:: Yeah, and after they've read a book like Animal Liberation, they'll wish they HADN'T ever heard of him. Books that effectively challenge the established institutions upon which we've become so dependent upon can very easily be left out, or even KEPT out, of mainstream thought. That shouldn't be a big secret to anyone. In fact, in SOME cases, a book's obscurity can be a MEASURE of its integrity.
Can being the operative word here. That's not an exceptionally
good premise to invest into.
:: Stuart, what is this peculiar relationship you have with the concept of "mainstream"? You do know that "mainstream" is not synonymous with "good", don't you? You're scaring me dude.
Of course it isn't. Bill Clinton is president. But let's don't go so
far down this road. After all, I was just taking a pot shot at you.
It's the way I relax after a hard day's resource depletion and worker
:::On "Dark Side of the Moon" by Pink Floyd.
:: Well dang, by those standards, NOTHING is "mainstream" - except maybe the Holy Bible. Hmmmmm..........Stuart, care to comment?
Yes! You're falling into my trap! (diabolical laugh)
:: Equate? Well, he does walk the reader though some interesting equations with humans on one side and animals on the other. If memory serves me well, he asks us to consider an animal's "capacity to suffer" above our consideration for what that animal might accomplish for us. If this criteria is applied first, we quickly find ourselves in a morally shameful position with regards to the other species of this planet because, as far as anyone can tell, animals (mammals at least) can suffer as much as humans can. And until we can prove otherwise, we're obliged to err on the side of caution by exercising humility and respect for what we KNOW as well as for what we DON'T KNOW.
Does he suggest that suffering is confined to physical suffering or
does he go the whole route and suggest animals suffer emotionally?
Many of the arguments which support the positions of animal rights
activists are based on very scant evidence and a whole lot of
subjective and anthropomorphic thought. I don't suggest animals don't
suffer when I shoot them. I just don't find the moral conflict in doing
so. Morality enters into it when certain practices are engaged
in within the meat industry which unnecessarily injures and inflicts
pain. Even inadvertant pain is not a moral issue here.
:: Personally though, I don't need to have all this explained to me to understand that its probably a bad idea, morally speaking, to drip shampoo into the eyes of a roomful of restrained screaming bunny rabbits (that's right, they "scream"), but hey, I guess some folks just gotta have their Vidal Sassoon. Alas, this retched state of affairs probably won't offend someone who needs a book to tell them that its wrong to murder people.
I'll give you the bunnies but I want to knee-jerk to your button
pushing here. Daddio, sit back a minute and think through what you
wrote here. You and I both know it's wrong to murder without the ten
commandments but your comment implies that everyone else does too. That
was societal law as well as a direct commandment of God. Even from your
perspective or a humanistic Jewish perspective it was law like any
other. Do you wish to imply that law is wrong? I don't think so. I
think you wish to suggest that I'm not capable of reaching an opinion
unless the Bible tells me to have it. I wonder if you characterize all
believers thusly. I think your statement makes it apparent that you do.
Dismissing a group of people (as diverse as any other group) out of
hand as you do reveals one of the ticks in your clock Dad. What are you
rationalizing when you do this? Unbelief? I could be wrong, but if you
need to rationalize unbelief (revealing an underlying fear), you're not
truly an unbeliever are you?
"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" Proverbs
"If you don't look good we don't look good" Vidal Sassoon
Is there a wider chasm somewhere?