Weekender (1)

Day 42. 133 pages, 60,943 words. Maybe tomorrow.

Nothing much to add for today. Had a nice week, still recovering from the operation a bit, sleeping in and generally taking it easy. Off to Maailma Kylässä today, to stock up on spring rolls and ginger beer.

Had an espresso from my birthday coffee bean hand-grinder and aeropress today, it was pretty damn good but over very quickly. I had to resist the temptation to make another one. Will probably be buzzed from it for a while.

Enjoyed an interesting argument on Facebook about where the line is drawn between pet and food, on a spectrum of cat/dog – rabbit – horse/cow – chicken/duck. I came down on the side of “all of those can be pets, and all of them can be food,” and for some reason this got me marked as an evil prick, which was amusing. I’m mildly curious to try dog meat but you can’t buy it here (not at any shops I go to…), and I’ve tried lynx so I assume cat is similar. It’s not great.

Anyway, the right to live and the will to not be eaten is universal to all animals, which I think was the point of the campaign (the original question was posed by a billboard from some dumbarse group like PETA). If you eat one but not another, that shit is cultural. You’ve been convinced, by the animal’s role in your culture, that it is closer to human and further from livestock.

And yes, I’d prefer animals not to be treated cruelly in battery farms and hormone-poisoning and force-feeding situations, but I still eat McNuggets. Being a sentient apex omnivore necessitates a disconnection of empathy where your food is concerned. I guess my empathy is more readily disconnected than others’. Which is good, because meat is delicious.

I held off on my debate A-bomb, which was an intellectual exercise on eating human flesh. Naturally I wouldn’t do it because there are strong legal and health reasons not to. Beyond those, what do you have? It was a sentient being? I was capable of communicating with it? It was able to tell me it was okay to eat it when it was dead? Would that be different to eating human flesh from a person who had expressly forbidden me from eating it after death? Yes, it would be different, but how? Would that be different to murdering a person and eating them? Again, yes, because of the law. Killing a human against its will is murder. Killing an animal against its will is considered murder by hippies, but not by the law (theft applies, but not murder). And so on.

Anyway, WordPress is out of text space and I am out of time. So I’ll leave it there.

This entry was posted in Hatboy's Nuggets of Crispy-Fried Wisdom, Kussa mun hopoti? and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Weekender (1)

  1. stchucky says:

    Badly trimmed screenshots on phone because I need my PC to do that properly. The guy was directing his arguments at Contro, whose thread this was, but was mainly arguing against me. By the time he actually engaged me, I realised he was a moron so my interest in continuing to debate him was not high. My interest in the intellectual exercise, however, was enough for me to bring it here. I didn’t consider him worth pursuing it with, because he wasn’t equipped to join in. Snobby but true, at least from my perspective.

  2. aaronthepatriot says:

    You are indeed quite a prick, I must agree. I mean, how much have you been talking about your prick lately? I rest my case.

  3. brknwntr says:

    THIS discussion I will join.

    Animals can think, animals can feel, animals can anticipate pain. They see man in the wold and they know he is a predator. Why is it OK for me to eat them? Simple answer is God told me I could. I have yet to find the person willing to argue with God, that I am willing to listen to. I am perfectly comfortable taking an animal’s life to feed myself. I feel bad when I have to kill a fish that is too small because he swallowed the hook, and I feel guilty if I take a life and then DON’T eat it. But I am fine with the act of feeding myself.

    Of course I know I’m an evil prick, so take it with a grain of salt.

    In a TRUE emergency, I would not judge those who consume the flesh of a fallen comrade. They should make every attempt to preserve his life, but once that fight is lost, I’m not going to condemn them to starve while he lays there.

    Is the eating of human flesh wrong? Yes, I think so, but that belief is again based on my belief in their being a God, a belief I recognize is not shared by many. And if it came down to dying or eating, I’m not sure what I would do. But again, I’m an evil prick, and I do slot of stuff my faith says I shouldn’t.

    • stchucky says:

      Good answer, I feel much the same way (give or take a few obvious motivations).

      Seems to me that there are legal, health and moral reasons not to eat human flesh. I’m fine observing the law because I believe ours is a society of laws and I don’t feel strongly enough about it to disobey them. I’m fine with the health issues that might come from excessive or exclusive consumption of human flesh – that is, I’m fine with observing those regulations and rulings.

      The moral issues, I guess I would have trouble accepting. But I have no problem with people living by those moral examples, as long as they don’t try to Argue On The Internet with me about it. Particularly when my balls have been hurting for almost a full week.

  4. brkn says:

    I barely got that posted before my phone died. I’m aware there are errors, nutpick away.

  5. I just wanted to add that rest assured cats don’t have any trouble at all deciding whether or not humans are pets or food. Though they make exceptions for the useful ones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s