Quote:
Originally Posted by swissmiss
Ok, I can accept that.
Good. I can't really help myself.
Quote:
She does not eat horses either. But then she has a couple of them. She gave some of them too me. I still eat horsemeat. I do not know, whether it is considered food here per se. It is considered to be food for poor people, I guess.
That would also be an excellent reason to eat or not eat it. If you want to think of yourself as one of those cool people who eat poor people food, for instance.
Quote:
I get that. But it "does fall down under close philosophical scrutiny, obviously" as you said. So why should one accept that? You seemed to be arguing that point, or I am mistaken? So you agree, that close philosophical scrutiny of ex post rationalizations is important?
"Americans don't consider horses to be food, but they do sometimes sit on them" is not a rationalization. It is a statement. I don't know about anyone else, but then reason I don't is because food is what you get from grocery stores and restaurants. There is no horse there, so it isn't food.
If I learn that people in some other place eat horse, I will know that it is food there. If I visit that place I will probably try it because I like trying new things. My woman won't because she is not an adventurous eater.
So, about some of them, yes. Regarding food choices, it is probably difficult to impossible to get from "I don't eat baby humans" to a philosophically justifiable line where you can be confident that any eating at all is consistent.
Quote:
That one is true. But it maybe is a question of intent in the end. So you agree, that trying for close philosophical scrutiny of your own ex post rationalizations is important?
If you are going to use them to determine how you are going to act, yes. It would be annoying if strictly gay people started attacking straight and bisexual people since we have sex that they consider icky.