Sunday, 7 September 2008

I could not care less about a rats ass!

Let's make something clear once and for all, animals are not equal to human beings! They can be very cute and cuddly and delicious, but they do not have a big enough brain to have a wide scope of emotions, thoughts or even memories.

What is prompting me to make this very uncontroversial statement? Well there are actually two things I have a major beef with (pun intended). One of which being the militant vegetarians that ever more frequently cross my culinary path. First of all, I believe it's very rude to ruin someone's dinner by commenting on their choice of protein, and secondly GROW UP! Do you really think you own the moral high ground because you're able to suppress your carnivoric nature? I realise that the meat industry is responsible for a huge part of greenhouse gas emissions, but did you know that the burning of fossil fuels and production of carbon dioxide for 200 grams of fake soy-based meat is just as high as the levels for the production of 200 grams of beef steak? The chemical processing needed to give the soy some much needed flavour is just as damaging to the ecosystem. Not to mention the acres of rain forrest that are getting cut down hourly to make room for all the soy plantations. As for the empathy factor, I am not ashamed to say that I reserve my empathy strictly for humans. I have absolutely no problem with an animal being killed for my consumption, and until the day comes when a cow marches up to me to argue his case lucidly and with proper arguments as to why I shouldn't eat him, I'll consider animals a lesser species and view them as food. Besides, what do you think the world would look like if we hadn't become the natural hunters we are? We would all (all meaning the few who weren't mauled by bigger animals) still be wondering the forrest aimlessly in a never ending quest for nuts and berries.

My second objection regards a commercial against animal testing that has been on my television for a few months now, and is driving me nuts! It showes someone bringing a farmer a live ox, in order for it to plough his land. The baffled farmer responds with a weak; "ehm, we have machines for that nowadays" and the clip ends with;
"Well if there are machines for that, why can't we invent something for animal testing?"
Right? Because using a tractor instead of an ox is a fair comparison to finding a cure for cancer with a fictional miracle machine instead of experimenting on all those poor baby rats. The sheer stupidity of that claim is as infuriating as it is laughable. I'm not advocating needless animal cruelty here, but animal testing for medical research is the best hope we have to cure life threatening diseases. And as the daughter of a cancer survivor I can tell you I wouldn't think twice about killing an entire petting zoo with my bare hands if it would bring us closer to a real cure.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are worse things in the world than the occasional bunny being terminated in the name of science. There are actual people suffering all over the world, and I believe our loyalty belongs with them. One of the things that rub me the wrong way about these animal activists is that I can't escape the impression that the problems of the human race are just too scary and complicated for them to handle, so they choose to fight a simpler battle. Animals = good, humans = bad. And if they can get some chicks to get naked in the process (I'm looking at you PETA), well that's just an added bonus. Because nothing screams "We want to be taken seriously!" like a naked Pamela Anderson and her leathery funbags of morality...

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Leathery funbags of morality...

LOL!

PaddyDog said...

Hee! Love your smackdown of the anti-testing lunatics, but would you agree it's necessary to treat animals humanely up until the time we slaughter them for food? I'm not a vegetarian but I won't eat anything that has been pretty much tortured in the interests of intensive farming. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

You said it! I fucking hate PETA and all their minions.

TK said...

That's what I call starting things off with a bang.

Anonymous said...

im with you on this , i love my dog Joel but if it meant curing my sons cancer i would hook him to a car battery myself .

Anonymous said...

Nice try.

Of course all diets are going to have some adverse effects on the environment. But comparatively? Meat is worse, no question. Meat-based diets use about twice as many environmental resources as soy-based diets.

Just because it make you feel better about your choices to argue that animals are incapable of emotion or memories does not make it true. Pigs, for example, are thought to have intelligence beyond that of an average 3-year-old human child. Pigs dream, recognize their names, play video games more effectively than some primates, and lead social lives of a complexity previously observed only in primates.

So fuck you. Enjoy your bacon, you cunt.

Ajax19 said...

Amen to the above comment.

Pigs do feel emotion. They are incredibly social animals. They have feelings. They are smart, if not smarter, than dogs.

Your uninformed rant is pretty pathetic.

Sure, militant/evangelical anythings are pretty fucking annoying, but what's even more annyoing is when ignorant people spout off on shit that they don't know anything about.

If you're down with torturing and butchering other sentient beings just because you /think/ they can't feel, remember, have emotions, or whatever then go right ahead. Ignorance is bliss, sweetheart.

But why don't you, you know, read a book or two on the topic and then get back to me with another rant. If you need any suggestions as to books, I'd be more than happy to recommend a few.

Thanks!

prisco said...

Pigs, for example, are thought to have intelligence beyond that of an average 3-year-old human child. Pigs dream, recognize their names, play video games more effectively than some primates, and lead social lives of a complexity previously observed only in primates.

I would totally eat a 3 year old child. Especially if belonged to a vegetarian.

Pants said...

Paddydog, naturally I agree with you that if we have the means (and in the Western world we do of course) to give animals a nice life up to the point of slaughter, then by all means let's do that. My point was not that we should bully and torture animals just because we can, but I do think human life is more valuable and therefore when animal interests conflict with those of humans, they lose!

As for calling me a cunt "anonymous", let me just applaud your bravery in letting out your inner primate. I usually reserve those levels of anger for people who have actually wronged me in some way. Good luck with the back pains you'll get from dragging your knuckles all over the place, and let me know when your hippie commune finally decides you are worthy of a name, so you no longer have to suffer the burden of being anonymous (as well as uncreative).

Ajax19, I actually have read a lot on the subject, and do not disagree when people say it's probably wiser to moderate your meat intake. But my problem was with people who decide fór me, that what I have on my plate will ruin the planet and makes me a bad person. If we would all suddenly stop eating meat, I seriously doubt the world would be a better place for it. I didn't even touch on the social and cultural implications that would have on the millions of people who are completely dependant on the cultivation of livestock, or the damage it would do to biodiversity. And I didn't just make this shit up, there are many scientist who agree with me. Because there are simply more factors to consider than the rights of animals. Also I think it's pretty mean to call your girlfriend a pig. But then again, I'm a cunt, so what do I know...

Ajax19 said...

I actually have read a lot on the subject, and do not disagree when people say it's probably wiser to moderate your meat intake.

Based on your initial blog post you either (1) aren't reading the right things, (2) aren't comprehending what is you're reading, or (3) are engaging in some type of cognitive dissonance to avoid thinking about realities that are troubling to you. (If it's #3 then that's ok! You'd fit right in with the majority of Americans if you ever decide to cross the Pond.)

But my problem was with people who decide fór me, that what I have on my plate will ruin the planet and makes me a bad person.

Who decide for you? What are you, 12? Are you still living with your parents? Who decides anything for you?

Like I said militant/evanglical anythings are annoying.

I'm 34 years old and have never had anyone, who wasn't a friend or someone I didn't know pretty well, just randomly come up and comment on what I was eating.

As for those who I know who do that? Well, that's what friends are for? We exchange ideas. Tpyically, if the exchange goes poorly, we drop it and move on. If someone continues to press an issue I don't agree with, then I tend to avoid that person.

I find it seriously hard to believe that you constantly being hounded by militant vegetarians, unless Utretch is some sort of Dutch Hippy compound. Well, I guess the Dutch do tend to be a little more blunt than most. But still, really?

If we would all suddenly stop eating meat, I seriously doubt the world would be a better place for it.

It wouldn't be like everyone in the world would just. STOP. It would be a gradual thing. People would adjust and the world would likely be a better place for it.

I didn't even touch on the social and cultural implications that would have on the millions of people who are completely dependant on the cultivation of livestock

Who are these millions of people? The employees of Tyson's Chicken? OH NOES!! What would we ever do if these people couldn't make their fat loots torturing animals?

Having read "a lot" about this, I'm sure you'd understand that most livestock comes from large factory farms (CAFOs) run by massive corporations, not millions of individual farmers trying to eek out an existence.

Most people would likely be better off if the production of meat was significantly reduced. That would mean more grain would be available, thus cheaper, and more people could eat.

or the damage it would do to biodiversity.

I think the earth would manage and be better off for it. The enivronmental impact of a meat-based diet is quite, quite severe.

And I didn't just make this shit up, there are many scientist who agree with me.

I bet those are the same scientists who don't believe Global Warming too, eh? The scientists who are all about Intelligent Design?

Because there are simply more factors to consider than the rights of animals.

Yes, indeed. And those factors as well, environment, health, ethics, etc. also weigh in favor of a meat-free diet.

Also I think it's pretty mean to call your girlfriend a pig.

I did that? First, I just re-read my post and don't see how anything I said could be taken as calling my "girlfriend" a pig. Second, I don't have a girlfriend. Just a wife.

Based on your reading comprehension of my short, little post, I can know see how despite allegedly "reading a lot" on this topic, you came to the conclusions you did. You seem to read only what you want.

But then again, I'm a cunt, so what do I know...

I wouldn't say that. That's horribly rude. Your reading comprehension could use a little work, but you're certainly no cunt.

Sofìa Vicuña said...

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for this! Finally someone who gets it.

socalledonlycousins said...

Based on your initial blog post you either (1) aren't reading the right things, (2) aren't comprehending what is you're reading, or (3) are engaging in some type of cognitive dissonance to avoid thinking about realities that are troubling to you.

Um, yeah, you don't use the word "cunt," but you're still a condescending jerk, and your long-winded tirade alienates me from your position because it's every bit as conclusory and unsupported as you accuse others of being.

Bottom line: You're making a morality choice for yourself but then criticizing others for not accepting your flawed analysis. Biologically, humans are frighteningly efficient omnivores and have been for eons -- it's no accident those cave paintings have spears and wildebeest. Morally and ethically, humane usage of animals is critical. Beyond that, it's anthropomorphism.

As for you, Anonymous, you're a pasty little bag of shit, and you clearly know it.

socalledonlycousins said...

Oh, and Pants: You're so hot it makes my teeth hurt.

Anonymous said...

I love how every vegitarians assume that every single citizen is just like them. Upper middle class white folk with too much time on their hands.

I'm from a 3rd world country. You know what we called beheading a chicken? Lunchtime. You know what cracking open a goats skull after slitting it's neck was? Sunday dinner.

I watch those PETA videos and they are just laughable. The 3rd world sees that every single day and for some reason we arn't crying and demanding it stop. Why? Oh yeah. That's right! We have real problems.

And instead of trying to help create sustainable agriculture in Saharan countries like my own, they instead objectify woman, hold signs, and buy special toothpaste.
Hold those heads high vegans!
Pam Anderson pickets in short shorts. If you cannot draw attention to your cause without T&A then maybe you should consider that you mission might not be that important.

Nobody here is advocating animal cruelty. But if vegans/vegitarians want to be taken seriously a few things they might want to consider:
1. We are not all white or athiest from middle class white American homes.
2. You have to do more then buy special toothpaste and wear canvas shoes for me to be impressed with your 'cause'.
3. Signs of slaughtered animals just make me nostalgic for home. Get a backbone!
4. Exploiting one creature (woman) to stop the exploitation of another is bullshit at it's best.
5. Dreadlocks on white folks looks really stupid.

megbon said...

I should resist these links via pajiba love but I just can't.

You said: "Do you really think you own the moral high ground because you're able to suppress your carnivoric nature?"

Turnabout is fair play here: do you think you own the moral high ground because you haven't?

Look, I've been vegetarian for 10 years and the only time I crow about it is in the invariable (especially from Pajiba land) blithe conflation of vegetarian with PETA and all things PETA-ish. If there's anything I can't stand it's being set up as a strawman.

MG said...

I don't know about the carbon footprint of a meat-eating vs. vegetarian diet, all I know if "Enjoy your bacon, you cunt" is how I will end all conversations from now on.

Enjoy your bacon, you cunt.

The Bagboy said...

First of all, excellent post Pants. As someone who's been lectured for my "choice" to eat meat (and really, it's less of a choice than being a vegetarian...omnivorism is the natural state of humans), I totally get where you're coming from here, and agree with you.

Ajax, I visited England (which is where I assume you mean when you say "...if you ever decide to cross the Pond.") last year, and had a wonderful time. I found the country to be rich and beautiful, full of culture and history and sheer unabated natural awesomeness. Before going over, I was concerned about my reception. I know Americans don't have the best reputation right now, and I never want to come across as the "ugly American", so I was highly respectful to all situations and people I encountered. And I found that I was received warmly and openly by the British people. I would go back in a second, and would even consider living there.

Fortunately for me, the overall attitude of the country was not the same as yours, full of vitriolic rhetoric and moral/intellectual superiority (the very things the rest of the world faults Americans for). Pants stated her opinion, that animal rights should not take precedence over human rights, and for that she got called a horrible name by an anonymous coward and mentally dressed down by you. Why does it make her opinion inferior simply because it differs from yours? I mean, when you say “Based on your initial blog post you either (1) aren't reading the right things, (2) aren't comprehending what is you're reading, or (3) are engaging in some type of cognitive dissonance to avoid thinking about realities that are troubling to you.”, I can only take that to mean that she’s not reading the things you’re reading, and therefore is able to come to her own conclusions instead of the ones you feel are right.

I’ll close this ranting support of Pants by asking you a couple of questions Ajax. I always hear that raising livestock, particularly en masse, is too hard on the environment, both because of the land necessary for grain or feed production as well as methane emissions produced by livestock. Let’s say that people join your way of thinking and start gradually eliminating meat from their diets, eventually culminating in a vegetarian world. What would you propose we do with all the livestock that is no longer needed for the meat industry? Since we’d no longer be eating them, they’d be left to live much longer lives, which would result in a HIGHER need for grain and feed (and free grazing land, since we’d no longer be corralling them in pre-designated areas), as well as an increase in methane emissions. Also, breeding would run unchecked, leading to a population increase and even MORE need for feed and land. Now, we could reclaim grazing land for feed production for humans, but that would lessen land available for the upkeep of livestock. Unless of course it’s preferable to let them starve and die over butchering them and using the meat to provide nourishment. Not to mention the increase in disease among livestock that would inevitably arise from uncontrolled livestock numbers, and the increase in livestock to human diseases that occur from the consumption of diseased animals as well as human proximity to dying animals (this would be in primarily third world nations, the people Pants was probably referring to when she mentioned cultures dependant on livestock, not the meat producing industry you seem to think she meant).

Basically what I’m saying is that there’s no easy solution, but your close-minded, “my opinion is the only right one” way certainly isn’t solving the problem. If anything, it’s pushing more people away from your cause.

megbon said...

But, bagboy, if we stopped eating animals, we'd stop breeding animals; hence fewer cows and pigs. I think the science is fairly well established that eating less meat is good for the environment.

The Bagboy said...

But Megbon, you still don't answer my question: What happens to all the animals already living when the meat production industry is no longer necessary? We might not breed animals for consumption, but that doesn't mean they'll stop reproducing. Just like regulated deer and wild boar hunting, the meat industry helps control unchecked reproduction among the animal population, which prevents loss of viable agricultural growth areas.

For a specific example of unchecked animal populations leading to massive environmental damage, check out the Wikipedia article on the impact that simple rabbits had when introduced and left to breed uncontrolled in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_australia

Ajax19 said...

Bottom line: You're making a morality choice for yourself but then criticizing others for not accepting your flawed analysis.

In the immortal words of Rambo, John J. "She drew first blood, not me."

I am making a choice. I didn't say that everyone to agree with me. I didn't start an internet blog prostelizing about my choices. I live and let live for the most part.

That said, if someone is going to come on the internet and say a bunch of stuff that's factually innacurate and I disagree with and invites (see, "lurves") comments, then I will comment. I will try to set the facts straight.

Do I think doing whatever one can to try ensure that animals are treated ethically is morally superior to someone who doesn't? Fuck, yeah I do.

I don't go around preaching about (unless invited to do so by the internets), but it's a no-brainer, no?

I think people who support the ethical treatment of other human beings are morally superior to those that don't.

There is right and there is wrong. I didn't make the rules, I just live by them.

Morally and ethically, humane usage of animals is critical.

I totally agree. But the animals who give us the delicious meat that we eat are not, by any stretch of the imagination, treated humanely. At all.

This isn't hunting wildebeasts down with spears and bows and arrows. Hell, this isn't even tracking down deer, elk, or whatever with M-16's. The conditions at these places are fucking brutal. There is nothing humane about them. At all.

What would you propose we do with all the livestock that is no longer needed for the meat industry?

We would eat them and then when there was no money in it, the factory farms would stop breeding them like crazy and the population would dwindle. Natural-like.

cass said...

ok.. i understand the irritation when some self righteous prick attacks your own personal decisions...

but ffs man, you turned this into your own self righteous rant attacking a vegetarian's decision.

i myself am a vegetarian, and while i will not attack the decision of others
( my boyfriend is a big carnivore.. though i don't cook the meat for him), i personally don't feel comfortable eating meat and feel a lot better, physically, without it. And i find it wholly annoying that you take the same type of attack in return.


but... your game was to sound like a dick and start some fires, right? so i guess my reaction is unneeded anyway.


p.s. but i definitely won't be getting naked for PETA. yuck.

Ajax19 said...

Um, yeah, you don't use the word "cunt," but you're still a condescending jerk, and your long-winded tirade alienates me from your position because it's every bit as conclusory and unsupported as you accuse others of being.

Unsupported? How's this?

This is just on the environmental impact of it all:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/britains-environment-age_b_53454.html

When U.N. scientists looked at all the evidence, they declared in a 408-page report titled Livestock's Long Shadow that raising animals for food is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all vehicles in the world combined.

And scientists at the University of Chicago showed that a typical American meat-eater is responsible for nearly 1.5 tons more carbon dioxide a year than a vegan.

Indeed, study after study has shown that animal agriculture contributes to global warming and environmental destruction, yet instead of urging people to go vegetarian, most U.S. politicians and environmental spokespeople just continue to hype hybrid cars, recycling, and fluorescent light bulbs as solutions to our spiraling environmental problems.

Carbon dioxide emissions aren't our only environmental concern, of course. There's deforestation, water and air pollution, world hunger, and more. According to Greenpeace, chickens raised for KFC and other companies that "produce" chicken flesh are fed crops that are grown in the Amazon rain forest. And according to the U.N. report, raising animals for food is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

To whit, more than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals; farmed animals are fed more than 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains grown in the U.S.; and almost half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the U.S. are used to raise animals for food.

There is also the unappetizing synopsis by Scripps Howard of a Senate Agricultural Committee report on animal waste and the environment:

"[I]t's untreated and unsanitary, bubbling with chemicals and diseased. ... It goes onto the soil and into the water that many people will, ultimately, bathe in and wash their clothes with and drink. It is poisoning rivers and killing fish and making people sick. ... Catastrophic cases of pollution, sickness, and death are occurring in areas where livestock operations are concentrated. ... Every place where the animal factories have located, neighbors have complained of falling sick."

-----------------

That's just the environmental side of things. It depresses me too much to delve into the treatment of the animals. But dig around a bit. You're a internet savy dude. I'm sure you can find plenty on the horrors of factory farming.

Most of us (outside the of the 3rd world countries) have reached a place in our civilizations where the consumption of meat (especially in the quantities we consume it in) is simply unnecessary. So, it's really a choice.

I take exception to two points raised in Pants' blog:

1. That a vegetable-based diet is no better for the environment than a meat-based diet. It's pretty clear that science has proven the contrary to be true.

2. That animals are lessor life forms than people and therefore we should feel free to abuse them and torture them before killing them for food.

I like animals. I have a dog. I love my dog. He has emotions. He has feelings. He knows who I am. He differentiates between people he knows and people he doesn't know (hence, he has a memory).

Again, pigs, by all accounts, are as smart, if not smarter, than dogs. I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of animals capable of that level of thinking and emotion being so horribly abused and tortured.

If there were some way to confirm that the tasty, tasty bacon next to my eggs and hasbrowns was treated ethically, had a decent life, but was eventually killed so I may enjoy the bacon, I really wouldn't have a problem with that. On that level, I think I agree with most. Man has been feasting on animals forever. I think that's fine.

Unfortunately, outside of some rare exceptions, I really can't get those assurances. Therefore, the only way to be sure is to opt out. I wish there was another way, because, man, I fucking love meat. Those Fogo de Chao type places were my favorites. Never-ending meat on a stick...

Those were good times... Good times...

yoli said...

Pajiba lurker here with some points:
*I saw that commercial on tv (Dutch tv that is), and it annoys me as well, as someone who works with animal testing I can say that the trend is to reduce, replace and refine experiments, that means that people are doing their best to find alternatives to animal testing (at least with vertebrates) so this is not about a group of people refusing to change their ways because they enjoy torturing animals, people it is not a pastime it has a purpose. Experiments happen in a controlled way, under supervision of an ethics committee and not under some crazy wild haired old professor wearing a lab coat covered in blood and tripe.
*Peta does not represent the views of all vegetarians, only a few vocal and fundamentalist ones.
*I was born and raised in a developing country, I am and always will be a meat eater. I love the taste of meat and based on the anatomy and physiology of my GI tract I am positive that meat eating is not some unnatural or more difficult to digest way of nurturing myself.
*socalledonlycousins made a strong point about the moral and ethical duty to treat animals humanely.
*all cows are female

goes back to lurking....

three guesses said...

errrr its the amazon that is being cut down to grow soy to feed the cattle stock in europe miss the netherlands...not really to feed people (much smaller %)....

and animals do have emotions...like girls. And taste way better too.

Maria said...

Mmmmmmm.....unexplained smell of bacon...

Yeah fuck you all, meat is awesome.

b said...

I get that you're just trying to stir up some comments for your blog, so whatever. But as a reasonable vegetarian girl, I couldn't stop myself from commenting. I have a few other veggie friends, and I have never witnessed them *hounding* omnivores about their food choices, nor have I ever done this myself. People get sooo fucking defensive around vegetarians, to the point that they feel the need to write rants like this one as a means of justifying their diet. I was an omnivore for most of my life, and was generally insensitive about the animals I consumed. When I became a vegetarian, I came to think more and more about the lives of those animals I used/ate. And that further fueled my choice to remain a vegetarian. People who make crass comments about pigs and cows and chickens and other animals simply being *delicious*, or some other similar adjective, are only showing how lazy and apathetic they are about food and about the lives of animals other than humans. Fine, eat meat if you feel you need to. But shut the fuck up about it and stop insulting me and my people for it.

Pants said...

Dear Commenters,

I apologise in advance for the length of this comment (and for being slightly tipsy), but I am facing battle on several fronts and I’d like to get it over with. I have expressed some opinions on my blog that infuriated some of you, and while I am not willing to retract any of them, I am taking offence with some of the bullshit statements people have put in my mouth. I’m not going to address all of them since it’s already 3 am for me and I do have a job to go to in the morning. But Ajax19 deserves it!

“I take exception to two points raised in Pants' blog:

1. That a vegetable-based diet is no better for the environment than a meat-based diet. It's pretty clear that science has proven the contrary to be true.

2. That animals are lessor life forms than people and therefore we should feel free to abuse them and torture them before killing them for food.”

---

1.“I realise that the meat industry is responsible for a huge part of greenhouse gas emissions…” were my exact words. I am however pointing out, that a lot of the meat replacements that are currently on the market, are not as environmentally sound as they claim to be. I am not saying all vegetarians are evil or stupid, I am saying that people who think they are better than others because they don’t eat meat often do not look beyond the suffering they might think they are sparing animals, and therefore never think about the possible consequent suffering of humans. The people who are dependant entirely on the cultivation of livestock (and of course I don’t mean the owners of multinationals you navel staring asshat, even though the people who work there desperately need their jobs), like many people in Africa and Southern-America are. Which brings me back to my point. If you visit these places and face the horrible reality that is life for so many people there, you tend to get a little bit cynical about animal rights. These people often don’t even have the most basic of human rights, and I believe their needs should prevail! If you genuinely believe I am a MORON for saying that, so be it.

2.“I'm not advocating needless animal cruelty here, but animal testing for medical research is the best hope we have to cure life threatening diseases.” Again my exact words. I never said people should feel free to abuse and torture animals, learn how to read! Also, you accuse me of being uninformed, and then turn around to call me a ‘creationist’, seriously dude? My lack of faith is announced in my bio, on the very same friggin’ page! Now it’s bad enough that you tainted the name of my favourite football team (I refuse to call it soccer! You play the BALL with your FEET. You should start calling your game “Padded rugby, slowed down and divided up for commercial benefits”), but did you really have shit all over my first blogging attempt? Five times? In bad spelling? I guess you did… And besides making yourself look like the most uptight schoolteacher since Mrs. Trunchbull, you’ve made me feel really important! Because you see, I’m but a humble blogger who doesn’t actually have any say in how we go about saving the planet. I do this shit for fun, I even call myself Pants for crying out loud! So maybe you should take all that venom and energy and write your congressman or something. Vote for a president that will ratify Kyoto perhaps. And I never want to hear I can dish it out but can’t take it again, because I haven’t deleted or even edited one comment. Not even the one naming me a cunt.

Again: I just think humans deserve our sympathy and help more so than animals. We should invest in people, because if they get to build a future for themselves, they have a shot at making things better for all life around them. How is a stray cat going to do that?

megbon said...

See, now you've put The Gourds on your site and it's hard to think of anything beyond how awesome that cover is (best cover ever... I said it. I mean it). But, I think you've closed your comment with a faulty dialectic. I agree that human life should be privileged over animal life. But I don't think respect for human life is mutually exclusive from respect for animals. I'm pretty committed to my vegetarianism, but I also try not to buy shoes made by 6 year old Indonesian children. I'm more successful in avoiding meat... but avoiding meat is easier. You can tell it's meat right away. The sweatshops are more cleverly masked.

prisco said...

I would totally eat a 6 year old Indonesian child. Can you imagine how tender the meat would be from all the sweat? That's like self-basting turkey.

Ajax19 said...

Pants, Pants, Pants...

Come on now. I made your first blogging attempt a memorable. At least next time, perhaps, you'll think a little bit before you just say crazy stuff.

Allow me to retort:

1. Where do you think most of the meat you eat comes from? Seriously. Factory farms or poor farmers in Africa and Southern-America trying to eek out an existence by raising a few cow or sheep? Of course, for there are many, many people in the world where not eating meat is just not an option. At all.

The Netherlands is not one of those places.

Do you seriously think that the vast majority of meat the developed world consumes comes from Africa and South America?

2. Now to address your other comment, the one about human suffering. People used to bring this one up during the whole Michael Vick thing a lot and I can't seem to get my mind wrapped around it.

Why can't I feel passionate about the ethical and humane treatment of animals AND the ethical and humane treatment of people? These are not exclusive ideals. Of course I feel that the rights and lives of people (most, not all) trump that of animals. I never said anything to the contrary.

Humans do deserve our sympathy and help more so than animals. I agree, but that doesn't mean I can't help the animals too. I invest a lot in people and animals. Again, I don't see why one would exclude the others.

As for the stray cat. Yeah, the stray can't build a future for themselves or have a shot at making things better for all life around them, but then again they can't really make things all the worse around them either.

A few other things:

1. I never called you a creationist, my athiest sister. I just said that creationists tend to fall into some sloppy thinking and I thought you had as well. As fellow athiest, I felt compelled to try to do my best to help you out.

2. Yay, soccer! I'm an Ajax fan as well. Well, at least I was when I lived oversees. I don't really follow it all that closely anymore and, besides, Dutch football has really fallen off the map. They just can't compete with the money being thrown around in the U.K. and Spain. See, we're not so different you and I.

3. Yeah, I like "American" football too. In fact, I am enjoying some American football right now. I also like hockey. Excuse me, ice hockey.

4. I apologize for the poor spelling. I didn't really have time to proofread much of anything before posting. I am too reliant on spell check. A victim of technology.

5. And, at last, for the record I never, ever called you, or anyone else, a cunt. That's not how I roll.

Keep on blogging! Don't worry, I wont stop by anymore.

I think you're explaining yourself because you're a good person and bit conflicted about all of this. I know the feeling.

Have a good one, Pants! Vive Le Oranje!

Ajax19 said...

Prisco! You zombie-ass motherfucker! First 3 year olds. Now 6 year olds. I am reporting your ass to TK and we are driving the Murder Tank to your place and taking your zombie-ass OUT.

You have revealed your true zombie nature. Don't worry though. It'll be quick. One shot to the head. Clean like.

Pants said...

I need a nap...

Ajax19, I respect your tenacity but you need to stop messing with peoples words like that. Example; "Do you seriously think that the vast majority of meat the developed world consumes comes from Africa and South America?".
I never said vast majority, you did. I bring up a certain party in the discussion and you pretend I don't know other parties exist. That is not playing fair! As for all the other stuff, I just don't care anymore. You've worn me out. I'm off to hug trees, hear wolves cry, paint with all the colours of the wind etcetera, and so forth...

Anonymous said...

Will your next blog be about abortion, or nuclear bombs? What a corny bitch. I guess it got you the 3 hours of attention you were after, hurrah!

Anonymous said...

Eke, Ajax19, it's eke.

Jeebus, but that was making me crazy.

Misssy M said...

Yep, just as i thought. That person who called you a cunt was anonymous. Isn't it always the way. mr Anonymous, foaming at the mouth and calling people cunts since the internet began...and never with the guts to put his real name to it.

Yay, for Anonymous. What a cunt!

angela.petrowski said...

Dear Pants,

I would like to comment on your views about animal testing. Animal testing is bad science. Animals are very different from people. They react differently to medications than we do. Here are some comments doctors have made:

http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com/quotes.htm

Marie

Anonymous said...

perhaps all those who think they are more important than another species will have the misfortune to come back in another life as a pig, or a rat....then see how it feels.....

just because something does nt express itself in the manner that we do does nt mean it has no emotions....you would have to be very ignorant to think that....

truth is I dont feel anger when I hear horrible things said by mindless meat eating folk...beacause I know that their day will come, they will learn the hard way....so I only pity them

Anonymous said...

Everyone's a public tough-ass until they're the one spitting teeth.  It's cute.

Cliche though.

I agree with most of the posts in this thread ... that is to say; I would torture and rape all of your daughters and sons and enjoy it enormously (like a meal) if it saved my own from harm.  Come to think of it, it might.  I would go as far as to consume from their bodies in front of you until and beyond their deaths.  In fact I even would, were there plentiful alternatives to the behavior and saving my own had nothing to do with it.  I would do so because, like most of you, my value for life is predicated upon a being's level of linear cognition and capacity for articulation and emotional insight, thus you are all food to me (along with being as stupid as dry shit).

I would eat children and I would rape retarded people.  Wait I just did.  K I'm full.  And no I wouldn't.  That would actually contradict my ethical orientation.  How fucking embarrassing is it for you all (even just intellectually) that regardless of what you formulate as reasoning, this would not contradict yours?

Do most in modern western culture now assume that a person's ability to think at all, grants them an earned internal intellectual status?  That is, does thought in it's self (without any of the necessary parallels in that process, of confirmation or denial of accuracy) give them ANY credibilty toward rationale and thus an appropriately lent ear?  Or is it now, that the consistency of thoughts (and therefore the ethics based on them) is no longer an interest to an innumerable set of unfascinating crybabies who simply love that they can think at all?  That the act of thought sounds like a book to them and that this dull and general impression of intellectualism is, then, as close to being intelligent as they will ever get without a desire to be ... and so, Guitar Hero is as good, to an artificial show-person, as the dream of actually forming a consistent thought or ethic now?  Or do utter and unmistakable, INARGUABLE contradictions and weaknesses in thought ... still fucking matter in the arena of public discourse and cognition?  And cast these dickbags into the light of a self-humiliation constantly and willfully unacknowledged by them throughout their menial lives?  As their mouths drag the figured-out thoughts and assuredness that could never, to them, be boredom and power compensation through local diners?  And why would anyone apparently attempt to reason with those who are so obviously without all of the classic fundamental charcteristics valued throughout human history, of what it even IS to reason ... to accurately cognize?  Well for me ... it is that I like to write.  I am, however, entirely uninterested in any sort of reply to it.  EAT A FUCKING BRICK =)

I do not take sole issue with this thread because it is so blatantly ridden with signs of sociopathy; I find it equally uninspired. And I just farted. Oh jesus SERIOUSLY LOL ... Weird timing for you