Chop it up, peel the skin, slow dissection
sick minds – I’m blind to the reason.
Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying….could they continue to exist?
What is vital isn’t always humane.
Man …just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.
-Anton La Vey
So, what with taking in recent songs by the likes of Static-X and Sepultura, listening to friends extol the virtues of a meat-free diet, and recalling the modii operandi of various members of the animal kingdom – human and otherwise – my brainspace has very much been bouncing around the hot potato known as vegetarianism.
(Ha! See what I did there?)
Now,it ain’t vegetarianism per se that disturbs my thought-space, but rather a certain strain of it – vegetarianism topped with an unhealthy dollop of moralic mayonnaise. A placard-pointing, “MEAT IS MURDER!!” mob march through my mind, observed overhead by self-deified denizens from planet PETA – and do I see Derrick Green’s severed head hanging from a clasped fist?
Yes, yes, you vegevangelists – my malevolent meat-eating ways assume clear and sharp visibility under the glare of your (way, truth and) light; my hearty consumption of home-cooked, farm-killed food, plus my (not as) frequent excursions to the likes of Subway and KFC aid and abet the slaughterhouse shuffle.
But what of the alternative? I mean, a veggie diet may or may not be healthier than an omni one, but does it not also depend on the culling and consumption of life? If rights extend to fauna, why not flora too? What’s the stop off point that separates plants from the rest of us in regard to regard? Sentience? Suffering? Well, since plants lack a literal voice, any grievances fail to be aired in regard to the issue, but can it safely be said that they don’t exist? It amuses me that humans do so much hand-wringing over the “rights” of human vegetables, invoking Bibles and Hippocratic Oaths all the way, yet think nothing of pruning the gardens, countrysides and rainforests of the world.
At least animals, endowed with mobility, have the options of fight and flight; those floral fuckers don’t stand a chance!
But, from the looks of things, it seems the animal rights activists even have trouble consistently implementing principles when it comes to their chosen *ahem* underdogs. I notice that the most prominent organization in defence of rights for our four-legged friends, PETA, believes that “… like you … [animals] are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use — for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason.” To this end, they launch a variety of awareness-raising campaigns, one of the most notorious being the exhibition equating slaughterhouses with Nazi death camps. According to campaign head Matt Prescott: “The very same mindset that made the Holocaust possible,that we can do anything we want to those we decide are ‘different or inferior’ is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day.”
If you believe in animal autonomy, the argument holds validity…
….not unlike the reputation PETA have for “euthanizing” many an animal that falls into their caring, concerned hands. Now note that I don’t just mean incurably sick or injured animals (although one could argue if they play the non-intervention card, why not let nature take it’s course there?), but also strays, the unwanted and those of certain breeds, indeed! In other words if humans fail to put a worth on them (via ownership, no less) – death ensues! All this from the organization that stands “against….. the killing of animals regarded as pests”. With nine-out of-ten animals placed in their care “euthanized” in 2005 alone, do PETA merely project when they criticize others for operating animal Auschwitzes and pet pogroms?
Evaluating them by their own standards, I can’t hold back the thought that perhaps PUTA serves as a more fitting moniker—no te quiero, PUTA!
Mind you, even when left to their own devices, far from the likes of brawling bipedal butchers, many a non-human animal lives out an existence best described, in the words of Hobbes, as “nasty, brutish and short”; reading Ragnar Redbeard’s pitiless 19th Century polemic Might is Right, I chuckled whilst visualizing the following passage in my head:
Upon the island of Java…giant turtles…are set upon by packs of wild dogs. These dogs roll the turtles over upon their backs then devour them alive by tearing out their unprotected entrails.When the dogs are gorged, they in turn fall in easy prey to ambushed tigers. Then hunters kill the tigers for their variegated skins.
Animal rightists (who don’t work as part of PUTA) may be able to protect the tiger, dog and turtle from the hunter; but who will protect Raphael from Rover and Rover from Rampage? Who would dare? I figure if these animal rights extremists really were of the true metal, then they’d make some stand in protecting the four-legged fellows from each other, no? If not, why not? Does the inaction serve this a tacit admission that these organizations operate with anthrophobia – as a opposed to zoophilia – in mind?
If so, this crushes their consistency further into the dust; seeing as we as a species birth, breathe, bleed and biodegrade like our beastly brethren does this not affirm our animality in the grand scheme of things? I always get irked by this fascination various ideologists possess in pronouncing us apart from nature; as I see it, we quite clearly exist as a part of it….
…and with that said, I deem the vegevangelist gospel unfit for my cognitive consumption and reject the pleas and polemics by the Pharisees for the Unethical Treatment of Animals!
PUTA, PUTA y tres veces – PUTA!!!