The Inconvenient Truth…or a Convenient Preference?

The hard fist of morality treats the noble nature of egoism altogether without compassion.

You start back in fright before others, because you think you see beside them the ghost of right…. Another would simply ask thus: Do I will what my opponent wills? "No!" Now then, there may fight for him a thousand devils or gods, I go at him all the same!

-Max Stirner

Just, adj. Just as I want.

L.A. Rollins

Animals kill animals of certain species for meat. Human beings kill other human beings—and avoid killing certain animals—for metaphors.

-Thomas Szasz

 

A status update a friend posted on Facefuck proved quite the convo-starter a week or two back:

Queen AW thinks that the world would be a much better place if people would stop regarding morality as an inconvenience.

Now it turns out my quoted friend, a staunch ethical vegetarian, posted this as part of week long “activism” campaign; initially encountering her status sans context prompted my amoralistic arse to let rip with the question: “Whose [morality]?”

After a little back ‘n’ forthing between us (more on that in a bit) she boiled her take on “morality” down to this:

I consider the moral action to be that which provides the least amount of suffering (or you can do what you want as long as you don’t infringe on others)…

Such is my preference in interpersonal (human) affairs, as someone who values liberty, tolerance and being left the fuck alone.

However, she then said…

…I do realize morality is subjective though, and that wasn’t my point in this status.

…which left me confuzzled as to her actual point.

I mean, if she sees “morality” as a subjective matter, why speak of it it in a manner befitting an impersonal, absolute law? Doesn’t that kind of talk belie a belief in the subjectivity of ethics? In any case, with all those clashing, competing outlooks in the ethical arena, would she really find it desirable if folks everywhere took whatever they called “morality” seriously?

During our back ‘n’ forth, I brought up the example of Uganda, with its anti-queer culture (and legal system),  to illustrate my point: easy to endorse moral conviction in others, until you see the morals they’re convicted to.

Ugandan misohomists make ol’ Freddy Phelps look like Queen of the Gay fucking Mardi Gras!

image

Still, no one can accuse ‘em  of treating their “morality as an inconvenience”; more hardcore than the likes of Mary Whitehouse ever were, they crank that odious moral panic dial all the way over nine-thousand! Cue suffering and infringement upon Uganda’s homosexuals: an undesirable state of play from Queen AWW’s (and my) perspective, but a result for those Godfearin’ Ugandans for whom concerns of “suffering” and tolerance pale before enforcing the edicts of the Almighty.

Quite the inconvenience if you’re queer and Ugandan, no?

Nevertheless, as far as God Warriors go, Ugandan moralists fight a much more zealous fight than most of their Western cousins-in-Christ: in our exchange, as in a previous Infernal episode, I made mention of the rather fervent anti-abortionists who, whilst never hesitating to harangue godless “baby-killers”, will always stop short of endorsing violent action against those involved in the business. If that lot truly think that abortion equates to paedocide, why not cheer on their brothers-in-arms who take action to stop such? Does their belief in the sanctity of all human life induce something of a paralysis? Or do they simply lack the courage of their convictions, fearing the law of Man more than that of their Lord? Either way, the dissonance must do a number on their collective moral compass!

And either way, as a pro-choice infidel, their dissonance suits me just fine .

Based on her own professed (anti)religious sentiments, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say Queen AW thinks along similar lines…

…but would she do so if she saw abortion in the same light as she does the abattoir?

image

See, from my perspective, the anti-abortionists and ethical veggies don’t really differ all that much: both “speak” for life forms that cannot speak for themselves; both want to preserve their pet life forms from the machinations of Man; both pitch their stances primarily in moralistic terms; both make use of Godwin attacks; both harbour their extremists (clinic-bombers and PETArds); both raise some ponderworthy points (Is late-term abortion generally worth the effort? Could factory farming stand to be more humane?)…

…and both tend to denounce and downplay each other; that is, they see each other’s morality as an inconvenience.

image

image

Being unrepentantly pro-choice on both issues, I expect I’d be viewed as something of an unmensch on either side of the fence. Nevertheless, if nowt else, I can at least claim consistency; I’ve yet to encounter anyone who I could call 100% pro-life; that is to say, in favour of both foeti and fauna.

Actually, scratch that!

image

Still, almost to a person, every religious “pro-lifer” I’ve spoken to, heard of, or read about has held no qualms about gorging on faunal flesh; just as nearly every veggie I’ve spoken to, heard of, or read about (including Queen AW) holds no qualms regarding kicking an unwanted foetus to the kerb in the name of female freedom. In the internal logic of Christian fandom, their stance makes sense, what with man being commanded to multiply and dominate the (non-human) animal kingdom; but what of the abattoir-abhorring atheist who has no Creator, and consequently no transcendent “truth”, to turn to? What makes an abortion “moral” and an omelette “immoral”: don’t both involve ending life?

Excluding the Malthusian and misanthropic strains, what possible basis could atheistic, pro-choice, ethical vegans have for prizing a chicken egg over embryonic human life, especially since the less extreme ones tend to favour human life in other contexts (anti-war, anti-death penalty)?  During our exchange, Queen AW described “situations where someone knows something is wrong, but don’t care to do anything about it”. This, I think, describes the moderate anti-abortion folk I mentioned pretty well; yet, at least within the internal logic of their mythos, they know abortion as a “wrong”. On what grounds do irreligious herbivores decry their pet hates as “immoral”? One could speak of “suffering”, yet what makes “suffering” an inherent evil, especially as some people esteem its benefits in certain contexts?‘

image

I suspect that irreligious vegans would counter by asserting the incapacity for “informed consent” in farm animals and their embryos; which just makes wonder: If postnatal kids and livestock–embryonic and otherwise—are “off-limits” on those grounds, why not human embryos?

Does that  question sound…inconvenient?

So be it.

Scrape away the rhetorical gloss and I bet you’ll find all kindza unrefined desires ‘n’ sympathies at play, influencing this stance or that. Beefsteak Brenda prefers babies to bovines, thus she fights in favour of the foeti; Babe makes eyes at Misopaedic Maya on her way to the abortion clinic, compelling her to save the sow from slaughter; and Ruttish Roger takes one look at Alluring Alicia,  clad in her lettuce bikini…

Dunno about vegetariaism, but I wouldn't mind *her* as part of my five-a-day.....

…and declares himself a hardcore vag- – – I mean, vegetarian (all the while hoping some veggie vixens become…erm…meat-eaters).

Sometimes—probably more than that—“rectitude” amounts to nowt but rationalized ressentiment….

image

…or raunchiness….

Contrary to popular belief, baby dicks *do* have a fanbase!

Imagine someone smearing their shit on a canvas and calling it high art, and you’ll get an idea of how I’ve come to see those who crusade in the name of “morality”. And if, as I suspect, all ethics ultimately amount to aesthetics, more people die (and kill) for their art than I first thought.

image

image

image

Here’s to more folk viewing “morality” as an inconvenience; that may well chafe the sensibilities of the would-be uplifters and Righteous Ones, but it’d certainly please me

If the moralists have a problem with that, well, bring it on: there’s something to be said for a clash of outlooks….

~MRDA~

About MRDA

The beast shouting "I" at the heart of the world. Alien misanthropologist in a homo sapiens skinsuit. Pass the wine and get out of my sunshine!
This entry was posted in Amoralism, Atheism, Egoism, Ethics, Moral Panic, Perspectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Racial Issues, Religion, Society and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Inconvenient Truth…or a Convenient Preference?

  1. N. says:

    Gays, vegans, beheaded folks, race mixing, omelettes, abortions. Packed in a morality box. Jesus, as if there weren’t more important things going on right now.
    You’ve been recycling this preaching about “animal lovers” for years now. What exactly are you trying to say? How many times can you point a laughing finger at those, who don’t find animal torture a laughing matter and paint as the ones who are wrong? Why does your rant about animals always come across as an attempt to rationalize your lack of empathy for animals? Should everyone find animal torture acceptable? No matter how many fancy schmancy quasi philosophical words, such as -ohmiegosh- morality and ethics, you throw and flip around, it boils down to the point of all the above having nothing to do with the fact that some people, plain and simple, do not enjoy in a notion that animals are tortured; some even feel emotional pain because of it. Yes, I know, how stupid that it makes you feel pain when hearing/seeing/reading about animals being tortured. Some people just don’t give a fuck about being SEEN to others as some moral and ethical fuckers; some people truly and genuinely feel emotional pain because of it and WISH it could stop. I do, however, question those, who self-righteously, with all the self-importance, babble about us as being some hypocrites, who are all about the perceived moral and ethic fuckery. You go, MRDA, you’re a tough mofo because you think it’s not immoral (never mind not right!) to torture animals. Geez, couldn’t you apply to some pissing contest instead, to stroke your ego?

    And, oh, look, it’s yet another man talking about abortion. How lovely. Are you pregnant and thinking about abortion? Have you recently had an abortion? No? Why not? And THAT’S the reason why you so easily throw around this situation, self-righteously comparing it with those who care about animals, and actually believing you’ve made a great analogy, argument at exposing seeming hypocrisy in comparison between the two.
    I, myself, never had an abortion. And I sincerely hope and wish I never do. Why? Well, because as a woman, I know it’s anything but as easy and simple as you, a man, make it out to be in this rant of yours (abortion is not the same as morning cum in a paper towel). People like you throw around this abortion thing as if it were as easy as getting a hair cut. Admittedly, few women treat it as such. Few. Most women are torn and have to live with it for the rest of their lives.
    Having said that, as the sole owner of MY body, a subject of me, having all the options I wish to do with my body, whether I can or cannot have an abortion as being one of them, is not debatable. Let me say this again: I want – demand!- to have the sole first and last word when it comes to my body.
    Here’s the comparison that would make some sense. It comes down to having the right. No one has the right to take an animal’s life, much less torture it. Just as no one has the right to dictate what I do with my body. Fine, someone might say, but there’s another body growing inside you. The operative word being inside of ME. Does a cow grow inside of you, thus you having the right to cook it and eat it (and please, no Chinese analogies of cooked fetuses here)? No.
    A woman just wishes to (how dare she?) have the right to make choices with her body as it has consequences on her life. Men do not have to worry about shit once they spit out their cum. But are always the first to preach and rant about abortions, one way or the other. Even comparing it to killing animals and how those women, who wish to still have the right to do with our bodies as we see fit, while advocating (even tho I hate this word) for animal rights.
    Where do you see any connection and hypocrisy between these two?
    Abortion is, usually, the last and most difficult resort for a woman. Does torturing an animal fall into the same box? Or is it something that’s anything but difficult to those, who engage in this act due to greed and carelessness of those who must down a steak every day? Oh, and let’s not forget – money. The more brutal conditions for animals the more money for brutal people. Faux fur just won’t do it. No, animals must be skinned alive. And then it’s people like me, who have problems for actually being hurt and against this, as opposed to those, who see nothing wrong with it. And we are hypocrites, because we wish to have our rights about our bodies intact. No, I don’t think abortion is not wrong, as you claim we think. Or rather, since I’m speaking for myself – I. It’s not just about having the say, only say, what I will do with my body. It’s also the consequences that come without it (and with it). Abortion is the last resort for those women, who make every possible precaution as to not having to resort to abortion in the first place, and who know that having a child is a great responsibility, should be taken anything but lightly and changes life drastically forever: yours and the life of a child, who should not pay for you not being ready. And also would like to have the best genetic match; you can’t go back and change it. Pretty fruitless explaining all this to a man, especially a man, who so carelessly throws around this abortion thing.
    And then you go and ask what makes suffering an inherent evil? Gee, let’s try it on you. Let’s club you upside your head, cut off your feet and hands, skin you alive and throw you in a hole. You think by the time you’re in a hole you’d have a better, slightly better, idea what makes suffering an inherent evil? Oh, because some people enjoy being sado-mazo, that right there is an argument how suffering may not be inherently evil? What does some idiot fuck, who can’t get off without being beaten have to do with an animal, who did not ask to be skinned alive?!
    Why do you like to use animals as your punching bag for your showcasing of some supreme morality by pointing hypocritical fingers at those, you don’t understand since you’re not them (women) and/or cannot muster an ounce of empathy for those, whose voices of suffering are ignored (animals)? It’s not that animals cannot say they are suffering. They do say it, in heartbreaking voices (if being tortured in itself doesn’t ring a bell to humans as to animals’ suffering), just that people don’t give a fuck. And you wanna preach about morality and ethics? You wouldn’t understand a Polish man begging you not to skin him alive.
    What do you think you accomplish by self-righteously moralizing about perceived hypocrisy of those, who are pro abortion (I already explained in which cases and how difficult this is for a woman) but against butchering of animals? You, the self-professed champion of doing what you wish with your life, being the one who is hypocritical when it comes to extending the same right to women and animals. You claim that you know that women know abortion is wrong. Do you know that torturing animals is wrong? Do you think torturing animals is a necessity while abortion is not, or maybe, just maybe, it’s the other way around?
    And why, why the hell do people like you always, and I mean always bring up PETA?! And actually think you’re making some great argument against animal lovers? While I don’t doubt that there are some people, who, while they mean well, support PETA, at the same time, most people, who defend animals, are against PETA. Why, well, because we defend animals! But you actually think we’re so dumb we don’t know what PETA does. Always, when I comment on animal rights, I get PETA thrown into my face. Whenever there’s a talk about animal rights, here comes some smartass with that PETA comment, as in what radicals we, animal lovers are. And you think you’ve made some killing argument. Who, in their right mind, would support a racketeering front, which uses animals to get tens of millions of dollars, only to abuse and kill animals later?!
    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

    Oh, and an omelette does not need to involve ending a life, you know? I just prefer my omelette to be from an egg that came out of a hen, which is living a life out in the open, laying eggs when it feels like as opposed to several times a day via turning on the light and ”living” in a small box with 6 other hens.

    Let’s end with a story of morality and ethics then. A dog will jump into the river to save a human, and it won’t front around and point fingers at who’s more moral and who’s hypocritically moral. A human will push a fellow human down the water to save his life and brutally murder a dog.
    So, yes, MRDA, whose morality?

    • MRDA says:

      Jesus, as if there weren’t more important things going on right now.

      From whose perspective?

      You’ve been recycling this preaching about “animal lovers” for years now. What exactly are you trying to say?

      Hmm…I’ve only written about “animal lovers” once before if memory serves me correctly.

      I do, however, question those, who self-righteously, with all the self-importance, babble about us as being some hypocrites, who are all about the perceived moral and ethic fuckery. You go, MRDA, you’re a tough mofo because you think it’s not immoral (never mind not right!) to torture animals. Geez, couldn’t you apply to some pissing contest instead, to stroke your ego?

      Surely that’d involve stroking something else, no?

      And, oh, look, it’s yet another man talking about abortion

      OH NOES!! Someone with a penis has an opinion!

      Having said that, as the sole owner of MY body, a subject of me, having all the options I wish to do with my body, whether I can or cannot have an abortion as being one of them, is not debatable. Let me say this again: I want – demand!- to have the sole first and last word when it comes to my body.

      I don’t remember contesting that.

      It comes down to having the right. No one has the right to take an animal’s life, much less torture it. Just as no one has the right to dictate what I do with my body.

      “Rights” like “God” are chimerical, if you’re talking about “natural rights”.

      And then you go and ask what makes suffering an inherent evil? Gee, let’s try it on you. Let’s club you upside your head, cut off your feet and hands, skin you alive and throw you in a hole. You think by the time you’re in a hole you’d have a better, slightly better, idea what makes suffering an inherent evil?

      LOL! I suspect my suffering in such a scenario would give you (or whoever the theoretical clubber is) a certain pleasure and satisfaction. My point still stands (over my twitching form, laughing).

      Why do you like to use animals as your punching bag for your showcasing of some supreme morality by pointing hypocritical fingers at those, you don’t understand since you’re not them (women) and/or cannot muster an ounce of empathy for those, whose voices of suffering are ignored (animals)?

      I’m pushing “some supreme morality”? News to me!

      And you wanna preach about morality and ethics?

      Not really.

      You, the self-professed champion of doing what you wish with your life, being the one who is hypocritical when it comes to extending the same right to women and animals.

      I don’t remember saying that abortion was “evil” or that women shouldn’t have them: can you point this out to me?

      Who, in their right mind, would support a racketeering front, which uses animals to get tens of millions of dollars, only to abuse and kill animals later?!
      http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

      I mentioned that in the PETArd post, briefly.

      Oh, and an omelette does not need to involve ending a life, you know?

      So an egg was previously dead matter then?

      I just prefer my omelette to be from an egg that came out of a hen, which is living a life out in the open, laying eggs when it feels like as opposed to several times a day via turning on the light and ”living” in a small box with 6 other hens.

      I think humane conditions will satisfy many folk on both sides of the debate.

      A dog will jump into the river to save a human, and it won’t front around and point fingers at who’s more moral and who’s hypocritically moral

      Does this mean a dog lacks conceptual ability?

      A human will push a fellow human down the water to save his life and brutally murder a dog.

      And dogs will also mortally savage babies. Rin Tin Tin is only one strain of canine.

      • N. says:

        From whose perspective?

        I won’t contest this. First, I will bang my head against the wall in the face of this, then I will say: you’re right. To some, or vast majority, knowing the names of the latest installation of the ”real” housewives of Podunk is far more important than the name of the fucker who presides, for example, Federal Reserve. You’re right. People are different, therefore have different sets of important issues in their life. A non-existing hypocrisy of a woman, who is pro-abortion (or rather, pro-choice as to what happens with her body) and pro animal rights is far more important as opposed to why YOU, for example purposes only, say, owe, to someone, I think around, oh, I dunno, 150K.
        You’re right, and examples above are just that – examples.

        Hmm…I’ve only written about “animal lovers” once before if memory serves me correctly.

        I recall basically the same rant about “I am not immoral for not giving a fuck about animals BECAUSE….PETA PETA PETA”. You may have well written about it only once in the past, but since you recycled it again…
        I guess, according to your perspective, pounding how animals have no rights, is an important issue.

        Surely that’d involve stroking something else, no?

        I don’t know, didn’t think that when men are are (in) pissing (contest) they stroke the dick, as opposed to just holding it. I’m not a man, so I can speak only on process of woman’s pissing.
        I thought the pissing contest is stroking the ego, but I’m not a man, so…

        OH NOES!! Someone with a penis has an opinion!

        *sigh*
        Your comment makes it sound as if I said a man has NO right to ANY opinion. Dude…
        Someone with a penis (I’d rather use a term ”man” since nowadays there’s no telling anymore who can have a penis, but I digress) has an opinion on a subject which has something to do with someone having a vagina. Conflict of interest, to say the least.
        Posting pics of abortion surely does not fly as a penis attached to a man having an opinion only, does it? Unless a penis attached to a man is of an opinion: gee, I had something to do with this terrible situation.

        I don’t remember contesting that.

        It may not have been about you contesting it, as it may have been more explaining, laying the prologue into what followed.
        Again, posting pics of abortion result could very well be understood as contesting it, or pounding the guilt into a woman.

        “Rights” like “God” are chimerical, if you’re talking about “natural rights”.

        There’s nothing imaginary about humans not having the right to torture animals! I can’t believe you said that.
        What kinda argument is this? What the hell does imaginary god have to do with animals having the right not to suffer? Animals, having the right not to suffer does not fall under ”whose perspective”. And don’t even say: says who?
        Are you going against me on this purely on philosophical argument, or do you really FEEL and think this way?

        LOL! I suspect my suffering in such a scenario would give you (or whoever the theoretical clubber is) a certain pleasure and satisfaction. My point still stands (over my twitching form, laughing).

        Don’t think I’d deny what you said. Just as I say about death penalty: sure, it’s to take the criminals off of the streets, for good, so that other people don’t suffer because of them. But it’s also a pleasure part, even though it can never be reciprocal in reality.
        If YOU tortured an animal this way, then yes, I would find a temporarily pleasure in you getting a little bit of what you put an animal through. I’m not gonna sit here and ACT puritanical and moral and the rest of the shit and deny it. I will say it clear and loud. The only problem I always see in this is that it won’t erase the pain of the animal. There’s no traveling back in the past, and changing it. So satisfaction would be limited.
        You see a problem with that? With lex talionis?

        I’m pushing “some supreme morality”? News to me!

        So what are you pushing if not that torturing animals is moral, basing it by pointing fingers at women who are pro-choice: if you think there’s no problem with abortion, then I say there’s no problem with torturing animals.
        How these two go together or how these two can be used as some kind of argument against pro-choice and pro-animals rights?

        Not really.

        Then what are you preaching? Those, who are pro-choice are immoral and are hypocrites because we are also pro-animals rights, whereas you are not hypocritical because you are pro-choice but also pro-torturing animals, and you think you make good arguments for your stance? This is what I got from your rant.

        I don’t remember saying that abortion was “evil” or that women shouldn’t have them: can you point this out to me?

        I got this being all about you being above hypocrites who are pro-choice and pro-animal rights. Between those lines, there was a clear insinuation of how those, you claim to be hypocrites, engage in terminating one life but defend life of animals because we (I) think that torturing animals is evil (here comes the ”based on whose perception is torturing animals evil”) and how we should think the same for abortion.
        Evil, not right… semantics. Results are the same.

        I mentioned that in the PETArd post, briefly.

        Sorry, it’s a thing of a habit to defend myself when obligatory PETA ”argument” starts flying in such debates. Copy-paste process.

        I think humane conditions will satisfy many folk on both sides of the debate.

        I would be, to a certain extent, willing to compromise the meat eating IF animals were treated much much better (I can’t bring myself to use a term ”humanely”). The only reason, aside from some people enjoying in animal torture, that animals go through incomprehensible suffering is money. And those, who, for whatever reason, cannot deny themselves meat (even though, I suspect, could lower the intake) would be the main voices when voting with their money as to better treatment of animals.
        Same, of course, does not apply to fur. There’s no compromise on that. And to take it further, I wouldn’t mind, at all, to see a bitch wearing fur being skinned alive. Yep, I said it.

        However, people like you (I suspect and hope you’re not pro fur), who eat meat, are people with whom it would be possible to work with. If you practice and encourage to buy organic eggs, milk, cheese, meat etc, then progress would be substantial!

        Am I right about this?

        Does this mean a dog lacks conceptual ability?

        *sigh*

        And dogs will also mortally savage babies. Rin Tin Tin is only one strain of canine.

        *sigh*
        I should have seen this one coming.
        There are no dangerous dogs, only dangerous people. Period.
        What do we know about this story you linked to? Do we know how dogs were treated? Do we know what grandma was doing that evening? No. We only know that a baby is dead, and two dogs were killed after. Of course, there won’t be any looking into the matter.
        Banning certain breeds of dogs is also one of those idiotic things, when politicians think will appease to dumb general public. A pitbull is not a dangerous breed. It can become dangerous IF in the hands of sociopaths, who see a dog as some see a Ferrari. When a dog is tortured and forced into whatever a sociopath deems will make his ego bigger (since something else cannot get bigger), a dog could/would be aggressive.
        Which reminds me of the latest happenings in Switzerland. A law deporting violent immigrants. And here come the righteous sheep, crying how this goes against human rights. I’m sorry, since when are criminals humans? Do the non-human potential victims of these criminals have any rights?
        How many times does something from the link you provided happen? 4 in 3 years? Not saying it’s not terrible for the kids who died. But, let’s put this in perspective, for fuck’s sakes! We front as being on the top of the cognitive chain, yet… If we’re on the top of the cognitive chain, then punishment for these oh so superior humans should be according!
        There’s this case… that happened this year. I thought of it immediately upon seeing the story you linked to.
        I might just send it to you over email.

        No, MRDA, few stories like this one do not amount to any argument.

        http://dobermansden.com/doberman-thanks-fireman/

        Do you think there was some conceptual ability in this Dobbie? Was she thankful? Did she do equivalent of a human bringing water to the firefighter?
        Had to link this, since Dobbies have a VERY special place in my heart.

        PS: I started writing an email about Serbia, but couldn’t go through with it, yet.
        You still have the same yahoo address?

  2. N. says:

    Missed this one.

    So an egg was previously dead matter then?

    Did I claim that?
    In the ”spirit” of topic, by eating an UNfertilized egg, you don’t END life. If I illustrate this further: you don’t end life of 200 million soldiers by deporting them into a napkin (or whichever destination you deem most appropriate), just as I don’t end 1 life by ”tamponing”, ”padding”, ”flushing down the toilet” one egg per month.
    Of course, for all intents and purposes, an egg (of a hen), 200 million swimmers or one (human) egg are living matters.
    However, this has nothing to do with ending a life of an animal. Or even abortion.

    Not saying it couldn’t or doesn’t happen that I eat an aborted chicken. Or chicken embryo.

  3. N. says:

    >i>What’s your take on medical research involving animals?

    o_O
    Seriously?
    Extremely against it.
    If that even has to be asked.

    • MRDA says:

      I thought I’d ask, seeing as some “animal rights” folk might be divided, or willing to compromise, when it comes to researching things like cancer cures and the like.

      • N. says:

        If a human being has cancer, for example, he/she is the perfect ground for experiment. Not saying this just in a cynical way.
        Animals have nothing to do with this; why should they suffer?
        Yes, I am well aware of sneaky questions, which play on person’s emotions: what if you/your daughter…
        While I’d have no problem with a torturer being tortured, I do have a problem with torturing innocents (people or animals). It’s not just that you get there, it’s how you get there, which matters to me across the board.

        Same applies to other experiments on animals. There’s absolutely no need (much less right) to torture an animal by pouring liters of detergent into their eyes. Surely humans are not THAT stupid to pour liters of detergent into our eyes, thus needing a poor rabbit to be tortured in order for a label to be put on detergent.
        Surely. If not, who the fuck cares if some dimwit pours detergent into his eyes.

        Use organic cosmetics, cleaning products. Buy from an organic farmer, contain yourself from eating a steak 3 times a day, do not wear fur. Imagine, just how much good you’ve done to animals, yourself and environment* with just these few simple practices. 🙂
        No need to be radical (except when skinning a bitch for wearing fur *smile*). Just a few simple steps. It helps a lot. 🙂
        Brits have got it really good re: all this. You’ve got so many eco stores, so much to choose from. I know, I’ve been buying from Britain for the past 2 years, and I gotta say: no one does business like Brits. 🙂

        *I have nothing to do with Al ”global warming” Gore.

  4. Pingback: Queer Man’s Burden « MRDA's Inferno

  5. Pingback: Erroneous Evaluation! Kanazawa’s Kokujin Cock-Up « MRDA's Inferno

  6. Pingback: The Amoralic Acid of L. A. Rollins « MRDA's Inferno

  7. Tia Foster says:

    The egg analogy is not a good one. Vegans do not despise the egg industry because unfertilized eggs are consumed. We despise it because fully sentient hens are trapped in small cages with their beaks and toes severed and painfully artificially inseminated repeatedly. Male chicks who are hatched and fully aware are ground up alive as they are of no use to the industry. Also, most vegans nowadays hate PETA although using PETA to compare to people who kill abortion doctors makes no sense. PETA has never condoned killing animal abusers.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s