Please do not take it amiss if I observe that the term
‘beastiality’ is a Victorian construct that expresses
a deeply negative view of non-human creatures.
They are no more beasts than we are.
Sometimes we are more ‘beastial,’ frankly.
And chickens have
long been distinguished from ‘beasts,’ as in
‘the birds and the beasts.’
The idea that communion with animals, ‘dumb brutes’
and so on, is innapropriate flows from
an anthropocentric theism that costs our partners
on this planet dearly, you can be sure.. Even sexual communion with
the non-human must be reconsidered independently
of such categories. Much is made of the
issue of whether the animal ‘consents,’ however
animals seldom consent in nature. Imposing
human norms on the non-human is part of
a pervasive misunderstanding, a rhetoric of oppression,
that contaminates our relationship with nature.
Sincerely,
Jim Stone, president, CRA
(Chicken Ravishers of America)
We are pleased that you admit at last that this is a family
site, and are gratified that you have deleted the
thread about carnal relations with chickens.
However this is at best only a beginning.
This website contains numerous threads concerning
things no family site should allow.
The list is long, beginning with ‘fipple sucking,’
and goes on to discussions too vile
to mention.
You have taken a step. Please, sir, continue,
for the sake of our children.
What about pigeons? Of all the creatures on God’s green earth, they’re the first one I could think of that might actually deserve such a fate! I’d feel more sorry for the human then for sure!
The amazing thing, to me, is how you and the others complaining about others acting “morally superior” and preachy seem to have missed that no one has even presented an argument about the superiority of vegetarianism, nor attacked any non-vegetarian. Redwolf presented a simple defense of vegetarianism without preaching, and pointed out that Brian’s attack on vegetarianism (which came before anyone said anything about vegetarianism) was ill-founded. Carol simply pointed out that Brian’s post was rude and insensitive (and it was, quite boorish really).
And the thing that really gets me is that Brian starts the whole ball rolling with a rude and blatant troll, then gets uppity about it and complains about others doing things they haven’t even done, and whines about wanting to get back to talking about whistles. Why start a thing and then complain that it’s taken up, fella? What a small and hypocritical thing. If you’re going to complain about others – especially others who haven’t done the very thing of which you’re accusing them – perhaps you ought to clean up your own house first. Sheesh.
So since the attempetd trolling directed at my PM inbox was deleted without a reply you’ll try to get my goat in the open now huh? I’m not really sure why you keep wanting to drag it out further and further - but if you must…
Herbie, I suggest you read the thread again, and then again, and then once more and if you still can’t find the points where other started to climb onto their soapboxes then perhaps it’s best to ask someone for help. :roll:
The other thirty or so messages in my inbox seemed to be thankful I asked you guys to stop preaching veganism and it’s relationship to modern animal ethics and its relationship between third and first world countries - or whatever you’d like to call it. We don’t care about what you eat. You shouldn’t care about what we eat either. We carnivores have a saying for people like this:
Ravish a chicken, if you will.
And consider, please, that romantic
relations are
often–if not invariably–an antidote to violence.
We generally do not wish to fricasee the object
of our affections.
All of us, carnivore and vegan,
will profit from a deeper communion
with our brothers and sisters in
the animal kingdom.
I’ve done so. On the first page of this thread, Cranberry makes a simple statement that he thought that what happened to the chicken was cruel. You responded immediately with a taunting and rude post about delicious chicken stir-fry, for no apparent reason except to be mean and maybe have a laugh at Cranberry’s expense. Carol pointed out that your action was rude – and it was, a sort of slap at someone who’d just expressed their feelings – aimed, as it was, at a vegetarian, and in your next post, before anyone has even defended or preached about vegetarianism at all, you wrote:
There’s a large percentage of us who are also just as bothered by all the vegan/vegetarian types who seem to feel the need to speak their mind (read: preach) every chance they get about how morally wrong it is and how cruel it is ad nauseum.
That’s to say, you wrote this before the subject came up; you got preachy about others “preachiness” before anyone said a thing. And also included some inaccurate statments re: human canines, to boot.
The other thirty or so messages in my inbox seemed to be thankful I asked you guys to stop preaching veganism and it’s relationship to modern animal ethics and its relationship between third and first world countries - or whatever you’d like to call it.
None of this is in this thread. No one has said vegetarianism or veganism is uperior to any other lifestyle. The responses from vegetarians were (from Cran) to say they didn’t want to get into it again, and from Redwolf, who only pointed out the flaw in your canine/bacteria theory (which is in fact, flawed).
So, first you were rude; then, at least in part, wrong; then you got angry about things that hadn’t happened; then, when it was pointed out to you that you were rude and wrong, you accused vegetarians/vegans of being preachy and forcing their philosophy at others when no one had done such a thing. Then you wondered why we couldn’t just talk whistles, when it was your rude and insensitive post that started the discussion.
The amazing thing to me is that you just don’t see that.
We carnivores have a saying for people like this:
GO SCREW A CHICKEN! > > > > >
Again, rude and insensitive, even to the moderator, who explicitly stated that this was the sort of thing that caused him to delete the first thread. I’m glad that most “carnivores” I know are considerably more civil and respectful than that; you really shouldn’t have the temerity to lump those decent people in with you like that.
I’m going to go have brunch now with a friend, who is going to order an omelette made with meat and eggs, and it’s not going to bother me, because my ethical stance is my own and I don’t expect others to hold it. Where you hear a person say that they are upset by the harm done to a chicken and respond with “Mmmmm! Chicken stir-fry” just to see the other wince, I am not going to say “Oh, those poor hens and pigs . . .” to try to make my friend feel bad. I guess that’s the difference between the polite and compassionate and the boorish.
I am vegetarian because I can be. I can quite conveniently find healthy and enjoyable food which does not require that any animal be intensively farmed, or killed in order for me to eat. Whenever possible I avoid products that contain leather because I prefer not to contribute to a market that causes the death of other creatures. The leather thing is harder than the food thing because non-leather shoes are often crap and don’t last 5 minutes. Nevertheless, I do my best.
If it became very inconvenient, or unhealthy, for me to be a veggie then I would eat meat and feel little guilt about it. I am happy enough with the compromise that I avoid having things die for me unless it is necessary.
I am not an evangelical vegetarian. I don’t care what other people eat.
I will eat what I please, and I don’t care whether herbis, carnis or omnis disapprove.
Dale: it’s your board, delete what you want. If in doubt, and if it’s a family board, then delete anything you feel inappropriate for family viewing. It’s a valid, and considerate, attitude. If anyone objects, I suggest that the problem is theirs, not yours.
Hmm. That doesn’t actually make a great deal of sense. For that matter, neither does quite a bit of your anti-veggie ranting. Calm down, man. Go have a burger or something. :roll:
In fairness to Brian, this is what he responded to and I don’t
think it’s a big stretch to see this as vegetarian
preaching. The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.
I don’t know what it means to say that this is a family site.
In the past we have said onboard that this isn’t for
children, when the objection arose that some posts
might not be readable by children.
I thought that policy makes sense. We say what we
think, civilly, parental discretion advised. I think it’s
worked well enough for nearly a decade. Is something
changing? Best
Herbie - ya just don’t get it do ya? Again, I think someone slept through elementary biology class - but since that’s not really the point. I said what I said and I stand by it unabashedly. Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow - even if it’s made of chicken. Funny how a decided few (who we’ve heard from before on the subject) took offense at something originaly directed at poultry. A direct correlation to brain power? You decide. Anyway, I’m having fun with this!
Okay Dale, do we really have to start watching what we’re writing because children might be reading the posts?!? While there’s a war between vegies and carnivores, this is the only thing I’m worried about. Now that the board has more “OT” messages than whistle or music related ones, spiced up “OT” threads are sure more interesting to read.
Brian, I have degrees in both biology and anthropology. I make my living developing treatments for people with cancer. I help others, even those who eat meat. My work might even save your life someday. You’ll have to lecture someone else about their knowledge of biology. I’d suggest starting by educating yourself.
Jim, I’m frankly not sure how Cranberry’s objection to the assault of an animal – he said nothing about vegetarianism or killing animals for food – can be seen as particularly preachy, except by people who actually support the sexual assault of animals.
Hmm. Maybe that explains more than I thought.
Since Brian has been only rude, after having directly insulted other members and accusing them of doing things they haven’t done, and hasn’t responded at all to a substantive point, and since he admits to having fun doing so, well . . . Yeah, Brian, I think there may be a direct correlation. Just not the one you think. (If only there were a killfile on UBB boards. Bye.)
I have noticed in various threads recently a number of forum members claiming the childish rudeness they sometimes post as being indicative of their ‘sense of humor (humour)’. Personally I often have doubts about this being anything other than a justification for continued rudeness.
Also although there are good reasons to use the ‘over the top’ approach it is incumbent upon those who do so to avoid the risk of going ‘beyond the pale’. Of course I understand that it is often difficult to see those boundaries that are necessary to maintain at least a semblance of decorum amongst so varied a membership. This can lead to moderator actions that might seem arbitrary.
In conclusion I suggest a bit of self restraint may be in order as in “Do I really need to make these remarks to maintain my self esteem?” and “Are the comments I am about to post really devastatingly witty, or just make me seem a petulant child?”.
I realize this can have an effect on your post count, take a look at mine.
Funny how a decided few (who we’ve heard from before on the subject) took offense at something originaly directed at poultry. A direct correlation to brain power? You decide. Anyway, I’m having fun with this! 