McKennaWasBanned wrote:
Jane Smith wrote:But it's not her argument...
McKennaWasBanned wrote:Exactly. If you were at a dinner party and you learned your host was a rapist you wouldn't say "Oh well, to each his own." You would be (appropriatly!) horrified. However with vegeterianism we often see a live and let live attitude. That analogy holds up fine.
Jane Smith wrote:How is that at all what she's saying? This is actually what she said. She only mentioned rape once, as a review of Foer's book. She doesn't even say this is her philosophy. I will quote it since nobody here seems to want to read it:
Essentially she's saying that rape is a terrible crime that's been condoned in some cases and saying that perhaps meat eating can be looked on in a similar way.
I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).
However, Natalie also signed a petition to free Roman Polanski, a convicted rapist. In that context it sounds as if she condones his actions or at least doesn't feel that he should be punished for them. So that's where her analogy doesn't work. If her dinner host were Roman Polanski it seems like she WOULD say "Oh well".
I'm aware that's not how she meant it, but I see it as a flaw in the logic of her argument.
She's quoting it as support for her argument, so essentially she's agreeing with it and incorporating it into her argument
