Would you like to be eaten?
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: Martin Willett on 26 Dec 2005 15:46 Dave wrote: > Martin Willett wrote: > >>ant and dec wrote: >> >>>Martin Willett wrote: >>> >>> >>>>ant and dec wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Martin Willett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm >>>>>>posted by the author <snip> >>> >>>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. > Quite. To say otherwise is simply being obtuse. >>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? If veg*ns want to carry on getting cheap moral superiority without having to do anything really worthy they should carry on exactly as they are doing. Veg*nism will never be an opportunity for moral superiority if it is universal, so the struggle must go on for ever and must never be allowed to succeed. Ensuring that they never make a united and coherent front, that there are always several contradictory sets of ideas on display and that they are seen to also endorse a variety of alternative and counter-cultural causes. I especially commend the use of the "it's all the same struggle comrade" approach whenever possible to ensure that veg*nism is always associated with the kind of militant animal rights people who torture the pets of laboratory workers to show how bloody serious they are and associating veg*nism with drugs, homosexuality, torching McDonalds and overturning BMWs is always a good idea. What about holding a march on Trafalgar Square under the banner of "Vegans: kick a pigeon if you think meat is murder" and carry banners that say "Vegans fart louder" or "Vegans: spit or swallow?" > How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or > killing of animals? > Badly. I'd be a bloody dangerous person if ever I was infected by religion or moral absolutism. I know my capacity for bloody-mindedness and it scares me. Seriously, I can't do it. It would be like trying to imagine what I'd think if I was a bat. If I agreed with those views I wouldn't be me and I wouldn't have my thoughts or my memories. No, I didn't say vegans were all batty. <snip> -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org
From: Leif Erikson on 26 Dec 2005 16:09 Martin Willett wrote: > Dave wrote: > >> Martin Willett wrote: >> >>> ant and dec wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm >>>>>>> posted by the author > > <snip> > >>>> >>>> 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. >> > > Quite. To say otherwise is simply being obtuse. > >>> 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? > > > If veg*ns want to carry on getting cheap moral superiority without > having to do anything really worthy they should carry on exactly as they > are doing. Veg*nism will never be an opportunity for moral superiority > if it is universal, so the struggle must go on for ever and must never > be allowed to succeed. This is absolutely right, and it ties back to an observation I made a long time ago concerning self marginalization. "vegans" suffer from what can only be called a form of mental illness, in which they derive a perverse and pathological sense of well being from being alienated from the larger society. For most people, a feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and mentally healthy people attempt to elminate it or overcome it. Some people suffering from mental pathology, however, come to embrace their feelings of alienation, and seek to augment them. The consious embrace of a marginalizing diet and belief system is a pretty good way at achieving greater alienation. If the entire world embraced "veganism", today's "vegans" would no longer feel alienated based on that one dimension. They don't *want* the world to "go 'vegan'". > Ensuring that they never make a united and > coherent front, that there are always several contradictory sets of > ideas on display and that they are seen to also endorse a variety of > alternative and counter-cultural causes. I especially commend the use of > the "it's all the same struggle comrade" approach whenever possible to > ensure that veg*nism is always associated with the kind of militant > animal rights people who torture the pets of laboratory workers to show > how bloody serious they are and associating veg*nism with drugs, > homosexuality, torching McDonalds and overturning BMWs is always a good > idea. "veganism" *is* the dietary expression of "animal rights" adherents. > > What about holding a march on Trafalgar Square under the banner of > "Vegans: kick a pigeon if you think meat is murder" and carry banners > that say "Vegans fart louder" or "Vegans: spit or swallow?" > >> How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or >> killing of animals? >> > > Badly. I'd be a bloody dangerous person if ever I was infected by > religion or moral absolutism. I know my capacity for bloody-mindedness > and it scares me. > > Seriously, I can't do it. It would be like trying to imagine what I'd > think if I was a bat. > > If I agreed with those views I wouldn't be me and I wouldn't have my > thoughts or my memories. > > No, I didn't say vegans were all batty. > > <snip> >
From: Dutch on 26 Dec 2005 17:12 "Dave" <prplbn(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > Martin Willett wrote: [..] >> >> 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. You would think it to be self-evident wouldn't you? Yet vegans consistently deny it when confronted by it. >> 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. Futile. > Should they avoid acting in what they consider to > be the morally superior fashion in case it makes other people feel > uncomfortable? The discomfort of others translates into comfort for the vegan. > 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? The only hope for vegans is to sacrifice the comforting feeling they get by making others uncomfortable while they subject their views to a criticial assessment. It's not a likely scenario, how many people can give up a sure sense of moral superiority for a mere hope of intellectual integrity?
From: Dutch on 26 Dec 2005 17:17 "Martin Willett" <mwillett.org(a)invalid.invalid> wrote > Dutch wrote: > 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. I agree. > 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. As consumers I say we share that burden through our complacency. [..] >> 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. Likewise skipper, you have given me quite a few belly laughs.
From: Dutch on 26 Dec 2005 17:25
"ant and dec" <ant(a)dec.itv.com> wrote > 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..? Where is the response to this reply? >> [..] >> >>>> 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. Where's the content in that reply? >>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. Are you claiming that death and suffering to animals is acceptable as long as no cruelty is involved? Most slaughterhouse deaths are not cruel. > One is easily avoided. Are you saying that morality hinges on "ease"? [..] >> >> >>> 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. That is not the same as blurring human rights and our relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom under the pretense of "morality". [..] >> >>> 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"! Echo >>agonize rudely about some microscopic bit of animal cells in some >>condiment, > > "agonize rudely"! Echo >>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? It comes down to the motives. Veg*ns derive satisfaction from the discomfort of others. >>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?" Echo >> [..] >> >>> 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"! Echo > 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 non-responses and parroting of my remarks adds value? |