Carnism & Rationalism

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 1:01am #1

Since rationality is one of the most common themes on this forum I wonder where people stand on this issue:

What is Carnism?

Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of vegetarianism or veganism; “carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system. Most people view eating animals as a given, rather than a choice; in meat-eating cultures around the world people typically don’t think about why they find the meat of some animals disgusting and the meat of other animals appetizing, or why they eat any animals at all. But when eating animals isn’t a necessity for survival, as is the case in the majority of the world today, it is a choice - and choices always stem from beliefs.

We recognize that not eating animals stems from a belief system; vegetarianism was named centuries ago. Accordingly, we don't refer to vegetarians as "plant eaters," as we understand that eating plants reflects an underlying ideology in which consuming animals is considered unethical and inappropriate. Yet, we still refer to "non-vegetarians" as "meat eaters," as though the act of eating meat were divorced from a belief system, as though vegetarians were the only ones who bring their beliefs to the dinner table. However, the reason that many people eat pigs but not dogs, for example, is because they do have a belief system when it comes to eating animals.

Why, then, has carnism not been named until now? One reason is because it's simply easier to recognize those ideologies that fall outside the mainstream. A much more important reason, though, is because carnism is a dominant ideology - an ideology so widespread and entrenched that its tenets are considered common sense, "the way things are," rather than a set of widely held opinions. And carnism is also a violent, exploitative ideology; it is organized around intensive, extensive, and unnecessary violence toward, and exploitation of, animals. Even the production of so-called humane meat (and other animal products), a miniscule percentage of the meat produced in the world today, exploits animals and often involves brutality. The tenets of carnism run counter to the core values of most people who would not willingly support the exploitation of others or condone such violence toward other sentient beings. So carnism, like other violent, exploitative ideologies, must hide itself to ensure the participation of the populace; without popular support, the system would collapse.

Omnivore and Carnivore: Inaccurate Terms

Just as "meat eater" is an inaccurate and misleading phrase to describe those who are not vegetarian, so, too, are the other commonly used terms, "omnivore" and "carnivore." These terms reinforce the assumption that eating animals is natural, one of the most entrenched and compelling myths used to justify carnism. "Omnivore" and "carnivore" describe one's physiological disposition, rather than one's ideological choice: an omnivore is an animal, human or nonhuman, that can ingest both plant and animal matter, and a carnivore is an animal that needs to ingest flesh in order to survive.

Carnistic Defenses

Ideologies such as carnism keep themselves alive by teaching us not to think or feel when we follow their dictates, and one of the primary ways they do this is by using a set of defense mechanisms which operate on both the social and psychological levels. "Carnistic defenses" hide the contradictions between our values and behaviors, allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical.

The primary defense of the system is invisibility and the primary way the ideology stays invisible is by remaining unnamed: if we don't name it, we won't see it, and if we don't see it, we can't talk about it or question it. But not only is the ideology itself invisible, so, too, are the victims of the system: the trillions of farmed animals who remain out of sight and therefore conveniently out of public consciousness; the increasingly degraded environment; the exploited and often brutalized meat packers and slaughterhouse workers; and the human meat consumers who are at increased risk for some of the most serious diseases of the industrialized world and who have been conditioned to disconnect, psychologically and emotionally, from the truth of their experience when it comes to eating animals.

But invisibility is only the first line of defense in the fortress of carnism; the truth is impossible to completely obscure. So when invisibility inevitably falters, the system needs a backup. Hence, carnism teaches us to justify eating animals, and it does this by presenting the myths of meat (and other animal products) as though they were the facts of meat, by promoting the Three Ns of Justification: eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary. The Three Ns are institutionalized - they are embraced and maintained by all major social institutions, from the family to the state - and, perhaps not surprisingly, they have been invoked throughout history to justify other violent, exploitative ideologies (e.g., slavery, male dominance, etc.).

Carnism also defends itself by distorting our perceptions of meat and the animals we eat so that we can feel comfortable enough to consume them. We learn, for instance, to view farmed animals as objects (e.g., we refer to a chicken as something, rather than someone) and as abstractions, lacking in any individuality or personality (e.g., a pig is a pig and all pigs are the same), and to create rigid categories in our minds so that we can harbor very different feelings and behaviors toward different species (e.g., beef is delicious and dog meat is disgusting; cows are for eating and dogs are our friends).

There are a number of other defenses that overlap with and support those mentioned here, but all defenses serve a single purpose: to block our awareness and empathy when it comes to farmed animals and the products procured by their bodies. With awareness of carnistic defenses, though, we are less vulnerable to their influence; we are able to step outside the system and look at the issue of eating animals through our own eyes, rather than through the lens of carnism.
http://www.carnism.com/carnism.htm

Will post more questions as we go, don't want to skew the conversation.

Galvasean · 24-03-2012 2:00am

This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase 'Carnism'. After reading through what you have posted it strikes me as a bit of clap trap (spoken like a true Carnist no doubt). Sounds like something made u by PETA or some other such animal rights movement to make those who eat meat look bad. The definitions of 'omnivore' and 'carnivore' appear intentionally misleading to suit an obvious agenda. In fact that whole thing appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at demonizing those who eat meat.
For example, the following quotation is a load of bollocks:
"These terms reinforce the assumption that eating animals is natural, one of the most entrenched and compelling myths used to justify carnism."
They call something which is a biological fact in relation to Homo sapiens (ie: that we are natural omnivores) a myth.
Actually, the more I read in to it, the more it strikes me as being a load of waffle.

ShooterSF · 24-03-2012 5:22am

I could get used to calling myself a carnisian. That sounds like something out of Star Trek.

Sarky · 24-03-2012 11:12am

I expected something to do with the world carnal.

robindch · 24-03-2012 11:17am

ShooterSF wrote: »

I could get used to calling myself a carnisian. That sounds like something out of Star Trek.

Or something far, far worse...

looksee · 24-03-2012 12:33pm

There is something of a parallel in the practise of soporism. Soporists defend their need to sleep in much the same way that Carnisians defend their need to eat meat. People who rise early imply this is a lifestyle choice producing moral rectitude, and to be lauded, and most other people unconsciously buy into this, even though they mostly do not do it themselves. By giving their preference for sleeping a name, suggesting virtue and belief, they can achieve some of this higher moral ground and have a lie in at the same time.

18AD · 24-03-2012 3:03pm

A mate of mine did this only meat diet. Now he's going blind because of it. Not joking.

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 3:38pm

Galvasean wrote: »

The definitions of 'omnivore' and 'carnivore' appear intentionally misleading to suit an obvious agenda.

One wonders what agenda wikipedia is concealing...

Galvasean wrote: »

They call something which is a biological fact in relation to Homo sapiens (ie: that we are natural omnivores) a myth.

If you read the sentence following the one containing the word myth they say they words carnivore/omnivore refer to ones "physiological disposition". In other words they explicitly refer to these words as applicable to the domain of biological norms rather than ideological norms & criticize the idea that these words imply ideological norms. Seems to me to basically be a naturalistic fallacy argument.

Anyway I was more hoping to discuss the implications of the concept of carnism in the more general domain of rationalism: "Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals". The argument seems to me to be extremely similar to the argument made on this forum all the time - that it is irrational to eat meat/believe in god.

Sonics2k · 24-03-2012 3:51pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Anyway I was more hoping to discuss the implications of the concept of carnism in the more general domain of rationalism: "Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals". The argument seems to me to be extremely similar to the argument made on this forum all the time - that it is irrational to eat meat/believe in god.

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but how is eating meat an irrational behaviour for human beings, when it makes up a large part of our natural diet.

Our teeth are even shaped to tear and chew meat, as much as they are for vegetables. Our bodies are designed to take in the nutrition as well.

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 4:22pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but how is eating meat an irrational behaviour for human beings, when it makes up a large part of our natural diet.

Our teeth are even shaped to tear and chew meat, as much as they are for vegetables. Our bodies are designed to take in the nutrition as well.

Just because we are biologically capable of doing something, doesn't mean that we should or have to do it.

That said, like Galvasean, I would see carnism (assuming the article in the OP is an accurate account of it) as lacking understanding of (or not caring about) human biological evolution in favour of getting a point across.
I think the points about the arbitrary lines in what meat different cultures will eat, and the objectification of certain animals and willful ignorance of the quality of their lives to support those arbitrary lines, are interesting. But the article runs away with itself and instead of following the previous points in a purely rational manner, resorts to somewhat emotive arguments itself, of whether or not its "natural" to eat meat (which is irrelevant and it also got wrong).

Galvasean · 24-03-2012 4:41pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

One wonders what agenda wikipedia is concealing...

Considering the definitions given in the links in this post are phrased VERY differently to the ones in the OP, one wonders if you have read them all properly.

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 4:50pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Considering the definitions given in the links in this post are phrased VERY differently to the ones in the OP, one wonders if you have read them all properly.

Here we go, the games begin & as usual we get absolutely no quotes to justify such slanderous claims...

Article - Omnivore wrote:

an omnivore is an animal, human or nonhuman, that can ingest both plant and animal matter,

Wikipedia - Omnivore wrote:

Omnivores (from Latin: omni, meaning "all, everything"; vorare, "to devour") are species that eat both plants and animal material as their primary food source.

Article - Carnivore wrote:

and a carnivore is an animal that needs to ingest flesh in order to survive.

Wikipedia - Carnivore wrote:

A carnivore (/ˈ k ɑr n ɪ v ɔər /) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging.

Please explain how the definitions are phrased "VERY DFFERENTLY". Please explain how a phrase like

"Omnivore" and "carnivore" describe one's physiological disposition, rather than one's ideological choice:

contradict or mislead one in any way away from the wikipedia definitions.

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 4:56pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That said, like Galvasean, I would see carnism (assuming the article in the OP is an accurate account of it) as lacking understanding of (or not caring about) human biological evolution in favour of getting a point across.

A distinction is drawn in the article between a physiological disposition & ideological disposition, in other words human biological evolution is acknowledged in the article but the point is made that this does not imply any kind of a justification with regard to natural authority. I don't see why people are so quick to ignore the writing of the article & just jump to implying that there is some not-so-subtle point trying to be conveyed at the expense of truth & reality...?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think the points about the arbitrary lines in what meat different cultures will eat, and the objectification of certain animals and willful ignorance of the quality of their lives to support those arbitrary lines, are interesting.

This is what I'm talking about, even if the article was written by Charles Manson it doesn't disqualify the general point of the article. It got me thinking how it's just assumed that "vegetarians were the only ones who bring their beliefs to the dinner table" & when you think down this line of logic I think you lead quite naturally to questions about rationality & ideology in general along the lines you go through religious criticism.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the article runs away with itself and instead of following the previous points in a purely rational manner, resorts to somewhat emotive arguments itself, of whether or not its "natural" to eat meat

How so? How do the arguments not fit into the general framework?

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 5:05pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but how is eating meat an irrational behaviour for human beings, when it makes up a large part of our natural diet.

Our teeth are even shaped to tear and chew meat, as much as they are for vegetables. Our bodies are designed to take in the nutrition as well.

These questions are addressed in depth all over the web if you want to go down that road (which is interesting) & I think it would sidetrack us too much to go through every minutia that can be answered elsewhere but I think that regardless you can argue the naturalistic fallacy even if these were all arguments for eating meat so I kind of want to argue on a different level if you get me.

MisterEpicurus · 24-03-2012 5:16pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Since rationality is one of the most common themes on this forum I wonder where people stand on this issue:

Will post more questions as we go, don't want to skew the conversation.

Our bodies have evolved for the consumption of plant and animal matter. We don't eat meat for fun and games in much the same way a Rabbit doesn't not eat meat because it doesn't like the taste.

One of the OP above said that just because our bodies are capable doesn't mean we should. Okaaaayyyy...
What if I said the following: There's no reason to drink water just because my body can absorb it.
You'd call me crazy, and rightfully so, because we need water to survive. In much the same way we need animal products to survive. Vegetarianism and Veganism have repeatedly shown potentialities and actualities of nutritional deficiencies.

So when a baby is born...maybe we shouldn't feed it meat products, or even milk?? Na, let's feed it lettuce and grass! You wouldn't do it to a child for obvious reasons as it would hamper the development of a child.

I mean this is all f***ing crazy bullsh1t. Who actually believes this sh1te of Carnism...what has the world come to! :eek:

sink · 24-03-2012 5:17pm

The reason we eat particular animals (e.g. Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Chicken) is because they were the ones to be domesticated as livestock by early farmers. We have been farming these particular species as a food source for over 10,000 years, and when something works why change it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 5:30pm

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I mean this is all f***ing crazy bullsh1t. Who actually believes this sh1te of Carnism...what has the world come to! :eek:

Probably Epicurus if he was around today

As for the rest of your post, are you sure you could defend any of those statements?

Galvasean · 24-03-2012 5:41pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Here we go, the games begin & as usual we get absolutely no quotes to justify such slanderous claims...

Slanderous claims? Get over yourself, seriously.
And then you go and show the quotes showing how differently they were phrased.
It's clear as day to those viewing what the stuff in the OP was alluding to and judging by the forum's reaction to my initial post everyone else saw it too. If you (purposely?) have a blind spot to it well then so be it. I'm not going to dance around with you over many pages after the debacle that was the Communion Dresses thread. It's the weekend and life is too bloody short.

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 5:59pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

A distinction is drawn in the article between a physiological disposition & ideological disposition, in other words human biological evolution is acknowledged in the article but the point is made that this does not imply any kind of a justification with regard to natural authority. I don't see why people are so quick to ignore the writing of the article & just jump to implying that there is some not-so-subtle point trying to be conveyed at the expense of truth & reality...?

...

How so? How do the arguments not fit into the general framework?

Well (as Galvasean points out) the article says "These terms reinforce the assumption that eating animals is natural, one of the most entrenched and compelling myths used to justify carnism." and it's wrong. Eating meat is natural (in that its naturally possible and our biology allows and takes advantage of it), but that doesn't mean it is necessary that we do. Maybe this is what the author meant, but the choice of words was poor and I can see the problem suggested.

This is what I'm talking about, even if the article was written by Charles Manson it doesn't disqualify the general point of the article. It got me thinking how it's just assumed that "vegetarians were the only ones who bring their beliefs to the dinner table" & when you think down this line of logic I think you lead quite naturally to questions about rationality & ideology in general along the lines you go through religious criticism.

I think the article is too "waffly" for its own good. It shouldn't bother defining some new position like carnism (even if its accurate, people tend to be resistant to being labeled with a label they've never heard before). Better to keep it concise and simple. Its basic point is that when looking at whether or not we should eat meat, we should not approach it from the point of view that the default is "humans eat meat" and the question is "why shouldn't we". We should approach it with no default (or maybe the default that we need certain nutrition), and the question is "should I eat this?" for everything we come across.
There is an interesting parallel with religion, where, for example, in Ireland the default is seen as "catholic" for people from birth, and any general religious questioning is always in terms of catholicism and its an uphill battle to do an honest appraisal of religious ideologies from a neutral position.

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 6:12pm

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

One of the OP above said that just because our bodies are capable doesn't mean we should. Okaaaayyyy...
What if I said the following: There's no reason to drink water just because my body can absorb it.
You'd call me crazy, and rightfully so, because we need water to survive. In much the same way we need animal products to survive. Vegetarianism and Veganism have repeatedly shown potentialities and actualities of nutritional deficiencies.

So when a baby is born...maybe we shouldn't feed it meat products, or even milk?? Na, let's feed it lettuce and grass! You wouldn't do it to a child for obvious reasons as it would hamper the development of a child.

I mean this is all f***ing crazy bullsh1t. Who actually believes this sh1te of Carnism...what has the world come to! :eek:

What. The. Fcuk.
I have seen some strawmaned, non-sequitor ridden, biologically ignorant posts in my time, but this takes the cake.
So from me saying "Just because we are biologically capable of doing something, doesn't mean that we should or have to do it.", you got "feed babies lettuce"? Do I really need to spell this out? OK:
We dont have to eat meat simple because our bodies are capable of getting nutrients and sustenance from meat. Its possible (and not very hard) to get those nutrients elsewhere. There is no evidence that vegetarianism or even veganism automatically lead to malnutrition. Vegetarians, vegans and omnivores can all be malnutritioned if they don't make sure they are getting all the nutrition they need, but everything people need is available in all three diets (and its only a little harder in the veggie diets because cultural norms in the west usually result in less food being suitable for veggies in general, not because certain nutritional requirements don't exist in veggie sources).

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 6:22pm

sink wrote: »

The reason we eat particular animals (e.g. Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Chicken) is because they were the ones to be domesticated as livestock by early farmers. We have been farming these particular species as a food source for over 10,000 years, and when something works why change it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

Pretty sure it doesn't work for the animals who are all killed. Its also nutritionally entirely unnecessary. These points make it, to me, highly unethical.
Also "we should do because we always do it" is a piss poor argument.

MisterEpicurus · 24-03-2012 6:34pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What. The. Fcuk.
I have seen some strawmaned, non-sequitor ridden, biologically ignorant posts in my time, but this takes the cake.
So from me saying "Just because we are biologically capable of doing something, doesn't mean that we should or have to do it.", you got "feed babies lettuce"? Do I really need to spell this out? OK:
We dont have to eat meat simple because our bodies are capable of getting nutrients and sustenance from meat. Its possible (and not very hard) to get those nutrients elsewhere. There is no evidence that vegetarianism or even veganism automatically lead to malnutrition. Vegetarians, vegans and omnivores can all be malnutritioned if they don't make sure they are getting all the nutrition they need, but everything people need is available in all three diets (and its only a little harder in the veggie diets because cultural norms in the west usually result in less food being suitable for veggies in general, not because certain nutritional requirements don't exist in veggie sources).

My comment concerning newborns was not a consequence of your statement. I simply added it later. I didn't 'get' it from what you said.
Veganism does require a change in diet, for example, iron foods would have to be increased etc. For the ill educated, it would be problematic, although this could be argued for omnivores as well. Anyway...

The argument for veganism usually centres around the treatment of animals!!! But, if animals were allowed to suddenly roam free and natural, they would probably suffer even more given the ruthlessness of nature. So it's actually an argument for being an omnivore. Animals would probably suffer less during their lifetime being farmed than anything else.

Galvasean · 24-03-2012 6:38pm

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Animals would probably suffer less during their lifetime being farmed than anything else.

Maybe the free range ones wouldn't suffer so much, but things like battery hens certainly suffer more than wild ones in general.

sink · 24-03-2012 6:50pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Pretty sure it doesn't work for the animals who are all killed. Its also nutritionally entirely unnecessary. These points make it, to me, highly unethical.
Also "we should do because we always do it" is a piss poor argument.

Well actually it does work for animals, at least from an evolutionary perspective. The numbers of domesticated animals alive today far outstrips their historical wild ancestors, many of which are now extinct. The animals we cultivate for food are herbivores whose ancestors were subject to predation long before humans intervened, the simple fact is they were destined to live a brutal race for survival in any case.

If we were to abandon cultivating livestock their numbers would plummet with many breed becoming extinct. In areas with large populations densities such as Europe, there is not enough wide open natural environments to support that quantity of large wild animals. Not to mention the damage large roaming herds would do to natural fauna already struggling to survive. The only place that really could support these herds would be the North America and Central Asia, but they already occupied by native species. So the only real answer would be to kill 99% percent of them, or at least neuter them and let their numbers decline trough natural wastage, and then place the remaining in Zoos to be rare in captivity for perpetuity.

There simply is not any future for these animals in which they live happy tranquil lives, such is the nature of life.

Obviously there are things we can do to improve conditions for livestock, but that's about the best we can do.

muppeteer · 24-03-2012 7:06pm

Here's another article-thingy on carnism. Carnism seems to stem from this book by Melanie Joy.

As far as rationalism and eating animals goes Peter Singer would be the one to convince me to go veggie or at least go for being a contientious omnivore(38mins in) over labels such as carnism. Utilitarianism might allow me some wiggle room to pander to my meaty tastes should certain ethical conditions be met.

Anyway all this reminded me of Benjamin Franklin when he reverted from being a vegitarian because it harmed innocent animals because he smelled a tasty fish:). "when one of these cod was taken out of the frying pan, I thought its flavour delicious. I hesitated some time betwen principle and inclination; till, at last, recollecting, that, when the cod had been opened, some small fish were found in its belly, I said to myself, if you eat one another, I see no reason why we may not eat you. I accordingly dined on the cod with no small degree of pleasure, and have since continued to eat like the rest of mankind, returning occasionally to my vegetable plan. How convenient does it prove to be a rational animal that knows how to find or invent a plausible pretext for whatever it has an inclination to do."

The lesson here is, don't attempt ethics on an empty stomach:P

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 7:07pm

Galvasean wrote: »

And then you go and show the quotes showing how differently they were phrased.

Yes & black is white... I've posted quotes that are nearly word for word the same:

an omnivore is an animal, human or nonhuman, that can ingest both plant and animal matter,
Omnivores are species that eat both plants and animal material as their primary food source.

a carnivore is an animal that needs to ingest flesh in order to survive.
A carnivore is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue

It's a new low on this forum to argue the differences between the above statements are in any way meaningful to a conversation like this, let alone as some sort of refutation of any point.

Galvasean wrote: »

It's clear as day to those viewing what the stuff in the OP was alluding to and judging by the forum's reaction to my initial post everyone else saw it too.

Clear as day through the goggles of bias. I've illustrated the near word for word similarity of the definitions (modulo synonym's) yet you continue to vaguely refer to the VERY DIFFERENT nature of these definitions implying all sorts of unspoken things though never bothering to go any deeper for some strange reason...

Galvasean wrote: »

It's the weekend and life is too bloody short.

Not short enough to post slander you can't justify on the internet. The best way to get away with such nonsense is to at least appear credible by at least explaining what you mean when you say the above definitions are VERY DIFFERENT. I mean if you were to go & at least try to explain why black is white then maybe I could understand your argument as stemming from you being colour blind or something (considering how similar the above sentences are I won't entertain the idea you're making a valid point & factor in the possibility that I'm wrong & that I'm just so biased I can't see it myself - as you've so justifiably insinuated) but at this stage it's just trolling frankly.

sponsoredwalk · 24-03-2012 7:53pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well (as Galvasean points out) the article says "These terms reinforce the assumption that eating animals is natural, one of the most entrenched and compelling myths used to justify carnism." and it's wrong.

---Holocaust/Math--Justification---
That might be a fair point if the next sentence in the article didn't exist but I mean they go on to distinguish between physiological & ideological norms. As it stands it's like quoting the sentence "Kill all the Jews." from someone and lambasting them without reading the next sentence that says it's a quote from Hitler or someone (yes, godwinning here but I'm listening to Holocaust survivors & it seems far too appropriate :P I have a math comparison just in case :cool:, it's like saying 2 + 2 = 8 in one sentence & then in the next stating that you've defined +(a,a) = 4a only to have someone jump at you because, as we all know, 2 + 2 = 4 & of course I'm right because everybody else thanked my post :pac:).

\End---

In other words it's reading out of context to take that interpretation. You have to distinguish between:
Physiologically natural
Ideologically natural

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Eating meat is natural (in that its naturally possible and our biology allows and takes advantage of it),

You conflate ideological with physiological. They make a distinction between physiological & ideological &, considering the rest of the piece, it's clear they're trying to argue that it's not ideologically natural to eat meat. I mean to think they'd argue such a trivially obvious point, that humans aren't naturally (physiologically) able to eat meat, is ridiculous. If we're not immediately assuming the worst as a means to discredit then I think the more rational explanation, the one that coincidentally fits in with the entire thrust of the article & doesn't contradict reality, is what is being argued for. But even if they were it doesn't in any way affect the main point about it being ideologically natural.

The whole point of this is to question the validity of the concept of ideology, questions of physiology are irrelevant, both conceptually & because it's entirely possible for humans to physiologically flourish without meat as is easily verifiable on the net with tons of easily accessible information.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its basic point is that when looking at whether or not we should eat meat, we should not approach it from the point of view that the default is "humans eat meat" and the question is "why shouldn't we". We should approach it with no default (or maybe the default that we need certain nutrition), and the question is "should I eat this?" for everything we come across.

In other words, that ideologically it's not a neutral question where the default is, naturally, to eat meat with vegetarianism being the ideological deviance. Furthermore I think it's very important to be aware of the "contradictions between our values and behaviors" aspect of this discussion "allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is an interesting parallel with religion, where, for example, in Ireland the default is seen as "catholic" for people from birth, and any general religious questioning is always in terms of catholicism and its an uphill battle to do an honest appraisal of religious ideologies from a neutral position.

Exactly, hopefully we can start from the perspective you've outlined & go forth without nonsense clogging things up - but that requires people to sometimes do a bit of research before posting things that have factual answers, not immediately assuming the worst & not using logically incoherent apparent contradictions as a meant to call everything "a load of bollocks".

pH · 24-03-2012 8:04pm

sink wrote: »

Well actually it does work for animals, at least from an evolutionary perspective.

Exactly - if we didn't eat pork the pig population of Ireland would be pretty much zero - you might find one or two in zoos or as a weird pet - but it's not like we'd turn over half the country as a habitat for pigs.

So given this seems to be a moral question - about taking an animal's life so we can eat meat - I think it's entirely proper to look at it differently when we're responsible for giving them life in the first place.

The question boils down (for an animal like a pig) is a short, healthy, stress free, disease free life better or worse than no life at all? There are 1.5 million pigs in Ireland today - they have a life - and I think everything should be done so they have as good a life as possible - and are slaughtered humanely - but it isn't immediately obvious to me that no pigs alive in Ireland is the preferable position - both for us and the pigs.

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 8:38pm

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

My comment concerning newborns was not a consequence of your statement. I simply added it later. I didn't 'get' it from what you said.

Then where exactly did it come from?

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

The argument for veganism usually centres around the treatment of animals!!! But, if animals were allowed to suddenly roam free and natural, they would probably suffer even more given the ruthlessness of nature. So it's actually an argument for being an omnivore. Animals would probably suffer less during their lifetime being farmed than anything else.

Funny how that argument only seems to apply to cows and chickens. Nobody ever calls for the farming of gorillas or lions or pandas for food in order to help their numbers grow.
Lets say someone gave you the choice - you can continue to live amongst humans for the rest of your life, subject to whatever difficulties naturally befall us, or you get 15 years in a paradise with absolutely no health problems or stress woes to befall you. Oh, and at the end of the 15 years you get eaten. Which would you choose?

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 8:42pm

sink wrote: »

Well actually it does work for animals, at least from an evolutionary perspective. The numbers of domesticated animals alive today far outstrips their historical wild ancestors, many of which are now extinct. The animals we cultivate for food are herbivores whose ancestors were subject to predation long before humans intervened, the simple fact is they were destined to live a brutal race for survival in any case.

Again, using the past to justify the present is not a viable argument. Nothing would ever change if that was the case.

sink wrote: »

If we were to abandon cultivating livestock their numbers would plummet with many breed becoming extinct.

Many which would not exist in the first place, and which where only created to give us more meat or milk.

sink wrote: »

neuter them and let their numbers decline trough natural wastage, and then place the remaining in Zoos to be rare in captivity for perpetuity.

Whats wrong with that?

sink wrote: »

There simply is not any future for these animals in which they live happy tranquil lives, such is the nature of life.

Just because removing an imperfection doesn't result in complete perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't remove it.

recedite · 24-03-2012 8:51pm

looksee wrote: »

Soporists defend their need to sleep

are you making this up?

pH wrote: »

Exactly - if we didn't eat pork the pig population of Ireland would be pretty much zero ....
The question boils down (for an animal like a pig) is a short, healthy, stress free, disease free life better or worse than no life at all? There are 1.5 million pigs in Ireland today - they have a life -

First off, you know nothing about the pig industry; from the time the pigs are conceived at the rape rack to the first time they see daylight when they are being prodded onto the slaughter house truck with electric shocks, they live under stressful overcrowded conditions.

Secondly, the fact that domesticated farm animals only exist because we have bred them is patently obvious. But that does not mean the more of them there are, the more they should be thankful for.
Lets imagine you were a prisoner in a concentration camp. Would it be "good" to learn that there were millions of other prisoners out there in other camps? No, you would only be interested in whether your own conditions were to be improved.
If you eat meat, make an effort to get it from a free range source.

Mark Hamill · 24-03-2012 9:03pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In other words it's reading out of context to take that interpretation. You have to distinguish between:
Physiologically natural
Ideologically natural

You conflate ideological with physiological. They make a distinction between physiological & ideological &, considering the rest of the piece, it's clear they're trying to argue that it's not ideologically natural to eat meat. I mean to think they'd argue such a trivially obvious point, that humans aren't naturally (physiologically) able to eat meat, is ridiculous. If we're not immediately assuming the worst as a means to discredit then I think the more rational explanation, the one that coincidentally fits in with the entire thrust of the article & doesn't contradict reality, is what is being argued for. But even if they were it doesn't in any way affect the main point about it being ideologically natural.

How can any ideology be unnatural? Where would it come from? What bearing does naturalness have on the validity of an ideology.
I don't think it matters whether it talks about physiologically natural, or ideologically natural, its irrelevant. As I said before, the article is too wordy for its own good. It over-analyses certain things, attempts to bring in unnecessary terms and makes silly mistakes.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The whole point of this is to question the validity of the concept of ideology, questions of physiology are irrelevant, both conceptually & because it's entirely possible for humans to physiologically flourish without meat as is easily verifiable on the net with tons of easily accessible information.

And the validity of an ideology is unconnected to it being natural, as there is no way to measure if an ideology is natural.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In other words, that ideologically it's not a neutral question where the default is, naturally, to eat meat with vegetarianism being the ideological deviance. Furthermore I think it's very important to be aware of the "contradictions between our values and behaviors" aspect of this discussion "allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical".

Yes, but as I said, the word natural is unnecessary, it just complicates things.

muppeteer · 24-03-2012 9:05pm

pH wrote: »

So given this seems to be a moral question - about taking an animal's life so we can eat meat - I think it's entirely proper to look at it differently when we're responsible for giving them life in the first place.

If we create the pig or not is irrelevant to an ethical stance to the pig though I hope you'd agree?
Once the pig exists, for whatever reason, it is still an animal that can suffer. And as such it should have the same rights as a pig we didn't create.

For me the difficult question is this: Is the mostly unnecessary pleasure we gain from eating meat justification enough to end, the ideally happy life, as painlessly as possible, of a conscious animal?

One of the rationalisations I've found that help preserve the meat eating stance is that conscious animals do not have a full concept of a future. As such when we kill them we are not depriving them of this future.

looksee · 24-03-2012 9:50pm

recedite wrote: »

are you making this up?

As if!

pH · 25-03-2012 10:24am

muppeteer wrote: »

If we create the pig or not is irrelevant to an ethical stance to the pig though I hope you'd agree?
Once the pig exists, for whatever reason, it is still an animal that can suffer. And as such it should have the same rights as a pig we didn't create.

No I don't agree - and as a couple of posters above have done, who can't address this point, they've made it about animal welfare - I'm not arguing that animals such as pigs should suffer - they should not.

For me the difficult question is this: Is the mostly unnecessary pleasure we gain from eating meat justification enough to end, the ideally happy life, as painlessly as possible, of a conscious animal?

Ok - the argument here is that at some philosophical and moral level we shouldn't deprive an animal of its life just to have some meat on a plate - so for those who hold that view - let's imagine a world where we kept domesticated animals in a blissful freerange setting, wait for them to drop dead from natural causes - would it be OK to eat them? Then what about animals bred only to live 18 months before they dropped dead? Can we eat them?

Mark Hamill · 25-03-2012 1:21pm

pH wrote: »

No I don't agree - and as a couple of posters above have done, who can't address this point, they've made it about animal welfare - I'm not arguing that animals such as pigs should suffer - they should not.

Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.

pH wrote: »

Ok - the argument here is that at some philosophical and moral level we shouldn't deprive an animal of its life just to have some meat on a plate - so for those who hold that view - let's imagine a world where we kept domesticated animals in a blissful freerange setting, wait for them to drop dead from natural causes - would it be OK to eat them? Then what about animals bred only to live 18 months before they dropped dead? Can we eat them?

That's an interesting question. Personally, I still wouldn't eat it (as well as welfare, I don't eat meat because I have an aversion to eating dead bits of animals), but there may be others who would have no issue, as you are letting the animal live out its natural biological life.
Would you eat human meat, if it was from the same situation?

fitz0 · 25-03-2012 2:12pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.

I'm not going to wade in on this debate because I believe that meat is an important part of a varied and balanced diet and have no problem whatsoever eating dead things. They're delicious.

Where I will interject is the first sentence of your post. Death is a form of suffering. I have to disagree. The threat of death, if you are aware of it, is a form of suffering. Prolonged painful death is suffering. But at the point of death all suffering ceases, as does everything else.

When I die, I really don't care if somebody or something eats me. In fact I would like to have my body directly contribute to the food chain.

sink · 25-03-2012 4:01pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.

That's an interesting question. Personally, I still wouldn't eat it (as well as welfare, I don't eat meat because I have an aversion to eating dead bits of animals), but there may be others who would have no issue, as you are letting the animal live out its natural biological life.
Would you eat human meat, if it was from the same situation?

Frankly this seems irrational to me. Every living thing dies and get's eaten by something, ourselves included. When we die unless we're cremated our bodies decompose and are eaten by bacteria, fungus, insects and worms. This way our bodies are recycled and nothing get's wasted. It has always been this way and will be this way forever. I like it this way, it reminds me that I'm just another part of nature, there is nothing particularly special about me. I'm made of the same material as all life from beetles to butterflies. You seem to be in some sort of denial and rebellion, I can tell you with absolute certainty that resistance is futile.

There are two arguments here that need to be separated, one is of animal welfare and the other is whether it right to eat dead things. You will find few arguing against the former and the latter is a foregone conclusion, the only question is eaten by whom or what.

pH · 25-03-2012 5:02pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.

Given that death, for the pig is inevitable, if you want to define that "death" as suffering then it's something the pig has to suffer that at some stage - by choosing the time of its death we're not adding any additional "suffering" to that pig's life. Once again I'd like to leave the welfare issue to a side - you may find some willing to argue that we've every right to treat animals as poorly as we like - I'm not one of them.

I still can't get past the point that for a cow, specifically bred to be eaten they get two years of free range, predator free life, protected from the worst diseases and natural dangers. It's not a question of us cutting this animals life short for a steak - if we didn't eat meat it would never have been bred in the first place - it wouldn't have had two years of living on prime grassland in a safe environment being treated by a vet - it would have had no life at all. If it has a pleasant life, and is slaughtered humanely - I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument that no life at all is preferable to 2 years living in a field in Ireland and then ending up on a plate.

I've no real problem with vegetarians, even militant ones arguing from an emotional perspective as to why they don't eat meat and why others shouldn't either, I just find the idea that somehow vegetarianism can be arrived at as a rational or logical conclusion somewhat bizarre.

That's an interesting question. Personally, I still wouldn't eat it (as well as welfare, I don't eat meat because I have an aversion to eating dead bits of animals), but there may be others who would have no issue, as you are letting the animal live out its natural biological life.
Would you eat human meat, if it was from the same situation?

Again why draw human analogies - it's pointless - if you're really interested then the answer is no - I have no desire to eat a dead human - however if people who were happy to have their bodies eaten after death were cooked and eaten by those happy to eat them then I'd have no problem with that happening - it's just not for me.

And what's so important about "its natural biological life" - this seems a very specific point you've thrown in to justify your position - animals can die from accident and disease too - is it OK to eat roadkill?

sponsoredwalk · 25-03-2012 6:03pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can any ideology be unnatural? Where would it come from? What bearing does naturalness have on the validity of an ideology.

Unnatural in the sense that it creates "contradictions between our values and behaviors, allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical". I just don't see how any other interpretation of the word natural makes sense frankly, you're right that it's not the best word in this context.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think it matters whether it talks about physiologically natural, or ideologically natural, its irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, the distinction matters when you try to claim that the article makes "silly mistakes" like claiming humans don't naturally eat meat by referring to biology. This is incorrect, the article didn't do that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As I said before, the article is too wordy for its own good. It over-analyses certain things, attempts to bring in unnecessary terms

I don't think it's an unnecessary term, can you offer up another term already commonly used that specifically refers to the idea that it's not only vegetarians/vegans/... that bring their ideologies to the dinner table? Again as you can glean from the article, words like carnivore don't reference ideology. Furthermore this argument is ridiculous anyway, I mean it could have been used against words like racism, sexism, speciesism, teaspoon etc... & basically calls for the end of creativity with language if taken seriously...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

and makes silly mistakes.

You have yet to point out one of these silly mistakes, thus far the only silly mistake you referred to was due to your own misreading of the article.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And the validity of an ideology is unconnected to it being natural, as there is no way to measure if an ideology is natural.

Yeah but if you mean natural in the sense that naturally you wouldn't just do things that contradict with your own values & ethics then I think the validity of an ideology is connected. Just chalk it down to a poor choice of words I guess.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, but as I said, the word natural is unnecessary, it just complicates things.

Agreed.

sponsoredwalk · 25-03-2012 6:34pm

pH wrote: »

I've no real problem with vegetarians, even militant ones arguing from an emotional perspective as to why they don't eat meat and why others shouldn't either, I just find the idea that somehow vegetarianism can be arrived at as a rational or logical conclusion somewhat bizarre.

Why? Again the claim is that it's irrational to eat meat because of "contradictions between our values and behaviors, allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical". Furthermore the claim is that most likely it's not a rational choice to eat meat, it's because you brought up that way in a manner similar to religious indoctrination, but again, like religion, even if you chose to do so at some stage in your life it still goes against values & ethics. I fail to see how starting with an open mind, valuing life etc... can lead one to thinking it's alright to start slaughtering living beings. The rationalizations have to come in, like "humane slaughtering" in order to try to convince ourselves that we aren't contradicting our own values doing what we know clearly does, or convincing ourselves that our empathy doesn't apply on case X despite it applying in case Y etc... But no, obviously it's the vegetarians who are illogical & irrational...

pH wrote: »

I have no desire to eat a dead human - however if people who were happy to have their bodies eaten after death were cooked and eaten by those happy to eat them then I'd have no problem with that happening - it's just not for me.

If you were indoctrinated as a child into believing this was alright then you'd certainly be doing it, in other words it's just irrational for you to feel some aversion (not you, doesn't matter whether you're a "carnist" or not, just in general as a concept).

Mark Hamill · 25-03-2012 10:08pm

fitz0 wrote: »

Where I will interject is the first sentence of your post. Death is a form of suffering. I have to disagree. The threat of death, if you are aware of it, is a form of suffering. Prolonged painful death is suffering. But at the point of death all suffering ceases, as does everything else.

Maybe suffering is the wrong word. But its as close as I can figure out. Death, painless or otherwise is something which all creatures try to avoid if they are able to and aware of it. If you were told you were going to die by following through on some action, but the death would be painless, you would still alter you actions to try to avoid death. That's the point I'm trying to get across - you may give an animal every pleasure in life, but if sudden early death is payment then its not a fair trade, even if its painless. Would you take it.

Mark Hamill · 25-03-2012 10:15pm

sink wrote: »

Frankly this seems irrational to me. Every living thing dies and get's eaten by something, ourselves included. When we die unless we're cremated our bodies decompose and are eaten by bacteria, fungus, insects and worms. This way our bodies are recycled and nothing get's wasted. It has always been this way and will be this way forever. I like it this way, it reminds me that I'm just another part of nature, there is nothing particularly special about me. I'm made of the same material as all life from beetles to butterflies. You seem to be in some sort of denial and rebellion, I can tell you with absolute certainty that resistance is futile.

Actually this seems in irrational to me. Yes death is certain, but we still have medicine to stave off death for as long as possible and we criminalise the act of killing other humans in society. If recognising that death is not a desirable act or physiological disposition, then I think nearly every human on the planet is in denial.

sink wrote: »

There are two arguments here that need to be separated, one is of animal welfare and the other is whether it right to eat dead things. You will find few arguing against the former and the latter is a foregone conclusion, the only question is eaten by whom or what.

I think you have missed the incredibly obvious question of "is it right to kill something so that you an eat it?".

Mark Hamill · 25-03-2012 10:30pm

pH wrote: »

Given that death, for the pig is inevitable, if you want to define that "death" as suffering then it's something the pig has to suffer that at some stage - by choosing the time of its death we're not adding any additional "suffering" to that pig's life. Once again I'd like to leave the welfare issue to a side - you may find some willing to argue that we've every right to treat animals as poorly as we like - I'm not one of them.

Death for humans is inevitable too, so what difference does inevitability make.

pH wrote: »

I still can't get past the point that for a cow, specifically bred to be eaten they get two years of free range, predator free life, protected from the worst diseases and natural dangers. It's not a question of us cutting this animals life short for a steak - if we didn't eat meat it would never have been bred in the first place - it wouldn't have had two years of living on prime grassland in a safe environment being treated by a vet - it would have had no life at all. If it has a pleasant life, and is slaughtered humanely - I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument that no life at all is preferable to 2 years living in a field in Ireland and then ending up on a plate.

Would you do it to a human? Is two years for a human child better than none at all? How about 20 years? 40 years? What if we didn't eat them, what if we did it to harvest organs for transplant. Would it be ok then?

pH wrote: »

Again why draw human analogies - it's pointless - if you're really interested then the answer is no - I have no desire to eat a dead human - however if people who were happy to have their bodies eaten after death were cooked and eaten by those happy to eat them then I'd have no problem with that happening - it's just not for me.

Last I checked humans were animals and edible as much as any cow, so how is it pointless?

pH wrote: »

And what's so important about "its natural biological life" - this seems a very specific point you've thrown in to justify your position - animals can die from accident and disease too - is it OK to eat roadkill?

When I said "natural biological life" I simply meant that its life wasn't ended by a human so it could eat it, so roadkill (as its accidental) would be the same as an animal that died of old age in terms of being ok to eat.
Lets say a man needed an organ transplant for something that wasn't life threatening. Two acceptable options are to wait for someone to die naturally or die from an accident. But if the man killed someone so he could take their organs, would that be ok? Is it ok for man to decide when someone else should die, to suit him? What rational reason is there to justify humans control of animals up to the point of deciding when they should die simply to sate our savoury desires?

Mark Hamill · 25-03-2012 10:51pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's not irrelevant, the distinction matters when you try to claim that the article makes "silly mistakes" like claiming humans don't naturally eat meat by referring to biology. This is incorrect, the article didn't do that.

I meant it doesn't matter to the basic point of the article - just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we automatically have to eat meat. Thats all the article should have talked about, it doesn't need to label ideologies.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I don't think it's an unnecessary term, can you offer up another term already commonly used that specifically refers to the idea that it's not only vegetarians/vegans/... that bring their ideologies to the dinner table? Again as you can glean from the article, words like carnivore don't reference ideology. Furthermore this argument is ridiculous anyway, I mean it could have been used against words like racism, sexism, speciesism, teaspoon etc... & basically calls for the end of creativity with language if taken seriously...

Thats a bit of a non sequitor. There is a difference between useful creativity, defining something that hasn't been defined before in a concise and useful way, and defining something that doesn't need to be defined.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You have yet to point out one of these silly mistakes, thus far the only silly mistake you referred to was due to your own misreading of the article.

Misreading of it, assuming you are correct. The fundamental silly mistake is the authors verbosity. A notion such as "natural ideology" is kind of silly. The reason we shouldn't fall afoul of this ideology is because it's illogical (because its a form of cognitive dissonance), describing it as unnatural is completely unnecessary and leads people to wonder if the "naturalness" didn't apply to something else the author said.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yeah but if you mean natural in the sense that naturally you wouldn't just do things that contradict with your own values & ethics then I think the validity of an ideology is connected. Just chalk it down to a poor choice of words I guess.

It takes two minutes reading the Hazards of Belief and Religious Humour threads to see that, naturally, people do just do things that contradict with their own values & ethics quite a bit

.

pH · 25-03-2012 10:52pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Death for humans is inevitable too, so what difference does inevitability make.

Before this all gets too tedious - I could rewrite all your stuff comparing animals to plants and I'd win - it's not obvious why you continue to bring human analogies into it - they're meaningless - animals aren't humans - they aren't treated the same - we don't arrest them for murder - we don't have a police investigation if a frog dies - I have no idea why you continue to bring up "well it's this way for humans ..." - so what?

Mark Hamill · 25-03-2012 11:13pm

pH wrote: »

Before this all gets too tedious - I could rewrite all your stuff comparing animals to plants and I'd win

Win at using copy-paste maybe. How exactly are plants like animals in the same way that humans are like every other animal?

pH wrote: »

- it's not obvious why you continue to bring human analogies into it - they're meaningless - animals aren't humans - they aren't treated the same - we don't arrest them for murder - we don't have a police investigation if a frog dies - I have no idea why you continue to bring up "well it's this way for humans ..." - so what?

Really? Humans aren't exactly the same as every other animal, therefore we don't have treat any other animal similar to a human? (ignoring how we do actually put animals through a form of due process for serious crimes against people and usually end up putting them down).

I bring in humans into this type of debate because humans are very analogous to animals in the context of this debate and everyone knows it, its why every time I've done it I get back the same massive non sequitors along the lines of "we shouldn't eat plants because they, somehow, compare to animals in the way that humans do" or "animals don't compare to humans because they can't drive". Its as stupid as saying we should animals because they are made of meat.

bnt · 26-03-2012 10:00pm

My first thought was "astroturfing" - the attempt to create a "movement" where there is none. Starting with the hypothesis that eating meat is irrational. I mean, of all the forums to post such nonsense, the OP picks one full of people who don't just take what other people write at face value ... :rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk · 26-03-2012 10:30pm

bnt wrote: »

My first thought was "astroturfing" - the attempt to create a "movement" where there is none. Starting with the hypothesis that eating meat is irrational. I mean, of all the forums to post such nonsense, the OP picks one full of people who don't just take what other people write at face value ... :rolleyes:

I post something that makes plenty of arguments & attempts to justify it's claims but you ignore all that, refering to it all as nonsense, & just boldfacedly claim the opposite of what the article claims without a tap of justification & to top it all off try to insult me for posting this in a forum where other people apparently don't take what others write at face value - all the while offering a counterargument that would practically be the first example given in an argument/rhetoric text of what it means to make an argument begging to be taken at face value, & in such a short amount of text too...

sponsoredwalk · 26-03-2012 10:30pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I meant it doesn't matter to the basic point of the article - just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we automatically have to eat meat. Thats all the article should have talked about, it doesn't need to label ideologies.

Yeah it doesn't really matter to the basic point of the article, just matters with regard to the claim about the article making stupid mistakes.

However the difference between this article & all the others is the emphasis on ideologies, hence why it's posted in this forum. I really don't think this should turn into a discussion on vegetarianism in the utilitarian sense, that's like one sub-argument in the general framework as regards this whole thing but the specific issue is the ideological suppositions that lead humans into contradictions with their values as a means to justify eating meat, & the "carnistic defenses" that rationalize such contradictions & the implications of all this.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats a bit of a non sequitor. There is a difference between useful creativity, defining something that hasn't been defined before in a concise and useful way, and defining something that doesn't need to be defined.

Again, I haven't heard another word with the utility this one has, have you? I'm guessing you either deny or don't appreciate it's utility since you don't seem to really appreciate the emphasis/importance of ideology in this conversation. Just think about it a bit more.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Misreading of it, assuming you are correct. The fundamental silly mistake is the authors verbosity. A notion such as "natural ideology" is kind of silly. The reason we shouldn't fall afoul of this ideology is because it's illogical (because its a form of cognitive dissonance), describing it as unnatural is completely unnecessary and leads people to wonder if the "naturalness" didn't apply to something else the author said.

Well poor choice of words perhaps, as they obviously can lead to confusion, but we know what it means now.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It takes two minutes reading the Hazards of Belief and Religious Humour threads to see that, naturally, people do just do things that contradict with their own values & ethics quite a bit .

Absolutely, but I think that in both cases you can locate the reasons for such contradictions & people usually correct these kinds of things unless there's some reason not to.

26-03-2012 10:57pm

Steak this evening. Roast chicken yesterday, and a braised lamb shank on Saturday night. Nom nom.

Carnism & Rationalism

Comments