Vegans, Jehovah Witnesses, Transubstantiation and Other Lunatic beliefs

Vegan Bastards

Is there anything more annoying than a vegan?

Well, yes, actually.  Now that you mention it, there is.  Vegan parents are more annoying.

There was a case recently of a 12-year-old girl admitted to a Glasgow hospital with a degenerative bone condition caused by the lack of calcium.  According to the hospital, this child’s spine was in a condition they’d expect to find in an 80-year-old.

It’s belief, you see. More bullshit.  The parents’ beliefs are more important than their children’s welfare.  That’s why adults, who grew up on a diet of milk and cheese and fish and meat, and who have developed strong and healthy bones, feel entitled to deprive their infant children of all these things.  It’s their belief, and that makes it all right, even though what they believe in is a load of old bollocks.

It’s their belief, just like the nonsense that is homeopathy, a non-science that believes water has a memory.  These charlatans dilute your medicine until it can no longer be detected in the water, and then they tell you that the water remembers what was dissolved in it.  Now, all water is as old as the planet and has had everything in the world dissolved in it at one time or another, but somehow it only remembers what the chancer wants it to remember.


What the hell is this obsession we have with belief, and why do we give a special place to some beliefs but not to others?  Why did we agonise when two Jehovah’s Witness parents wanted to prevent their child having a blood transfusion?  Why didn’t we just arrest them there and then for trying to endanger their child?  Throw them in the slammer and give the child to a family who’ll take proper care of it?

I don’t know.  We said, it’s their religion!

So what if it’s their religion?  So what?  Religion or not, it’s still insane.  Why the hell are people entitled to switch off our sanity button by invoking their religion?

I’m going to wear a bag over my head while I’m in school.

No you’re not.

Yes I am.  It’s my religion!

Insane.  It isn’t my problem if some old guy in the desert a thousand years ago decided you have to wear a bag on your head.  It’s your problem for swallowing such horseshit.  Get over yourself!

I don’t give a rat’s arse what delusion you believe in.  Your delusion isn’t a licence to behave like a total gobshite.

I’m a Scientologist and I believe an alien from Venus lives inside your head.

You’re nuts.

You can’t say that. 

Yes I can.

You’re oppressing me!  I’ll set 43,000 lawyers on you! 

I think we’ve reached the quota for lunatic beliefs now, and if you want to start a new lunatic belief system, you’ll have to wait until one of the old ones is extinguished, like a pub licence.  That’s why the majority of sane, rational people in this country will laugh at Jehovah’s Witnesses, but happily go on believing that a man in a skirt can turn Jesus into a biscuit, which is a nice, sensible belief.

Did you ever think about that transubstantiation thing?  I did, and it worries me.

Now, it’s not that I’d be at any religious service very often, but sometimes you have to go to funerals, weddings and that sort of thing, and I was wondering.  You know the bit where the witch-doctor waves his hands around and sparks fly out of his fingers and he turns that biscuit into the body and blood of Jesus?

You with me?  Right, well, what I’m wondering is how far the bread-to-Jesus rays travel and how powerful they are.  Maybe a Christian Scientist might know the answer.  You see, it’s possible you might not have got home the night before, and perhaps you have half an uneaten pitta bread doner kebab in your pocket.  Or a ham sandwich.  Or maybe a packet of biscuits.

You see where this is going, and it’s a real worry for me.  If the priest is feeling particularly powerful this morning, possibly because he had a nice altar-boy good slug of whiskey, would he be able to zap that kebab right through your pocket, truly turning it into the Spicy Lamb of God?  Or if it was still wrapped in the aluminium foil, would that stop the rays getting through?

Maybe you’d need a lead-lined kebab just to be on the safe side.

I don’t know.  Theology was never my strong point.

What I do know is that I hate vegans for being condescending, insufferable twats, and therefore I’ve invented a new breakfast cereal for them.  When the revolution comes, my people will round them all up and force them to eat this every morning, but it’ll be good for the general public too.

I think this is going to be a real success.  A breakfast cereal made of pork.

I call it Meatabix.  What do you think?


Thanks to Achilles for doing the pic.




Elsewhere: Natural Selections

69 thoughts on “Vegans, Jehovah Witnesses, Transubstantiation and Other Lunatic beliefs

  1. I swear I’ve heard that doner kebab bit before! ;-)

    Did you see the baby who died because the Vegan parents were feeding him apple juice. That’s it. Fuck me.

    What about all this earth evangelism. It’s become fashionable to be atheist but it seems all this eco-crap has taken it’s place. Everyone takes global warming as fact when really it is not even a hypothesis, the lowest starting point of a fact. People get vehemently dogmatic about it as they once did with religion. Very interesting. It’s as if mankind needs something to believe in so completely and strongly whether it be religion, a social phenomena or scientific hypothesis. Perhaps we are hard-wired to have some sort of belief to cling to.

    Wow. Didn’t mean to get all egg or chicken here. Sorry Bock.

  2. Brilliant! Classic Bock raging – love it!

    And you’re right about evangelical vegans – they are among some of the most intolerant people I’ve met. It’s shocking that, in this day and age in Britain, a child could be that malnourished. “Beliefs” have a lot to answer for.

  3. Amen! Oops too Holy! I meant Classic! :) Reminds me of a story I read this week of a churchwarden in a high church in England who had at the vicar’s request collected a new box of communion wafers for the next day’s Eucharist. She put the box in her handbag but on arriving home found that they had spilled into her handbag and broken into countless pieces. She arrived at the vicarage in desperation and despite his reassurances demanded to know his opinion as to whether her “handbag had contaminated the host, or has the host sanctified my handbag”!

  4. when you’re force feeding these idiots Meatabix I’ll hold ’em down for ya if you like…especially if they’re the kind of people who say ”that animal had feelings you know” just as yer biting into yer burger…

  5. Bock, if there was a hell you’d almost probably burn in it!

    By the way. I think I know a vegan Jehovah’s witness transubstantiationist WITH lunatic beliefs!!

  6. I always thought that a Vegan was a dyslexic Nun with a lisp..

    ‘Meatabix’©, is there a plastic toy in each box in the shape of a slaughtered cow? Collect all 10 dead animals to create your own pop-up abattoir.

  7. Deborah: Now that I think about it, you probably did hear that before. Was it around the time you astounded the world by surviving a visit to Limerick?

    Sam: It just goes to show, some religions don’t need a god.

    Paddyanglican: Shit. I thought that would upset the likes of you a bit more. I’ve failed yet again. But wait, I forgot. You’re an Anglican priest. The Church of Ireland imposes no requirement to believe in God.

    That would be my kind of church if I ever decided to join one. Atheist? No problem! Come in. Would you like a Bishopric?

    Artyeva: Thanks for the offer. I might just need the help.

    Andrew: I’d prefer it to be truly uncomfortable.

    Mapstew: I’d be interested to meet the Vegan Jehovah’s Witness transubstantiationists you know who don’t have lunatic beliefs.

    Audrey: Tofu is also ridiculous.

    Bollix: Pop-up abattoir. Now there’s an idea. With channels for blood and tiny humane killers. Good thinking.

  8. Vegans are utter bastards and that’s that….you should try serving the fuckers….huge chip on their shoulder…no pun intended…..if they don’t eat meat etc don’t come to a restaurant that specializes in meat and god damned fish….the fuckers….

  9. Manuel: I’m trying to remember if it was you or somebody else who told me about a veganazi interrogation in a restaurant.

    Something to do with whether their food had been cooked on the same pan as meat dishes for the other customers.

    Did you tell us that story in Dublin?

  10. No, I could never be a journalist. I have actual knowledge of practical real-world things, and I think that possibly disqualifies me, though I’d have to check.

  11. I’d say you mean hokum, unless you’re thinking of dodging school.

    If I did music journalism I’d have to be stoned all the time and I’m too old for that.

  12. that a man in a skirt can turn Jesus into a biscuit

    Don’t be silly, of course he can’t. Turning Jesus into a biscuit is nonsense. He turns the biscuit into Jesus. Of course. Which makes perfect sense.

    I believe the rays have a limited half life, so if you pop your kebab in the fridge for an hour you should be fine. Any halo-side-effects should wear off in a couple of days. Other rside effects can include unexplained guilt, no sex, moving statues, extreme judgementalism and stigmata.
    Ask your spiritual guru today “Is eucharist(tm) right for me?”

  13. Are you saying the Jesusness of the zapped kebab will wear off?

    That surely can’t be right. If, as you say, the effect has a half-life, the Jesusness might decay exponentially over time, but there will always be a proportion of it left.

    The thing to find out is how long it takes for the Jesucity to reduce to a safe level.

  14. You need a large bowl of water or paddling pool to test. If after eating you can walk across the top (like that braniac clip with the swimming pool full of custard) then it has not decayed sufficiently. Repeat untill sinking occurs.

    Obviously given the weekly timetable of mass it is down to negligible levels once a week has elapsed.

  15. If someone wants to practice a religion and attend a service of their own accord, I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with that.

    Apart from all the religious based beliefs, there are other, far worse, beliefs about in Ireland . The belief some parents have that it’s ok to let their kids of 13 or 14 out late at night drinking and not bother to find out where they are while they are getting tanked up with their cheap Lidl booze. They believe it’s ok to do this. Or the belief some people have that it’s ok to get pallatic drunk and expect an overburdened health service to fix them.

    Basically, I think there are far worse beliefs in our society than religion (which is acknowledged to have little or no influence anyway)

  16. Basically, I think there are far worse beliefs in our society than religion (which is acknowledged to have little or no influence anyway)

    The ones you mention aren’t really beliefs, more just general ignorance, poor parenting and laziness.

    But religion only very recently lost its death grip on society and in most countries it is still the prevailing power.

    Think George Bush telling the world that God told him X, Y or Z.

    Does it not send a shiver down your spine that someone who hears voices has control of nuclear weapons?

  17. Le Craic: Little or no influence? To give just one example, I refer you to my posts on Michael Woods’s secret deal with the catholic church that has so far cost the exchequer 1.5 Billion euros.

    I could go on about Catholic nutters like Youth Defence, Muslim ideologues like Ahmedinejad or Christian fundamentalists like Bush, but I won’t.

    Morgor: America, the global policeman, is now possibly the most religious country in the world. Terrifying.

  18. in fairness to the whole thing mentioned up a wee bit about meat being cooked on the same pan as the veggies, I have sympathy in that regard. Ive seen places where they advertise veggie burgers, but dump them in the same vat as the meat…there are people who really don’t like meat and should be accommodated for.

    I know a vegetarian and when we go out its amazing how little respect/sympathy is shown for someone who just simply doesn’t want to eat meat.

  19. Oh, how I laughed.

    My vegetabletarian sister (thankfully, not vegan) and her boyfriend are staying with us for a week. We are quite unrepentant carnivores – I’m in agony over what to feed them. While I could live off black bean quesedillas forever, I think everyone else would kill me.

  20. I’ll tell you what’s worse than vegan parents and thats parents who believe that homeopathy is a medicine and not plain water, and use it to ‘treat’ their kids’ ailments, and parents who believe that it is dangerous to vaccinate their children – cos of course the parents grew up TB and polio free. Grrr

  21. Okay, it’s easy to be cynical about homeopathy until you’ve seen people cured of certain conditions that are beyond conventional medicine. Explain it how you like, but it happens all the time.
    There’s a reason why people are turning to complementary medicine. They’ve seen that it works for others, and/or they have suffered terribly and to no avail as a result of conventional medicine.
    Many people have have become addicted to legal drugs. (see Others have died.

    There are indeed quacks out there, just as there are ineffective, lazy, often arrogant and stupid conventional doctors. You don’t visit the latter twice, I presume.

    My own opinion, based on long experience, is that if you need surgery or urgent medical attention, go to a conventional doctor. If not, explore complementary medicine. It’s cheaper, kinder, more comprehensive and usually much more effective with chronic condtions. More and more of the better practices have both conventional and complementary practitioners, and they include homeopaths.

    It takes longer, perhaps, but there you go. Do you want a quick fix, or a long-term fix?

    Good rant, though.

  22. …water isn’t medicine….

    …anyone care to join me as I share this ickle wisdom (using a spray can) on posters advertising trips to Lourdes???

    I’ll prepare us a lunch of beefy-turkey-pork burgers :-)

  23. @morgor : Bock said the vegans and their belief resulted in the childs health being affected – which is true. i don’t see any difference between that and parents with a laissez faire attitude to underage drinking.

    @Bock, can you clarify something for me about the whole religious order deal. Am I wrong in thinking that the state put children into the care of religious institutions and therefore the state was inherently liable. The gardai were liable, society was liable etc etc. The buck never just stopped at the handful of rotten apples in the religious barrel?

  24. Employees of the State didn’t rape and beat the children. Priests, brothers and nuns did.

    Therefore, while the State has to share responsibility, the Church is wholly culpable and should carry the bulk of the cost, which it plainly did not, thanks to a sweet deal with Michael Woods of Opus Dei.

    The Church paid 128 million euros in total. It won’t have to pay another cent, no matter how high the costs of the awards rise.

    We’ve paid 1.5 Billion so far, and the figure continues to climb.

  25. By the same token, the religious institution didn’t rape or beat the children. Priests, nuns and brothers did, all individual men and women, liable to prosecution.

  26. Not good enough. You can’t remove their responsibility like that. It’s very fuzzy thinking out of you.

    The children were given into the care of religious institutions, not into the care of these individuals.

    Not even the Church is suggesting that the whole thing should fall on the rapists, so I don’t know why you’d think such an idea was acceptable.

    You’re going down a very dodgy road with that kind of spurious logic.

  27. Well then the logic comes back to who employed the religious institutions to look after the children. And who should bear the brunt of the cost for failing these children in the first place. This is where we differ. I have no problem in my tax money being paid as compensation to those affected and would rather it the way it is, than have the church and state battle for years over the raped and tortured minds and bodies of innocent people. Time to move on Bock.

  28. These rapists and violent horrible individuals were given protection by the religious institutions and the state that placed the children there.The priest nuns and brothers did not see themselves as individuals why should we! they were the church.

  29. lecraic, the church actively sought to prevent the state developing a social care model that would have allowed for non-religious run care facilities. That is a matter of public record, in doing so they ensured their facilities were the only ones around into which civil society could place the children.

    The religious orders prevented and obstructed state investigations of these facilities down the years. They fostered the culture of evasive and silence that allowed those who committed such acts to go on and on.

  30. le craic: If you hire somebody to look after children and they rape them instead, it’s their fault.

    What part of that is hard to understand?

  31. Nobody can deny that the Chuch does hold a significant blame for the abuse suffered. This comment is not an excuse for what happened or an apology for the wrong inflicted by the Church on a helpless group. At the same point, the state, the police and others are as culpable. Similarly we should not forget the education (and i mean the good education) given to this country by many good nuns, priests and Christian Brothers. Most of us went to school during a period of no prosperity in Ireland and received our education from a religious affiliated school which did not have holes in the roof, rats in the corner or require our parents to fork out tons of cash for free education. Organised religion in some ways is not so bad. (love thy neighbour, do good, don’t kill) are some basic guidelines that if everyone in Limerick lived by we wouldn’t be in the shite we are in. I’m not trying to convert anyone here and not saying follow everyhting to the letter. Extremist views on both sides are just that, extremist. Much like the abuse scandal, there were people in the church that were pure evil and also those than were far from it. We see that everyday in society so why are we shocked and surprised that we have seen the contrast in the Church also. Like the rest of us they are after all, only human. Just a thought.

  32. Dell boy, “Nobody can deny that the Chuch does hold a significant blame for the abuse suffered. …At the same point, the state, the police and others are as culpable.” you contradict your first comment with the latter one. The state, and broader Irish society might not be completely blameless in what happened in these institutions, however they are far from being ‘just as cupable’. Until such time as the Church owns up to its responsibility in this area including the sheltering and aiding and abetting these criminals I don’t see why wider society has to kowtow to them.

  33. Dan, the state and other organisations put these children into care, left them there, ignored reports and evidence of wrong doing (much like Church superiors did) and continued this practice for decades. The abusers do of course carry all the blame for the abuse. However the Church and other bodies carry as much blame for creating the enviornment in which these abusers could operate. I would like to beleive that all groups involved in this have looked at their operations/ their procedures for handling and caring for the most vunerable and have put procedures in place to prevent this from happening again. However maybe its just the cynic in me that feels that the state run bodies and support agencies have been largely unaffected by this scandal.

  34. Wow, get a grip man.

    You seem like one of those ppl who are just cynical to the bone. Seems like you have nothing better to do than think up ridiculous crap that means little to you and others. Find a better hobby and get real.

    By the way, I’m both vegan and a Witness to Jehovah and i must say that if you EVER met me, you would change your idea of both Jehovah’s Witnesses and vegans. Yet I hope you never do meet me. B/c you would most likely insult me or ignore me/what I say no matter how chill, and welcoming I may be.

    That said, have fun clogging your arteries with your Meatabix. And take care. (yes, I did just wish you bad and good…lol)

  35. Mike

    What does ppl mean? That isn’t a word as far as I know. Neither is b/c. Nor lol.

    If you’d care to write to me in English, I might have some regard for you.

    Oh wait. Hold on. You’re a vegan and a Jehovah Witness?

    On second thoughts, I retract that offer. You’re bonkers.

  36. I remember a girlfriend of mine and her mate, when I was at college and tucking into some kind of lamb-based food, coming and making sheep noises at me. They followed it up by saying: “Could you kill that animal yourself?”

    I said, “A lamb? It wouldn’t stand a fucking chance. Now fuck off and stop asking me stupid questions.”

    BTW, your vegan chap there… Got to love that kind of self confidence.

  37. Vegans are the most annoying people by far won’t eat anything with a face. But will take god awful tofu flavor it with God knows how many chemicals to make it taste like mock a thing that’s ok remember they are pure chemicals are ok

  38. Plutarch put it well:

    “Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? It is certainly not lions and wolves that we eat out of self-defense; on the contrary, we ignore these and slaughter harmless,tame creatures without stings or teeth to harm us, creatures that, I swear, Nature appears to have produced for the sake of their beauty and grace. But nothing abashed us, not the flower-like like tinting of the flesh, not the persuasiveness of the harmonious voice, not the cleanliness of their habits or the unusual intelligence that may be found in the poor wretches. No, for the sake of a little flesh we deprive them of sun, of light, of the duration of life to which they are entitled by birth and being.”

  39. Hold on now, Pat. First of all, that doesn’t explain the idea of a “first man” on which Plutarch based his emotional argument. Are you saying there was a first man?

    Secondly our close relatives are far from vegan. Apes and monkeys consume all manner of meat, from insect to mammals. Our very close relative, the chimpanzee, is a fierce hunter.

  40. I’m not going to get into a futile “debate” here on this topic for obvious reasons.

    The negative stereotyping of people is not only unethical but irrational. From that point of view, calling vegans “lunatics”, for instance, is ironic to say the least.

  41. You haven’t laid a glove on the whole basis of my argument – or Plutarch’s argument for that matter.

  42. Thank you for that excellent illustration of your “debating” method.

    You ignored what I said to make an irrelevant nitpicking point about the way I said it.

    Just like you homed in on Plutarch’s phrase “first man” by way of ignoring the whole passage that explains it.

    Just like you ignored the word “essentially”, which I deliberately used in post 49 above in anticipation of your predictable response that most of our fellow primates are known to occasionally eat meat in addition to their MAINLY vegan diet.

  43. Steady on now Pat. The entire quote you provided from Plutarch is based on the assumption of a first man, Without that, it makes no sense at all. That’s why I asked you how Plutarch arrived at the concept and if you also propose that there was such a thing as the first man.

    If you feel entitled to your own definition of the word “essentially” well and good. I won’t try to stop you. However, my understanding of it is that it means “in essence”. In other words by their essence, our close relatives are vegan. This is simply untrue. Our close relatives are not vegan.

  44. Woah there, Bock. There’s nothing unsteady about me. And there is no evidence for your suggestion that I feel entitled to idiosyncratic definitions of words.

    The opening remarks of your blog clearly indicate your prejudice against vegans, and your “attack is the best form of defence” tactic on being challenged on it ill behoves you.

    You say: “The entire quote you provided from Plutarch is based on the assumption of a first man, Without that, it makes no sense at all.”

    I don’t understand what you mean by that. Could you please explain what sense you make of the Plutarch quote and how it is based on the assumption of a first man.

  45. “Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench?”

    The assumption of a convenient, fictional first man is understandable in Plutarch, who knew nothing of evolution. But it hardly befits you to rely on the same quote, knowing what we do today about the origins of our species.

  46. We’re getting nowhere here, Bock, because you haven’t answered either of the two questions I asked.

    By way of trying to progress the discussion, I would summarise Plutarch’s argument thus: The unnecessary killing of animals for food is ethically and aesthetically repugnant. (I think it is reasonable to include the word “unnecessary” because it is implied if not stated.)

    Whether or not you agree with Plutarch’s argument, do you accept that that is an accurate summary of it?

    If your answer is yes, how does that argument depend on Plutarch’s apparently outdated concept of the first man. (I use the word “apparently” only because we can’t be absolutely certain what exactly Plutarch meant by the term “first man”.)

    If your answer is no, could you please explain what you think the gist of Plutarch’s argument is and how it depends on his first man concept.

    And just to be absolutely clear on what my position is, I agree with Plutarch’s argument as summarised above and I don’t see how that argument depends on Plutarch’s apparently outdated concept of the first man.

  47. You’re right. We are getting nowhere. You started by quoting Plutarch’s personal distaste for the idea of eating meat, a view which he and you are fully entitled to hold, but which is not an argument for veganism.

    I have no doubt that Plutarch was an admirable fellow, but quoting him is a bit of an appeal to authority, the well-known logical fallacy. As if his personal opinion is worth more than the personal opinion of anyone else.

    He might well have felt that all animals are entitled to sun and light, but of course entitlements are awarded, either by law or, as some people believe, by some higher power. In the wild, no animal is ever entitled to anything.

    In any case, I have never argued that animals should be kept in the dark, so this is a straw man argument (another logical fallacy).

    Incidentally, do you happen to know if Plutarch was actually a vegan?

    Secondly, after Plutarch, you stated that our nearest relatives are “essentially” vegan. This is simply not true and there is nothing more to be said about it.

  48. I’m not going to reply at length to your latest post, Bock. I’ll just add this to what I’ve already said about your “debating” method.

    You again failed to answer my questions by which I was trying to elicit the justification for your claim that the “first man” detail in the Plutarch passage diminished or negated Plutarch’s argument.

    Instead you made further unjustified claims.

    That’s all.

  49. You didn’t arrive here with questions. You arrived here with statements. When those statements were addressed, you failed to respond.

    That, Pat, is your debating technique.

    Let us have your questions once you address the responses to your statements.

  50. There you go again, Bock.

    Your claim that I haven’t addressed your responses to my statements is baseless.

  51. Ye might find this interesting –

    One might assume that Pythagoras advocated vegetarianism on the basis of his belief in metempsychosis, as did Empedocles after him (Fr. 137). Indeed, the fourth-century mathematician and philosopher Eudoxus says that “he not only abstained from animal food but would also not come near butchers and hunters” (Porphyry, VP 7). According to Dicaearchus, one of Pythagoras’ most well-known doctrines was that “all animate beings are of the same family” (Porphyry, VP 19), which suggests that we should be as hesitant about eating other animals as other humans. Unfortunately, Aristotle reports that “the Pythagoreans refrain from eating the womb and the heart, the sea anemone and some other such things but use all other animal food” (Aulus Gellius IV. 11. 11–12). This makes it sound as if Pythagoras forbade the eating of just certain parts of animals and certain species of animals rather than all animals; such specific prohibitions are easy to parallel elsewhere in Greek ritual (Burkert 1972a, 177). Aristoxenus asserts that Pythagoras only refused to eat plough oxen and rams (Diogenes Laertius VIII. 20) and that he was fond of young kids and suckling pigs as food (Aulus Gellius IV. 11. 6). Some have tried to argue that Aristoxenus is refashioning Pythagoreanism in order to make it more rational (e.g., Kahn 2001, 70; Zhmud 2012b, 228), but Aristoxenus, in fact, recognizes the non-rational dimension of Pythagoreanism and Pythagoras’ eating of kids and suckling pigs may itself have religious motivations (Huffman 2012b). Moreover, even if Aristoxenus’ evidence were set aside Aristotle’s testimony and many of the acusmata indicate that Pythagoras ate some meat. Certainly animal sacrifice was the central act of Greek religious worship and to abolish it completely would be a radical step. The acusma reported by Aristotle, in response to the question “what is most just?” has Pythagoras answer “to sacrifice” (Iamblichus, VP 82). Based on the direct evidence for Pythagoras’ practice in Aristotle and Aristoxenus, it seems most prudent to conclude that he did not forbid the eating of all animal food.

    a2 + b2 = c2 can’t argue with that now.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.