The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a form of syllogistic fallacy. Syllogisms consist of three categorical propositions, two assumptions and a conclusion, which are statements of the form (all, some,or none) (items in category A) (are or are not) (items in category B). For example, “all dogs are animals,” would be an example of a categorical proposition. If we combine this with the categorical proposition, “all poodles are dogs,” we can conclude from these two assumptions that, “all poodles are animals.” The logic we have used to make this conclusion is known as syllogistic logic. Here is another example:
No vegans eat meat;
Some raw foodists are vegan;
Therefore, some raw foodists do not eat meat.
If we accept that the first two assumptions are true, then it necessarily follows from those assumptions that the conclusion, some raw foodists do not eat meat, is true as well. There are a limited number of forms syllogistic statements can take. All vegans are not people who eat meat, is the same as saying no vegans eat meat, and vice versa, so there are in actuality 4 different forms a categorical proposition can take and a syllogism consists of 3 individual categorical propositions, so there are 4^3 or 256 possible forms a syllogism can take. Not all of these forms result in conclusions that are always true. For example:
Some raw foodists are vegan;
Some meat eaters are raw foodists;
Therefore, some meat eaters are vegan.
While both of the assumptions above are true, the conclusion is clearly false. Up to this point we have kept the three different categories being used in the syllogism in the same order, but the order can move around so long as three different categories are introduced in the two assumptions, the category that repeats does not repeat in the same assumption, and the conclusion incorporates the two categories that had not yet repeated. For example:
All dogs have tails;
I do not have a tail;
Therefore, I am not a dog.
In this case, the categories, dogs, (things that) have tails, and me, appear in a different order, but in this case we still have a syllogism which (if we accept the premises) yields a conclusion which is necessarily true. Changing the order in which the categories appear does change which syllogisms work and which do not.
Syllogistic logic is something you likely do every day without being consciously aware of it. Notice that statements like, “If someone is vegan then they do not eat meat,” means the same thing as, “all vegans are people who do not eat meat.” The fallacy of the undistributed middle is an example of a syllogism that does not work. It takes the form:
All A are B;
All C are B;
Therefore, all C are A.
or
All A are B;
Some C are B;
Therefore, Some C are A.
For example:
All fruitarians are vegan;
I am a vegan;
Therefore, I am a fruitarian.
In this case the two assumptions may both be true, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the assumptions (I assure you that I am not a fruitarian). In this instance it is easy to see that the logic is flawed, but when we incorporate this logic into everyday speech it becomes more difficult to see:
If someone is vegetarian then they never eat meat,
Bob never eats meat,
Therefore, Bob is vegetarian.
In this case the conclusion is necessarily true, but the reason why is unclear. When we said, “if someone is a vegetarian then they never eat meat,” we also meant to imply, “if someone never eats meat, then they are a vegetarian.” This extra assumption can then be used to form a valid syllogism. Sometimes when we use the “if” statement it doesn't work this way:
If someone wears fur, then they do not care about animal rights;
Bob does not care about animal rights;
Therefore, Bob wears fur.
The conclusion that Bob wears fur does not necessarily follow from the assumptions because in this case we did not imply that everyone who doesn't care about animal rights also wears fur.
Here is an example were this may come up in reality.
If someone eats too much meat then they are going to be unhealthy. Bob is unhealthy. We cannot immediately assume that Bob is eating too much meat and that is the source of his poor health.
Check out next week's fallacy, illicit minor.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Why Skeptic?
Why is it important for us as vegans to be good skeptics as well? Carl Sagan, in his book The Demon Haunted World, writes about the process scientists must go through during their Ph.D. oral examinations. “There is much warm and inspired encouragement of apprentice scientists by their mentors. But the poor graduate student at his or her Ph.D. oral exam is subjected to a withering crossfire of questions from the very professors who have the candidate’s future in their grasp. Naturally the students are nervous; who wouldn’t be? True, they’ve prepared for it for years. But they understand that at this critical moment, they have to be able to answer searching questions posed by experts. So in preparing to defend their theses, they must practice a very useful habit of thought: They must anticipate questions; they have to ask: Where in my dissertation is there a weakness that someone else might find? I’d better identify it before they do.”
We vegans may not be preparing for our Ph.D. oral examinations, but as advocates for veganism, we face a similar crossfire of questions. Those who consume animal products and whose worldviews may be challenged by our ideas are not simply going to let go of what they believe because we tell them to. They are going to ask searching, difficult questions and seek out every possible weakness they can that could explain our objections away in a way that seems most reasonable with what they already believe to be true. If we fail to anticipate others' objections we do not risk having our degrees denied, but we do risk losing a potential vegan and further turning their opinion against considering veganism.
What does it mean to be a good skeptic?
A good skeptic recognizes our tendency to seek out evidence that is in line with our desires. As vegans, we most likely want to hear that a vegan diet is healthy. If we are to be good skeptics hearing information that reinforces this hope, particularly from other vegans, should throw up red flags for us. We should require a higher standard of evidence if anything in favor of our hopes and actively seek out any existing evidence in contradiction of the claim, because this is exactly what our critics are going to do.
A good skeptic is also someone who admits uncertainty where it exists and tries to accurately quantify uncertainty based upon the quality of the evidence. This means when evidence is presented for a hypothesis, they will try to find alternate hypotheses that explain that evidence and judge how much more probable or improbable those alternate hypotheses may be, all the while understanding that there may be other explanations that they have not yet thought of. Recently a study came out linking antibodies to a particular viral infection to obesity in children with those antibodies. This was largely reported as “viral infection may be cause of obesity”, yet many other reasonable explanations for this evidence exist. Perhaps parents who allow their children to be obese are also more likely to expose them to certain diseases. Perhaps obesity makes children more prone to certain infections. Perhaps the study just happened to get a strange sample and the results are not representative of the population as a whole. Similarly, suppose we were to hear that vegans have lower rates of lung cancer. Before jumping on the bandwagon and proclaiming that veganism prevents lung cancer, a good skeptic may want to know if vegans are less likely to smoke than the population as a whole.
A good skeptic recognizes fallacies in thinking. We may have a tendency to distrust claims from people or groups that we find untrustworthy, but just because something comes from an untrustworthy source doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. If we want to claim that they are wrong, we still must make sure that the evidence against their claim actually exists. This is just one of countless examples of fallacious thinking however. Suppose we were to do a study looking at cancer rates among vegans and we find that in our sample we looked over a hundred different types of cancers, and find that for six of them vegans had significantly lower incidences of those cancers at a 95% confidence level. We cannot conclude from this evidence that vegans have lower incidences of those six cancers. This is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. We have looked at a mass of scattered evidence and then simply picked out those which happened to look like a pattern in our favor. If we wish to actually test whether vegans have lower incidences of those cancers, we must pose our hypothesis beforehand and then get a sample and see how strong the evidence is to support the hypothesis. Keep in mind, if we do not do this, those who currently disagree with us most certainly will, because finding a hole in our thinking will seem much more reasonable to them then having to significantly alter their worldview.
For a list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies
For a toolkit to use as part of being a good skeptic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
We vegans may not be preparing for our Ph.D. oral examinations, but as advocates for veganism, we face a similar crossfire of questions. Those who consume animal products and whose worldviews may be challenged by our ideas are not simply going to let go of what they believe because we tell them to. They are going to ask searching, difficult questions and seek out every possible weakness they can that could explain our objections away in a way that seems most reasonable with what they already believe to be true. If we fail to anticipate others' objections we do not risk having our degrees denied, but we do risk losing a potential vegan and further turning their opinion against considering veganism.
What does it mean to be a good skeptic?
A good skeptic recognizes our tendency to seek out evidence that is in line with our desires. As vegans, we most likely want to hear that a vegan diet is healthy. If we are to be good skeptics hearing information that reinforces this hope, particularly from other vegans, should throw up red flags for us. We should require a higher standard of evidence if anything in favor of our hopes and actively seek out any existing evidence in contradiction of the claim, because this is exactly what our critics are going to do.
A good skeptic is also someone who admits uncertainty where it exists and tries to accurately quantify uncertainty based upon the quality of the evidence. This means when evidence is presented for a hypothesis, they will try to find alternate hypotheses that explain that evidence and judge how much more probable or improbable those alternate hypotheses may be, all the while understanding that there may be other explanations that they have not yet thought of. Recently a study came out linking antibodies to a particular viral infection to obesity in children with those antibodies. This was largely reported as “viral infection may be cause of obesity”, yet many other reasonable explanations for this evidence exist. Perhaps parents who allow their children to be obese are also more likely to expose them to certain diseases. Perhaps obesity makes children more prone to certain infections. Perhaps the study just happened to get a strange sample and the results are not representative of the population as a whole. Similarly, suppose we were to hear that vegans have lower rates of lung cancer. Before jumping on the bandwagon and proclaiming that veganism prevents lung cancer, a good skeptic may want to know if vegans are less likely to smoke than the population as a whole.
A good skeptic recognizes fallacies in thinking. We may have a tendency to distrust claims from people or groups that we find untrustworthy, but just because something comes from an untrustworthy source doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. If we want to claim that they are wrong, we still must make sure that the evidence against their claim actually exists. This is just one of countless examples of fallacious thinking however. Suppose we were to do a study looking at cancer rates among vegans and we find that in our sample we looked over a hundred different types of cancers, and find that for six of them vegans had significantly lower incidences of those cancers at a 95% confidence level. We cannot conclude from this evidence that vegans have lower incidences of those six cancers. This is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. We have looked at a mass of scattered evidence and then simply picked out those which happened to look like a pattern in our favor. If we wish to actually test whether vegans have lower incidences of those cancers, we must pose our hypothesis beforehand and then get a sample and see how strong the evidence is to support the hypothesis. Keep in mind, if we do not do this, those who currently disagree with us most certainly will, because finding a hole in our thinking will seem much more reasonable to them then having to significantly alter their worldview.
For a list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies
For a toolkit to use as part of being a good skeptic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
Monday, October 4, 2010
Ultimate Guide to Dating Non-Vegans
Why would you want to go out with someone who isn't vegan? Perhaps you've already started a relationship with someone and would rather work out this one issue than give up on what you have and start over, perhaps you've realized that the vegan pickings are pretty slim where you live and you want to keep your options open, or perhaps you've realized that dating non-vegans is an excellent way to go about making new vegans. As Ingrid Newkirk has even said, “if [you] get someone to see how wonderful a vegan diet is, I say, 'Dump him [or her]. Move on now! It’s his or her turn to go out and get somebody else over to our side.' When you talk to people, one of the strongest reasons they go VEG is because they had a girlfriend or a boyfriend who was VEG.” Perhaps you're not ready to go quite as far as Ingrid Newkirk suggests, but this is a guide to getting whatever partner you may have over to veganism as efficiently and reliably as possible.
When starting a new relationship let your partner know that you are vegan as soon as you are comfortable doing so. Letting them know earlier on will make it easier for your partner to appreciate that it is an important issue for you, while putting it off puts you at risk of putting them off when you begin to stress the issue more later on. Be prepared for your partner to ask a few questions as to why you are vegan when you tell them, and try to answer in a way that emphasizes that you are vegan for ethical reasons, but doesn't imply that this is something you expect them to do right off the bat. For example consider telling them, “I chose to be vegan because I couldn't justify the way we deny animals all of their most essential interests for what was, for me, a relatively menial interest in the taste of their flesh.” Ultimately our goal is going to be to get your partner to go vegan by letting them believe as much as possible that it was entirely their own idea.
Over the next couple weeks, let veganism come up casually, but don't push the issue too much. Pondering philosophical questions with your partner is a great way to get to know them better, and some questions can help lead their thinking in the right direction. For example: “Imagine humans and chimpanzees had evolved as a ring species, how do you think today's society would have to change to cope with this?” You may need to premise this with asking your partner if they know what a ring species is or explaining it to them. Another excellent question to ask your partner would be, “If you could go back in time and kill one person whose death you think would have the largest positive impact on the present, who would you kill and why?” They will almost inevitably say something along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, or perhaps Pol-Pot because it is very difficult to brainstorm through every notable person in history in a number of seconds, but asking this question gives you the opportunity to share your own answer with them. For your own answer pick someone who wasn't necessarily specifically evil, but someone who played a pivotal role in defining our views towards non-human animals, such as Aristotle or Rene Descartes. Both of these individuals were fine individuals who, through their ideas, ended up laying a groundwork that continues to justify out treatment of non-human animals to this day. Aristotle in particular would be an excellent choice for an answer since his views toward non-human animals were very tightly linked to his views of women and people of other races and they largely went on to be incorporated in Christianity's justification of the mistreatment of women and the condoning of human slavery. If you bring up all of these issues together it will seem much less like you are trying to lecture them on animal rights, while still getting an important message across to them on how you feel the present could be largely improved by eliminating our mistreatment of non-human animals.
Over this period try to share your food with your partner as much as possible too. Do try to get an idea of what they will like beforehand, but be willing to introduce them to new foods too. Try to avoid calling things “vegan” before you offer them to your partner, but do try to introduce them to vegan alternatives to their favorite non-vegan foods so they know that those things are available. Cooking something that will get them to say, “Mmm, that smells good.” is a great way to get them to try something new while having a positive attitude toward trying it. Some people will try to make a big deal out of the fact that they are going to be eating something vegan. If that is the case with your partner try to diffuse the situation with a line like, “Don't be silly. You're not a martyr; I'm sure you eat things like this all the time.”
Once this has gone on for a few weeks your partner will hopefully have become much more comfortable with the idea of a vegan lifestyle, and now it is time to go in for the kill. Ask your partner if they'd be willing to watch the film Earthlings with you, implying that it is something you've wanted to see and that you would like their company just in case it proves to be too intense for you to handle alone. This film is not without its faults, it may exaggerate some environmental risks, show some clips in entirely misleading contexts, and the bit at the end about there being “three life forces in the world: plant, animal, and human” bothers me immensely; however, this film is incredibly effective with its animal rights commentary and emotionally wrenching scenes from within the industry. Your partner will certainly be shaken from seeing this film, and use the time immediately afterward to discuss how they are feeling with them. As always, try to ask questions that will guide their thinking in the right direction rather than simply giving them answers. “What did you think about their commentary about speciesism at the beginning?”, “How did you feel about such-and-such practice used to produce so-and-so?” You will hopefully have gotten to know your partner fairly well at this point and try as best as you can to anticipate any objections they may make. Try to respond to these objections as if you are trying to agree with them, but that their objection doesn't seem to take into account (some point that you don't think their objection stands up to), therefore the issue is still bothering you.
Hopefully this will have been enough for your partner to decide to go vegan, but don't be too put off if they don't agree to go all the way immediately. They will at the very least have seen that meat and factory farmed animal products are worth cutting back on and if they continue to see all the different ways you have cut these things out of your diet they will pick your habits up over time as well.
When starting a new relationship let your partner know that you are vegan as soon as you are comfortable doing so. Letting them know earlier on will make it easier for your partner to appreciate that it is an important issue for you, while putting it off puts you at risk of putting them off when you begin to stress the issue more later on. Be prepared for your partner to ask a few questions as to why you are vegan when you tell them, and try to answer in a way that emphasizes that you are vegan for ethical reasons, but doesn't imply that this is something you expect them to do right off the bat. For example consider telling them, “I chose to be vegan because I couldn't justify the way we deny animals all of their most essential interests for what was, for me, a relatively menial interest in the taste of their flesh.” Ultimately our goal is going to be to get your partner to go vegan by letting them believe as much as possible that it was entirely their own idea.
Over the next couple weeks, let veganism come up casually, but don't push the issue too much. Pondering philosophical questions with your partner is a great way to get to know them better, and some questions can help lead their thinking in the right direction. For example: “Imagine humans and chimpanzees had evolved as a ring species, how do you think today's society would have to change to cope with this?” You may need to premise this with asking your partner if they know what a ring species is or explaining it to them. Another excellent question to ask your partner would be, “If you could go back in time and kill one person whose death you think would have the largest positive impact on the present, who would you kill and why?” They will almost inevitably say something along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, or perhaps Pol-Pot because it is very difficult to brainstorm through every notable person in history in a number of seconds, but asking this question gives you the opportunity to share your own answer with them. For your own answer pick someone who wasn't necessarily specifically evil, but someone who played a pivotal role in defining our views towards non-human animals, such as Aristotle or Rene Descartes. Both of these individuals were fine individuals who, through their ideas, ended up laying a groundwork that continues to justify out treatment of non-human animals to this day. Aristotle in particular would be an excellent choice for an answer since his views toward non-human animals were very tightly linked to his views of women and people of other races and they largely went on to be incorporated in Christianity's justification of the mistreatment of women and the condoning of human slavery. If you bring up all of these issues together it will seem much less like you are trying to lecture them on animal rights, while still getting an important message across to them on how you feel the present could be largely improved by eliminating our mistreatment of non-human animals.
Over this period try to share your food with your partner as much as possible too. Do try to get an idea of what they will like beforehand, but be willing to introduce them to new foods too. Try to avoid calling things “vegan” before you offer them to your partner, but do try to introduce them to vegan alternatives to their favorite non-vegan foods so they know that those things are available. Cooking something that will get them to say, “Mmm, that smells good.” is a great way to get them to try something new while having a positive attitude toward trying it. Some people will try to make a big deal out of the fact that they are going to be eating something vegan. If that is the case with your partner try to diffuse the situation with a line like, “Don't be silly. You're not a martyr; I'm sure you eat things like this all the time.”
Once this has gone on for a few weeks your partner will hopefully have become much more comfortable with the idea of a vegan lifestyle, and now it is time to go in for the kill. Ask your partner if they'd be willing to watch the film Earthlings with you, implying that it is something you've wanted to see and that you would like their company just in case it proves to be too intense for you to handle alone. This film is not without its faults, it may exaggerate some environmental risks, show some clips in entirely misleading contexts, and the bit at the end about there being “three life forces in the world: plant, animal, and human” bothers me immensely; however, this film is incredibly effective with its animal rights commentary and emotionally wrenching scenes from within the industry. Your partner will certainly be shaken from seeing this film, and use the time immediately afterward to discuss how they are feeling with them. As always, try to ask questions that will guide their thinking in the right direction rather than simply giving them answers. “What did you think about their commentary about speciesism at the beginning?”, “How did you feel about such-and-such practice used to produce so-and-so?” You will hopefully have gotten to know your partner fairly well at this point and try as best as you can to anticipate any objections they may make. Try to respond to these objections as if you are trying to agree with them, but that their objection doesn't seem to take into account (some point that you don't think their objection stands up to), therefore the issue is still bothering you.
Hopefully this will have been enough for your partner to decide to go vegan, but don't be too put off if they don't agree to go all the way immediately. They will at the very least have seen that meat and factory farmed animal products are worth cutting back on and if they continue to see all the different ways you have cut these things out of your diet they will pick your habits up over time as well.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Proverbs
One fish, two fish;
Red fish, blue fish.
You can't quite keep up
with how fast they vanish.
An apple a day
keeps the doctor away,
But for one trillion fish
there's a huge price to pay.
A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush?
Your hand is no home
Is freedom too much?
We are told not to cry
over spilt milk.
One mother has done that;
too many tears for her ilk?
Step on a crack
break your mother's back.
That still sounds much better
than a captive bolt to get whacked.
Young men may quip
they are as tough as leather,
But those with their skins
could understand, never.
The best things in life
may truly be free,
Yet animals killed over pennies
ought never to be.
Familiarity breeds contempt,
and absence makes the heart grow fonder.
It is true that we would only eat
those whose interests we would hardly ponder.
This is but a poem, and
Actions speak louder than words.
We must each decide if might makes right,
or if this pen is mightier than the sword.
One fish, two fish;
red fish, blue fish.
Will you choose to grant fish
their one basic wish?
Red fish, blue fish.
You can't quite keep up
with how fast they vanish.
An apple a day
keeps the doctor away,
But for one trillion fish
there's a huge price to pay.
A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush?
Your hand is no home
Is freedom too much?
We are told not to cry
over spilt milk.
One mother has done that;
too many tears for her ilk?
Step on a crack
break your mother's back.
That still sounds much better
than a captive bolt to get whacked.
Young men may quip
they are as tough as leather,
But those with their skins
could understand, never.
The best things in life
may truly be free,
Yet animals killed over pennies
ought never to be.
Familiarity breeds contempt,
and absence makes the heart grow fonder.
It is true that we would only eat
those whose interests we would hardly ponder.
This is but a poem, and
Actions speak louder than words.
We must each decide if might makes right,
or if this pen is mightier than the sword.
One fish, two fish;
red fish, blue fish.
Will you choose to grant fish
their one basic wish?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Morissey's Subspecies Comments
Morrissey made news and reignited claims of his supposed racism recently with a comment he made in an interview with the Guardian where he called the Chinese a, "subspecies". Putting the quote into context, I would be more inclined to treat the incident as a slip of the tongue rather than a confession of blatant disregard for the distinction between national origin and biological classification. "Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies." Said Morrissey.
The actual biological meaning of this insult is fairly moot. We are all equally subspecies as well of Homo sapiens (Generally all modern humans are considered Homo sapiens sapiens). The context of his statement however seems strange in light of the fact that he is attempting to fight against discrimination, not just for subspecies, but regardless of the species to which an organism belongs entirely. What he may have meant as, "the policies with regards to non-human animals that he sees coming out of China are atrocious," has come out instead as language that reinforces our human-centric views of ethics.
In addition to this, Morissey's attitude seems to consistently be one that is unlikely to win people over. As Jon Camp of Vegan Outreach has repeatedly emphasized, we are more likely to win people over with honey than vinegar. While Morrissey's outrage over animal rights issues is entirely understandable (He walked off the stage from one of his concerts last year saying, "It smells like meat;" I often find myself wanting to do the same at family meals.) he isn't going to win people over by appearing constantly bitter over the issue.
If I were in Morrissey's shoes at this point I would clarify the statement I made to the Guardian saying something along the lines of, "Clearly China is a diverse country and no statement can speak for the ideas of all it's citizens. I think all people should find the policies coming out of that nation with regards to non-human animals to be unacceptable, and that was the sentiment that I had intended to express with my original statement." Additionally I think he should use his music as a positive opportunity to raise awareness about veganism. While I love his song "Meat is Murder" that he put out with the Smiths, perhaps he could add a brief statement beforehand such as, "This next song is about one of the greatest injustices that still exists in our world today, but each of you can do something to save dozens of lives every year through your own actions, just by choosing to eat less meat."
For the rest of us, perhaps this can serve as a warning about the power of both the language we use, and the attitude we have when communicating, over how our message will be perceived by others.
The actual biological meaning of this insult is fairly moot. We are all equally subspecies as well of Homo sapiens (Generally all modern humans are considered Homo sapiens sapiens). The context of his statement however seems strange in light of the fact that he is attempting to fight against discrimination, not just for subspecies, but regardless of the species to which an organism belongs entirely. What he may have meant as, "the policies with regards to non-human animals that he sees coming out of China are atrocious," has come out instead as language that reinforces our human-centric views of ethics.
In addition to this, Morissey's attitude seems to consistently be one that is unlikely to win people over. As Jon Camp of Vegan Outreach has repeatedly emphasized, we are more likely to win people over with honey than vinegar. While Morrissey's outrage over animal rights issues is entirely understandable (He walked off the stage from one of his concerts last year saying, "It smells like meat;" I often find myself wanting to do the same at family meals.) he isn't going to win people over by appearing constantly bitter over the issue.
If I were in Morrissey's shoes at this point I would clarify the statement I made to the Guardian saying something along the lines of, "Clearly China is a diverse country and no statement can speak for the ideas of all it's citizens. I think all people should find the policies coming out of that nation with regards to non-human animals to be unacceptable, and that was the sentiment that I had intended to express with my original statement." Additionally I think he should use his music as a positive opportunity to raise awareness about veganism. While I love his song "Meat is Murder" that he put out with the Smiths, perhaps he could add a brief statement beforehand such as, "This next song is about one of the greatest injustices that still exists in our world today, but each of you can do something to save dozens of lives every year through your own actions, just by choosing to eat less meat."
For the rest of us, perhaps this can serve as a warning about the power of both the language we use, and the attitude we have when communicating, over how our message will be perceived by others.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Quote of the Day #2
"Doctor Dolittle, by the way, may be hard to find, as he is now often banned by pompously correct librarians. They worry about the racism in The Story of Doctor Dolittle, but this was all but universal in the 1920s. In any case it is offset by the Doctor's splendid fight against the slave trade in Doctor Dolittle's Post Office, and, more profoundly, by the stand that all Doctor Dolittle books make against the vice of speciesism, which is as unquestioned today as racism was in earlier times."
-Footnote on Page 53 of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins
-Footnote on Page 53 of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins
Friday, May 21, 2010
Hitler was Veg*n!
It often gets brought up that Hitler was a vegetarian and occasionally someone will go so far as to claim Hitler was a vegan (even though the term was only coined in 1944).
The issue itself isn't a particularly large one for vegans. Attempting to use Hitler's diet to make any point about vegetarianism is using the reductio ad Hitlerum logical falacy (really ignoratio elenchi). I've been told that Hitler didn't smoke either and this doesn't bother me in the least as a non-smoker.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting question relating to veganism and skepticism. What was Hitler's diet like? Was Hitler in fact a vegetarian?
On May 30, 1937 the New York Times published an article titled "Where Hitler Dreams and Plans", written by Otto D. Tolischus. In the article Tolischus writes, "During breakfast, which usually consists of milk, bread, oatmeal, honey, and cheese, [Hitler] reads the newspapers, especially his own Voelkische Beobachter."
Hitler's diet certainly was not light on the animal products, but at least for breakfast it appears Hitler tended to stay vegetarian. Tolischus continues, "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar, luscious fruits and similar tidbits."
Hitler certainly considered himself to be vegetarian, as is written here and is repeated by a number of other sources. At the time this article was published, his diet appears to have been low, but not absent of meat, and high in other animal products. He could most appropriately be described by today's language as a flexitarian.
The issue itself isn't a particularly large one for vegans. Attempting to use Hitler's diet to make any point about vegetarianism is using the reductio ad Hitlerum logical falacy (really ignoratio elenchi). I've been told that Hitler didn't smoke either and this doesn't bother me in the least as a non-smoker.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting question relating to veganism and skepticism. What was Hitler's diet like? Was Hitler in fact a vegetarian?
On May 30, 1937 the New York Times published an article titled "Where Hitler Dreams and Plans", written by Otto D. Tolischus. In the article Tolischus writes, "During breakfast, which usually consists of milk, bread, oatmeal, honey, and cheese, [Hitler] reads the newspapers, especially his own Voelkische Beobachter."
Hitler's diet certainly was not light on the animal products, but at least for breakfast it appears Hitler tended to stay vegetarian. Tolischus continues, "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar, luscious fruits and similar tidbits."
Hitler certainly considered himself to be vegetarian, as is written here and is repeated by a number of other sources. At the time this article was published, his diet appears to have been low, but not absent of meat, and high in other animal products. He could most appropriately be described by today's language as a flexitarian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)