I just saw the following dialog exchange on 60 minutes:weird crazy guy: people that keep animals for the purpose of eating their flesh should be punished.
Morley Safer: people like the taste of chicken.
weird crazy guy, also an MD: people used to like owning slaves, too.
what? are? you talking about? the whole show was all about the ALF and the ELF, and how they are resorting to more violent measures to prevent animal research and environmental damage, respectively.
why bring this stuff up? because it's a good example of what happens when you take a reasonable point (animal cruelty is bad, and should be stopped, or at least reduced), and then you take it to a ridiculous extreme (cruelty to chickens?). seriously, this guy was saying that people should be killed to prevent this sort of thing. I'm not making this up.
ahh, I don't know. I just thought it was silly.
just when i thought people couldn't get any more ridiculous, I did a search on the ELF to get the web address. that's where I got that sweet graphic. an entire website devoted to scholarly study of the invented languages of J.R.R. Tolkien . elvish.org? you guys, plus the dudes devoted to learning klingon, should get together with these ALF people and start hunting down the people that are finning sharks and get something done. stop worrying about the chickens.
let me know when you make some progress.
2 comments:
you are a specieist
the argument, and I forget who said it and am not in my office to look it up, is that of marginal humans. People have no qualms about cruialty to animals as they are under the assumption that they don't feel pain, they don't experince emotions, have feelings...all of which are discounted by science.
The ethical delemia comes in when say a severly retarted child is born, does this child have rights? does this child deserve not to be locked up in a cage with other defectives (for lack of a more sensitve word) and force fed and shoved full of steriods. Most people would say yes. But by any standards this "human" has less mental capacity, less ability for enrichment, and a full life than a dog, a cow and probably a chicken. why then is it morally acceptable to do to animals what it is not to do to a human, who has less of a capacity to be "human" than do animals?
not an easy answer aside from all animals, and I might go so far as to say all sentient beings, have moral standing.
cock fights are not animal cruialty because it is raised and bred for it and it would do its on its own people have nothing to do with it except makeing them have a better chance to live so take this comment and no wat your talking about before you tak about it on line thank u
Post a Comment