Community Forum
|
Welcome,
Guest
|
Meat. It's what's for murder
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
Do you feel each one of us has the responsibility to stop the torture and murder of innocent animals by boycotting the animal slaughter houses industry? Please, feel free to share your anger about the cruelty involved in this bloody business and to share ideas and information that may educate people that still don't understand the connection between meat and animal cruelty.
|
TOPIC: Meat. It's what's for murder
Meat. It's what's for murder 1 year, 2 months ago #143
|
By Vi Ransel It invariably comes down not to "their" eating other animals that have been killed for them, but our "killing" plants and eating them. In an effort to derail discussion and take the spotlight off the issue, meat-eaters refuse to deal seriously with the topic, remaining in denial, or refusing to interrupt the delicious comfort and convenience of the habit deliberately grown in them by the public relations, advertising and mass production mechanisms of corporate capitalism's need to increase sales of meat products. Pavlov's dogs would understand this. The argument that humans are carnivores is outdated by scientific information. Raw meat, anyone? That carnivorous animals who have no choice in what they eat should be singled-out for their meat-eating is, what, disingenuous? That human animals should always come before any other animals is a supremacist premise. Animal Farm, perhaps? Try peddling that passivity in the face of annihilation is a virtue to Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis, the current recipients of Western Civilization's obsessive/complusive drive for dominion. Nota bene: No one has suggested preventive nuclear attack on slaughterhouses, CAFOs and meat venders. No one has advocated shooting meat-purchasers in the face with shotguns. The most ludicrous suggestion of all is that the odor of burning flesh has an "instinctive" appeal to human animals. Would that be with marinade or BBQ sauce? The smell of charring flesh, unadorned with condiments, is off-putting, to say the least. Perhaps some white phosphorous would make it better. While the "authors" of such "arguments" claim to want scientific fact to back up vegetarian/vegan statements, this is not the case. They simply seek to continue to do as they have always done without anyone's comments, to be left in peace while the cultivation of "livestock" for the titillation of their tastebuds hastens the destruction of the planet and the onset of hundeds of thousands of cases of preventable, chronic disease. Like it or not, whether you care about animals' - or plants' - lives or not, this is self-destructive behavior. Is there a part of SELF-destructive that remains unclear? The science of climatology and the science of medicine have proven that meat-eating is eating us alive. Case closed. That the culture of meat-eating should be held sacrosanct, forbidden to be exposed for what it is, that discussing this subject seriously is held up to ridicule is again, self-destructive. Dominion, once tasted, is most often forever. The messenger is metaphorically slaughtered. Whether the victims of dominion are human, or other animals is not the crux of the argument. The root of the problem is some animals feeling entitled to dominion over others to the point of discontinuing their existence, whether by WMD dispensed remotely on weddings and funeral parties or ripping them apart while conscious in slaughterhouses, whether by confinement in concentration camps or in CAFOs. The slaughter of human animals springs from the slaughter of their brothers, non-human animals, as the story of Cain and Abel and the subsequent murder of everything that moves illustrates. There is a breadcrumb trail that leads from the murder of animals to the murder of people. It's like a gateway drug. Ask Bush, who delighted in blowing up frogs as a child and graduated to blowing up entire countries full of people. How many times must this site state that the fight is for ALL sentient beings to be able to their lives as their own, not as prey, physical, economical or cultural? How many times must it be stated that this is a war in which there are many fronts, that each of us may choose his or her own battle, but that we are all, supposedly, on the same side here? What is it about the dominion of one over the other that fails to be perceived as counterfeit, bankrupt and immoral?  |
|
When a man wantonly destroys one of the works of man we call him a vandal. When he destroys one of the works of god we call him a sportsman. ~Joseph Wood Krutch
 |
|
