Dr. Best & I were just discussing the SAW movies and how all the gratuitous violence is nicely contextualized as exacting revenge on a party that would otherwise go through life unscathed. We think it would be way cool if the subject of the next SAW movie was a vivisector, furrier, or trapper who was kept alive just to endure unspeakable torture. And what a wonderful vehicle this would be to bring Animal Liberation to the masses...
I was kind of shocked at the
violence indicated and responded in passion...
Thinking more about my own
motivation and behavior, I followed up with an apology...
And my considered opinion...
I believe humans differ from animals, in part due to our
awareness. To consider humans merely animals is to limit
acknowledgment of our existence to merely being biological
creatures, disregarding the mind altogether. As stewards of the
earth, we have a responsibility to treat animals with respect
and conserve their lives, but they are here for us, not the
other way round. As a contrast, I do not see any possibility of
animals, carnivores in particular, having any such discernment.
Some of the posters here seem to look at the worst of mankind's
behavior and really do not cut themselves, or their neighbors,
any slack. Vengeance is a losing game, and I guess I can merely
say that I am glad you are not in charge.
And received this in return...
I have not seen such a civil and eloquent statement of human
hubris and speciesist arrogance in quite some time. Animals do
have a mind not unlike our almighty species, irrespective of
your inability to acknowledge such or simply de...sire not to
do so. They have their own morality, social systems, they
experience empathy, fear, and grief. From the beginning they
have resisted oppression at our hands, although in our
astounding ignorance, we routinely identify an elephant who has
escaped from the circus, a dolphin that kills his captor, or a
tiger kills an intruder as rogues... as dumb violent
beasts.
Your polite words are nothing more than a justification and rationalization for the subjugation and domination of every nonhuman species on the planet. We are not their custodians -- we have insinuated ourselves into their existence... and as long as your attitude is the prevalent one, I advocate zero population growth and the voluntary extinction of our vile species
Your polite words are nothing more than a justification and rationalization for the subjugation and domination of every nonhuman species on the planet. We are not their custodians -- we have insinuated ourselves into their existence... and as long as your attitude is the prevalent one, I advocate zero population growth and the voluntary extinction of our vile species
And yet I persisted …
Were I to mirror your attitude in defense of my own beliefs,
I might suggest, "you first." As things stand, I will
say I would defend your right to express yourself, as I believe
that you do not actually advocate the murder of individual
humans. It may be that you rue our bad choices, and wish that we
did not have to make any choices, especially vis a vis animals.
Am I close?
Not very charitable, I admit. My
antagonist, for now she clearly was, responded...
Peter, by all means, please do suggest "you first."
I preach nothing that I do not practice. I am an adherent of
voluntary human extinction (i.e., vhemt).
Now let's talk about you. I think that maybe you enjoy the privilege and comfort afforded you as a human and, therefore, it is essential to for you to relegate all other species to objects of lesser value to justify your elitist worldview. Isn't this the same thing white slaveowners did in the antebellum south to allow them to enjoy the objectification and exploitation of African-American slaves? And isn't the rendering of Jews to a less-than-human social status the same mechanism that allowed Nazi Germany to relegate them to concentration camps and gas chambers?
So as you have arbitrarily decided that people deserve some moral consideration from which you have excluded animals, how is your position any different than that of a polite slaveowner or an eloquent Nazi?
And, as far as advocating murder, I am no fool. But I'm sure we can agree that a dead abuser cannot hurt animals.
Now let's talk about you. I think that maybe you enjoy the privilege and comfort afforded you as a human and, therefore, it is essential to for you to relegate all other species to objects of lesser value to justify your elitist worldview. Isn't this the same thing white slaveowners did in the antebellum south to allow them to enjoy the objectification and exploitation of African-American slaves? And isn't the rendering of Jews to a less-than-human social status the same mechanism that allowed Nazi Germany to relegate them to concentration camps and gas chambers?
So as you have arbitrarily decided that people deserve some moral consideration from which you have excluded animals, how is your position any different than that of a polite slaveowner or an eloquent Nazi?
And, as far as advocating murder, I am no fool. But I'm sure we can agree that a dead abuser cannot hurt animals.
I could not resist one more salvo...
I am so sorry you have such hate in your head, and will pray
that whatever ails you presently will leave you alone so maybe
you can actually accomplish something in pursuit of your
positions. What you propose is blind to humility, ...humanity,
and consideration for anyone including your animals. It appears
you would be god. I will read whatever you post next, having no
desire to claim the last word of our "discussion,"
but after that I am about done with this conversation. I wish
you the best life can offer, and peace.
And my participation ended on this
note, as promised …
Post script
Moral? I suppose it is not to argue on
the internet (I am SO bad at observing that!), and that the passion
of others can not be fathomed, at least without some face to face
discussion, where our humanity is much more evident than it is across
the ether (they call it “the cloud” now). In this case, though, I
wonder ...