Open Letter to Matt

[miniboes]

Perhaps, instead of leaving it here now that he has refused the critism, we can release a short follow-up pointing out that he did not really rebut any of the arguments, but more importantly invite him to discuss the issue in a better environment than twitter or youtube comments. Also, perhaps, to point out that if he does not want us to hold him accountable for arguments he made X years ago he should express his current stance on animal ethics.

[Volenta]

I think he will rebut it in depth, if he is willing to take it on at all. My guess is that he's only going to take the bait when he thinks our arguments can be refuted—admitting that you're wrong is really something else (even though it would be highly appreciated). The comments we have seen thus far were made out of a quick reflex, and it shows because it neither gets to the core of the issue, nor is it refuting what has been said (read what the AHA actually says in the articles he posted).

[brimstoneSalad]

Perhaps, instead of leaving it here now that he has refused the critism, we can release a short follow-up pointing out that he did not really rebut any of the arguments, but more importantly invite him to discuss the issue in a better environment than twitter or youtube comments. Also, perhaps, to point out that if he does not want us to hold him accountable for arguments he made X years ago he should express his current stance on animal ethics.

I agree. Maybe the invitation should be by message?

Although as Volenta said, there might be a more in depth rebuttal coming, I rather doubt it based on his past behavior regarding the criticism of Atheism+.

The comments we have seen thus far were made out of a quick reflex, and it shows because it neither gets to the core of the issue, nor is it refuting what has been said (read what the AHA actually says in the articles he posted).

It's pretty sad when people link to articles to support their positions, but when you actually read them they do the opposite.
Do you think he read it at all, or just skimmed the headlines?

[Volenta]

It's pretty sad when people link to articles to support their positions, but when you actually read them they do the opposite.
Do you think he read it at all, or just skimmed the headlines?

1) It's absolutely clear about red meats; it's bad and should be avoided.
2) The article doesn't explicitly state that chicken is unhealthy, although it does clearly state that '[c]holesterol and saturated fat can raise your blood cholesterol and make heart disease worse' and that '[c]hicken and fish have less saturated fat than most red meat', and recommends to limit the intake of chicken. It doesn't refute the point of consensus by this.
3) Fish seems to be an exception, although—according to the article—not completely free from problems either (which is why flax seeds would be better). But fish isn't regarded as meat, so it's not relevant to the discussion.

The point you've made earlier about telling people to take the slightly better choices rather than go completely healthy seems to be the case here. He might have missed the point by skimming through it too fast (if he did read it), and relying too much on the misleading title.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, we might as well start working on a short rebuttal:


[quotes from Matt calling people dishonest]

Matt doesn't have a habit of seeing criticism charitably. Quite the opposite, he often jumps to the conclusion that those who disagree with him are simply dishonest.

Could it be that they are honestly mistaken? Or maybe even that he is mistaken, or misunderstanding?
Not according to Matt. They're all just flat out lairs.

Thunderf00t, the justicar, theveganatheist, etc.

We could call Matt dishonest for posting a link to an article by the AHA, claiming that it refutes our argument when it clearly does not.
Should we? No. Because we believe Matt is simply mistaken. Wrong, but honestly mistaken.
We're happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, which he denies to others, simply because it's the right thing to do.
We won't shy away from accusing him of hypocrisy in his beliefs and actions, but an accusation of flat out factual dishonesty we prefer to avoid.

In all likelihood, Matt simply did not read the article he posted a link to. If he had, he probably wouldn't have posted it.
If he did read it, he simply honestly misunderstood the article.

It makes no bones about red meat being unhealthy. That's not at issue at all.

Where the contention comes in, Matt seems to be suggesting, is that the AHA claims that some meat, but not all, is healthy. Thus a generalization that "meat is unhealthy" is incorrect, since it only applies to some meat.

So, without further adieu, let's look at the meats discussed in the article, and what the AHA's position on them actually is.

Chicken

[Stuff here]

Fish

[stuff here]

To be fair, the fish issue IS relevant to the original caller's claim, since it could be interpreted to include fish (is fish meat? Well, sorta, it depends on who you ask, but we'd agree it is).

But as has been shown, it isn't actually healthy in itself, it just mitigates the negative health effects of a diet with otherwise far too much Omega 6 due to certain processed oils. This effect can be better eliminated by just not eating all of those processed high Omega 6 oils to begin with (which is actually better than causing the problem, then trying to apply a band-aid in the form of fish consumption).

While the Standard American Diet does benefit from fish once a week, essentially as a medication (DHA and EPA) to reduce the negative effects of excess Omega 6 consumption, a low fat vegan diet rich in Omega 3 does not benefit from the addition of fish, and quite the contrary is better without it. The AHA clearly acknowledged that fish contains saturated fat and cholesterol, which promote heart disease, but just less of those things (and that's not even to mention all of the bioaccumulated heavy metals and other toxins in predatory fish).

More importantly to the topic at hand, it doesn't support Matt's original assertion of his one word checkmate: "evolution"
Omega 6 rich foods are rare in 'natural' diets, and these processed oils were not actually available until relatively recently. So fish only very recently became healthy as a means to medicate against this invented problem; we didn't evolve to make it healthy.
Likewise, we are not aquatic organisms, and did not evolve eating fish in the first place (as arboreal descended creatures, fish haven't been an important part of our historical diet for a very long time). Fishing is more recent innovation.

According to the most carnist friendly hypotheses, the meat we "evolved" eating was mostly larger game -- red meat -- when we emerged from the receding jungles as early hominids.
As we explained, whether or not we evolved eating meat, that has nothing to do with the long term health consequences of the practice. It's not that easy to evolve away heart disease and diet caused cancer, particularly when the effects only manifest after reproduction.


[Can sombody (Miniboes) please ping Humane Hominid? I'd like his take on this, he has more experience on this topic than I do. I'd do it, but I have to go for now]

[Volenta]

I'm not so sure we should jump on the fact that he (possibly) didn't like criticism in the past. Then it becomes a bit too personal for my taste.

By the way: after watching the videos again, I feel like there are some statements made from Dillahunty that we haven't quoted, and thus may feel like unjustified assumptions to viewers that did not watch the TV show episode. For example, the statement that he's 'biased towards his species' and 'draw an arbitrary line', and that 'the health benefits eating meat far outweigh the benefits of not eating meat' (which would have been a great addition to the evolution-point of his, pointing out that his rejection of scientific consensus reached further than just having a misconception about the connection between evolution and food health).

[Viking Redbeard]

Since this video was what prompted me to join this forum, I feel I ought to toss in my tuppence.

The thing with Matt is he's reflexively defensive, which may be a consequence of being a well-known atheist in Texas, but his defensiveness can on occasion lead him to being unreasonable and obnoxious to anyone who dares disagree with him - even on issues he hasn't really thought about very much.

Same is true of Tracy. I once wrote her a letter about something she said on the Atheist Experience. Here's the letter, with a little trimming of the inconsequential bits:

'Hi Tracy,

Just a quick response to your comments at the end of the last show.

You pointed out that it's wrong to say that meat eaters eat meat because they want to harm animals. I agree one hundred percent with you there. But then you objected to the idea of comparing the actions of someone eating a steak with someone torturing a dog for pleasure. But think about it. Somebody maims, tortures and kills a dog for pleasure. You eat steak, not because of nutritional reasons (read 'The China Study' by Colin Campbell), but also for palate pleasure. In many cases, animals in US slaughterhouses are skinned, chopped up and/or boiled while still conscious and screaming (read 'Slaughterhouse' by Gail Eisnitz) - all so that meat eaters can get a little bit of pleasure from the chewing of their flesh.

In effect, what you're saying is that it's wrong and immoral to torture and kill an animal for one type of pleasure, but absolutely fine to do so for another type of pleasure. This is nonsense. It's illogical.

One other thing you said once related to you being a veggie for a while but then switching back to eating meat because you watched a TV documentary about chimps hunting and killing smaller monkeys in the wild. I could be wrong, but I think you were using what's called the appeal to nature fallacy here; the idea that if behavour X happens in nature then it is okay for us to do it in the here and now, regardless of whether it's for survival or not. This, too, is clearly wrong.

Just because behaviour X occurs in nature and has occured throughout human history, does not make it okay for us to continue it here and now. And what happens in nature is not relevent to what is moral.

My ultimate argument would be this: if you have the choice of A) being the cause of horrific and completely unnecessary suffering to sentient beings who have done you no harm at all, and B) doing your best to avoid causing suffering, and you choose the former, you've made the wrong choice, morally.'



If I were writing the same letter today I'd do it a bit differently and come at it from a slightly different angle, making clear that I'm talking about actions and justifications rather than psychological dispositions. But this is the response I got:

'>But then you objected to the idea of comparing someone eating a steak with someone torturing a dog for pleasure. But think about it.

I have thought about it—what makes you assume I haven’t? I used to be a card carrying member of PETA and also PAR—a group that made PETA look rational. The second you begin comparing normal omnivore psychology to abnormal omnivore psychology—you are showing your ignorance of human and omnivore psychology.

> Somebody maims, tortures and kills a dog for pleasure.

Correct. We call these people psychopaths. They are not reflective of the psychology of the rest of humanity—which includes the normal human psychological behavior of eating meat. You understand that one person is exhibiting cataloged, recognized, diagnosed abnormal human psychology which is expertly differentiated from that of normal omnivorous meat eating--do you not? If you don’t recognize this, then you’re just ignorant about what constitutes psychopathic behavior and what normal human psychology represents in human populations. In other words--you don't seem to understand what differentiates normal human psychology from abnormal human psychology. That's not my problem. Educate yourself.

> You eat steak, not because of nutritional reasons (read 'The China Study' by Colin Campbell), but also for pleasure - for, pleasurable sensory experiences, for palate pleasure.

This is beside the point. It’s eaten as part of the normal omnivorous diet. The fact that evolution has geared us to find food based on what we like to eat is a correlation that makes sense. I also like apples, but I’m not eating them torture them. And to compare setting a dog on fire to eating something you like to eat, because it’s a food you’re evolved to want to eat—is, again, a show of ignorance and gross misunderstanding of basic human psychology and *evolution* as well now.

> In many cases, animals is US slaughterhouses are skinned, chopped up and/or boiled while still conscious and screaming (read 'Slaughterhouse' by Gail Eisnitz) - all so that meat eaters can get a little bit of pleasure from the chewing of their flesh.

Argument from emotional appeal. Nobody who eats a steak is saying they want animals slaughtered in this way. Just as I’m sure you don’t condone it when you buy car tires—and yet I expect you buy car tires or take taxis or buses or planes? Do you “enjoy” being able to travel? Does that mean you are supporting this slaughter out of pleasure—or pure convenience? Can people eat the cows slaughtered to make the good year radials on the bus or car or plane you take to get where you’re going?

>In effect, what you're saying is that it's wrong and immoral to torture and kill an animal for one type of pleasure,

No, I’m saying it’s wrong to enjoy suffering. That is psychopathic. That is diagnosed as a disorder and demonstrated to be a threat to human-in-human populations, whereas eating meat does not require that you take pleasure FROM the suffering.

At this point you’re just so ignorant of reality and so willing to distort that reality, that there is no point going forward with this. It’s one of the worst defenses of ethical veganism I’ve ever heard, and as a former PETA member, that’s saying something.

Oh, and missed the reference to the China Study--please read some criticisms of that. Many indigenous cultures eat only meat and have traditionally great health metrics--the Masai and the Inuit come immediately to mind, but agriculture was a late human development. The myth that people aren't healthy eating meat products is a fabrication of modern nutrition that anthropology can demonstrate is incorrect. I was taught we need fruits and vegetables to survive and be healthy when I was in school--it was something I learned in college was a myth. I'm sorry so many people continue to buy into that. It has more to do with how the meat is prepared and what parts of the animal are consumed, than "did it come from an animal" or not.

-th'

[TheVeganAtheist]

wow, Viking Redbeard, there is so much wrong with that Im not even sure where to begin.

I cant remember where it is now (facebook/email/etc) but someone sent me a while back a snippet of a conversation they had with Jen Peeples regarding veganism online, and I was amazed at how intolerant to discussion she was. I have to dig it up.

[brimstoneSalad]

Thanks for posting that, Viking Redbeard. I agree, her response was not at all open to rational discussion.

I'm not so sure we should jump on the fact that he (possibly) didn't like criticism in the past. Then it becomes a bit too personal for my taste.

Hmm, maybe. But if he refuses to reply rationally, at a certain point you have to throw out the idea of having an actual civil conversation, and it just becomes about discrediting the other party.
Matt has made a habit of this kind of behavior.

By the way: after watching the videos again, I feel like there are some statements made from Dillahunty that we haven't quoted, and thus may feel like unjustified assumptions to viewers that did not watch the TV show episode. For example, the statement that he's 'biased towards his species' and 'draw an arbitrary line', and that 'the health benefits eating meat far outweigh the benefits of not eating meat' (which would have been a great addition to the evolution-point of his, pointing out that his rejection of scientific consensus reached further than just having a misconception about the connection between evolution and food health).

Great point. Maybe we can add those in with the followup?

We should also address the "appeal to authority" claim.
We only mentioned Dawkins as an example to show that we don't intend to force Matt to go vegan, we only want to see him be intellectually honest. Without quoting Dawkins, it's likely nobody would have believed that. People didn't even believe it WITH quoting Dawkins.

[Jebus]

I didn't expect this initiative to be such a boost to our forum participation. It seems we have a few very promising new forumites, such as Viking Redbeard.