? >>> I'd like you to answer this point. >> >> We all draw the line somewhere. Why do you believe that it is >> all right to destroy animal populations in order to grow >> vegetables, fruit, grain, cotton..? >> >> [..] >> >>>> Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst >>>> death a pig could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices >>>> surrounded by their loving families with large quantities of >>>> euphoria-inducing pain-killers. >>> This line of thinking is very often pulled apart as being >>> complete BS. by both camps. I see some have already pointed >>> this out. >> >> Why is it complete BS? > > You've already stated why. > >>When animals die in crop fields they are often cruelly >>dismembered or else are poisoned and die slowly of internal >>hemorrhaging. Why is that all right and a bolt through the >>brain is not? > > Animals are dismembered, but there is no one deriving any > pleasure (being cruel) from it. One is easily avoided. ========================= Your pleasure means nothing, hypocrite. the animals are still dead, and they are dead at your behest, killer. tell us how you propse to do the avoidance progeam of yours, fool. > >> >> [..] >> >> >>> I think you're blurring the realms of hypothesis and reality >>> under the pretense of a "joke". >> >> I think you are blurring human rights and our relationship >> with the rest of the animal kingdom under the pretense of >> "morality". > > Yes we have a moral responsibility to the rest of the animal > kingdom. > >> >> [..] >> >>> You claim to observe this moral superiority, yet you can't >>> give any examples? I think it's a figment of your >>> imagination. >> >> You are in denial. Every time a veg*n announces that they >> don't eat meat, wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously at a piece >> of meat, > > "wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously"! ===================== Exactly. glad you agree, killer... > >>agonize rudely about some microscopic bit of animal cells in >>some condiment, > > "agonize rudely"! ================== Yes, completely, glad you agree, killer... > >>refer to statements like "Meat is Murder", or bring up issues >>like "slaughterhouses" or "factory farming" in discussion, > > What's wrong with bring-up issues like "slaughterhouses" or > "factory farming" in a discussion? ======================== Nothing, if you also bring up the massive death and suffering from factory-famed crops, hypocrite. the problem is that it is always glossed over by hypocrites like you. Also, usenet vegans like to pretend that all meat comes from some imaginary process of wanton abuse, cruelty and brutality. Your problem is that you've watched and listened to too many propaganda spews. > >>they are implicitly setting themselves up as moral paragons. In >>fact another way vegans describe themselves is "Ethical >>Vegetarians". If you are "ethical" then what am I? > > We have different ethics. "If you are "ethical" then what am > I?" ===================== Hypocritical. You do nothing to follow your supposed ethics, except the false and simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' > >> >> [..] >> >>> If mankind >>>> was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and >>>> socially >>>> cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or >>>> not meat was >>>> a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was >>>> doesn't make an ought. >>> I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution. >>> You and I are fortunate to have a choice of what we eat. >>> Perhaps more should think about their choices, in particular >>> what impact those choices have, rather than blindly follow >>> customs and practice. >> >> The practise of abstaining from all animal products in food is >> no less blindly following custom than any other choice. >> Perhaps vegetarians should spend more time look closely at the >> impact of their own food choices instead of just peering >> self-righteously at the choices others make. > > "peering self-righteously"! ===================== Exactly, glad you agree, killer... > > I was all inclusive in my statement, yet you have misread it; > possibly purposly to pull out a dietary sub-set of vegetarians. > >> >> > > This post typifies your modus operandi. > > You seem to have labeled me as a ve*gan, and have then go on to > seemingly purposely misinterpret my posts adding inflammatory > words of no value except to demonstrate your dislike. > > From what I've seen so far your posts rarely add value. ============================= And your never do, fool... > >
From: Dave on 26 Dec 2005 10:02
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 |