This particular woman makes the case that she deserves the title:
I think she wins hands down, don’t you? She must be one of those pollo-vegetarians. Because, after all, chickens aren’t “animals.”
*insert eye rolling* Sigh, way to reinforce the “dumb blonde” stereotype, moron! And yes, I would agree that she wins hands down.
Whoa, the RSS feed had the “white and nerdy” video instead of this one. That was confusing. Have to agree, hers is one of the least informed opinions I’ve witnessed.
On a similar note, I saw one of the dumbest things ever said by an environmentalist on the Colbert Report the other day: (paraphrased)
Colbert: But you’re writing a book, isn’t that wasteful?
Environut: No, we don’t use paper; we only use renewable resources.
Paper’s not renewable? Damn, then we’ve got a lot of tree farms that are doing a whole lot of nothing.
This is also a good reason why I hate it when nuts (pick your flavor) group all atheists, liberals, and anti-corporates together – I do not appreciate being represented by some of these people.
I was walking by the bulletin board of our local “Natural Food Store” and saw a notice for a “Raw Food Potluck”…. Vegan, too, which mostly (unless I missed something) means no cream or butter….
I’ve always understood the plastic-coated paper (used, e.g., by many glossy magazines) is difficult to recycle (esp. into blank paper, and perhaps anything else?). So whilst the comment about paper not being (made from?) renewable (or not being recyclable?) is rather inane and embarrassing, there may also be a touch of truvth in it?
Well if she eats chicken she is not a vegetarian. So did you just want to call vegertarians dumb? Do you know what a vegetrian is?
Glossy papers are very rarely treated with plastic. It’s actually clay, of a variety similar to that used in china. Some glossy-stock books can have a clay content of up to 70% of total weight. The stuff is recyclable, with some preparation. I don’t recommend using it to light fireplaces or the like, since you’ll end up with a heap of white stone dust.
It may just be my devil’s-advocate tendencies, but I suspect a translation problem. She may have originally used a word more like English “beast” – that can be used to refer specifically to a land mammal – and the translator rendered it as “animal”, usually a much more general term. (Although my dictionary does list “mammal” as one of the secondary meanings for “animal”, too.) A sentence like “a chicken is a bird and a cow is an animal” doesn’t really make sense unless what you mean by “animal” is not the entire animal kingdom.
That doesn’t make me any more likely to convert to vegetarianism (regardless of whether you think someone who eats birds but not mammals qualifies as vegetarian at all), but I think the idiocy of the person in the clip may be overstated.
Anyone recognize the language the people in the clip are actually speaking, and want to comment on what they originally said?
I wouldn’t take a comment made on Colbert too seriously. It seems to me that many of the guests (the ones with a sense of humor) try to “go with” the Colbert persona and also try to inject some humor and/or sarcasm into their remarks. It’s also reasonable to me that he meant the book was printed on recycled materials, not that paper itself is not renewable.
I once heard an interview with a model who wouldn’t use pencils for fear of lead poisoning. Models are selected for their looks, not their understanding of linguistics or toxicology.
Chris: ISTM that the word “animal” in English can have a connotation of “quadruped.” I.e. a lizard qualifies, but a chicken doesn’t. I know that that’s more or less how I thought about it as a kid. Don’t know where that puts snakes though.
I had always thought animal meant neither vegetable or mineral.
Chris — They’re speaking Hebrew. I’d need to listen to the clip again to see if I can get the actual word that the translator said was “animal,” but it didn’t sound like any of the words I know for “animal.”
Disclaimer: I am not a very good Hebrew speaker.
My encyclopedia growing up had the following statement in the entry on Florida:
“Florida has 45 species of animal and nearly 70 birds.”
Even as a kid, the statement made me want to dump the entire encyclopedia in the trash. Mom wouldn’t let me.
(Number made up because I don’t remember the exact ones.)
Having worked with chickens on my grandparents’ farm, I can attest that, while they may technically be animals, their intelligence is so low that they run perilously close to the “vegetable” range of the organismal spectrum.
Perhaps the speaker is one of those “neo-vegetarians” who only eat animals so dumb that killing them is a mercy. That would include chickens, sheep, domestic (but not wild) turkeys and certain members of the House and Senate.
For some reason, I was really beat last night, and, given that this weekend is a…
After hearing the horrible news that Laura Hymas had died on the same day that…
I’m depressed as I write this, because I have some very sad news to relate to…
In the well over nine years that I’ve been blogging, there’s one tried and true, completely…
Never look a blogging gift horse in the mouth, I always say. Well, sort of. It…
When I’m trying to demonstrate the utter implausibility and mystical pseudoscience behind so much of “complementary…
As I write this, I am winging my way home from the 2014 meeting of the…
As I hang out at the San Diego Convention Center, I can’t resist one last note…
Here I am, sitting on the balcony of my hotel room in sunny San Diego, as…
I appear to have fallen into one of my ruts again. Or maybe it’s not a…
As regular readers know, I was quite happy that Skeptical Inquirer (SI) agreed to publish articles…
Of all the cranks, quacks, antivaccinationists, and pseudoscientists that I’ve encountered (and applied a bit of…