| 
Dear Awakeningmystic, "The only power a woman has to turn the act of rape into an act of "love making" would be her consent." CLANG!! Nail on the head! That's correct, her "Consent" - her power to choose. And what an underappreciated power that is. This word, "Consent", I love it. I believe it should be a foundation stone of ethics in the world, but it isn't for reasons I'm certain we'll touch on later. But let's all join hands and say that word again together shall we? "Consent" Ah, I see some of you used your power not to. I respect that. "However, I question the use of the term "love making" in this particular context" Absolutely correct to question it. I do believe my sarcasm needs work. "However, animals are in no position to consent to being used, abused, caged, mistreated, hunted, slaughtered, eaten, or even trained to jump through hoops of fire or to balance on one leg while wearing a ballet costume for our amusement." Very true also, and in addition it should be noted that, given the opportunity to, AN ANIMAL CAN CONSENT (forgive the caps) to the afore-mentioned list. They think and feel and express emotions (therefore intelligence) like we do, because we are also animals as I feel complelled to remind people. You would notice, I am sure, that such a creature would express it's opinion quite obviously when faced with abuse if it were allowed to do so. And you have to respect that if you are to respect the human animal's right to consent also. I am a human animal and I do consent to wearing a ballet costume for amusement. Please respect my wishes, I feel pretty. "As "higher beings" we should use our intelligence and our emotions (compassion, empathy, etc.) to value and protect the lives of others and to act as caretakers or custodians of animals rather than to take advantage of them. Perhaps this comes close to what you were implying with your analogy." I think that perhaps it does come very close indeed. But to state the obvious (to you and I) in such a way without any attempt at putting it in a human perspective (hence my little rape/murder/cannibalistic fiasco) will simply fall on deaf ears. I am certain that even my way of doing things has had the same chance a wandering molecule has of tripping a blundering self-obsessed dribbling idiot, such is my perception of the masses.Controversy was necessary to spur any sort of reaction. The very thing about this thread that spurred me to the keyboard was the opinions of some people who found it 'a bit annoying' that someone might actually have an opinion based on moralty (It is of course much better to inherrit your opinions or believe the ones of the friendly little people on the television isn't it?) and of how some vegetarians get "in-your-face about it". I know a lot of vegetarians, and I've never met one that isn't a peaceful, non-offensive and considered human being, I can't imagine any of the ones I know getting in anyone's face at all! Thankfully, I am free/devoid of such admirable traits and I quite enjoy being nose-to-nose with anyone who can't see beyond theirs. "Jonathan Swift, though ponderous, excelled at satirical commentary, as do you (thus the earlier allusion)." Now don't make me blush or people will see through me. ::::: Dear Wyote, I like you. You have a brain and you're not afraid to use it. Splendid news! "ok then. how do we solve this problem of being kind to the food we eat?" Kindness to it would be nice, but we don't even have to do that. Just respect will do. Respect it by not eating it. I wouldn't eat you if you didn't consent to it (this is one of the resons why I am not strictly a vegetarian). If I approached you, knife, fork and tomato sauce in hand, I would take your firm fist to my head as a sign that you did not consent to my intentions. As hungry as I might be, I might have to simply respect that and have an apple and some nuts instead. "if we let animals die of natural causes before they are consumed, rather than killing them, well there simply would not be enough meat to feed all us friggin humans." Well, I'm not sure that if we did 'have' to eat meat that would be so true either. Naturally deceased meat would probably not be good for you, I profess my ignorance in such matters and am open to education on them. Speaking of education though, It is my opinion that it should be your parents who should teach you these things, and therefore I am sightly embarrassed to resume their role, but, we no not 'have' to eat meat at all. We are 'able' to eat meat, yes, we are able to eat small plastic pellets and golf balls if we want, but they are all, to varying degrees, not actually that good for you. These "friggin humans" are lying to you. Ronald McDonald actually wants your money not your friendship. Vegetarians and vegans are not necessarily the emaciated and skeletal hippies that their stereotypes would suggest. Believe it or not, on average, they live many years longer than your average omnivore. "this leads me in to thoughts of how horrible technology is, but technology is actually a wonderous thing." Technology and science are our only hopes of saving us all. I'm going to pat that sentence on the head and leave it at that for fear of being sidetracked down the route of theology. "but thats a different issue." Agreed. "how can we be ethical and still eat meat?" By not eating it. It won't kill you. Try it, just for a day. See if you survive. Beware of beans, they won't make you popular if you're planning a bus ride and also beware of tofu, it tastes of unflavoured condoms. Seriously though, society would eventually prosper and grow if we were to amputate this barbaric practice from it. We would be more efficient and streamlined and certainly be a really big step closer to moving toward our 'ideal world'. Hark? Did anyone hear birdsong? No, you're right you didn't hear it. Sigh. Neither did I. I mearly heared the lonely clattering of my keyboard and russle of my taffeta dress. Metal Giant
|