Grumpy Ol' Jose, sitting in the corner, munching on some pork rinds

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/wp-content/uploads/cow-slaughter1.jpg

If anyone read my last two blog posts, you would know that I started them off with disclaimers about my potentially offensive diatribes. I lead this post with the same warning. I am not trying to offend anyone in our class, or anyone outside of our class for that matter. I am simply stating my opinions as a rational human being, the most intelligent and powerful creature on this Earth.

Which leads me to my first point. Animals ARE inferior to people. Thus we have the right to eat them, hunt them, use them for clothing, test medicines or perform experiments on them that could be beneficial to human beings. The value of using animals in entertainment is slowly but surely losing supporters, including me. There is no reason to have elephants and tigers perform idiotic tricks that serve no purpose. I do believe the world would be a better place without Shamu or circuses, if only because they are completely unnecessary. Go on a safari or go whale watching. That is a much better alternative than seeing elephants stacked on top of each other.

But I digress. I still believe that eating animals is in no way a moral issue that human beings must face. There may be a day that animals are no longer needed to be killed for meat, a day when a cheaper, more healthy and tasty replacement for meat is found. But for now, I will look forward to crawfish season the same way I look forward to football season.

Eating animals is something that is necessary for my diet and something I enjoy doing. Plain and simple, and that will never change. I do not care how the food is prepared and I never will care. I also find comparisons between animal slaughters and mass murders such as the Holocaust asinine and should be prevented at all costs. Elizabeth Costello asks me to "pardon the tastelessness of the following" claim about Treblinka's similarity to a slaughter house (Coetzee 66). No, Elizabeth, I will not pardon you. Even if all of the 11 million people slaughtered by the Nazis in the "Good War" were able to pardon you, I would not. By pardoning you, I am entertaining the idea that somehow pigs are equal to human beings. I am not saying that you should not have the right to compare the Holocaust to animal slaughters. I am saying that I believe that your argument has no ounce of credibility when you bring up the holocaust, and I am personally offended.

And in the issue of clothing and scientific research. If researching and torturing animals (I will not dance around this word, what animals go through in those labs IS torture) can benefit even ONE human being, than it is worth it. That's all I have to say about that. But clothing is another issue. I do not agree with the practice of fur farming because it requires the use of wild animals for a wasteful and unnecessary industry. Plus, furs look f-ing stupid. But I do not at all have any moral qualms about wearing leather. Leather comes from cows, which are domesticated and anything but facing extinction. I do not care how it is made, as long as it is made. Leather makes for great boots and great belts, part of my everyday attire. I therefore have no reservations against the leather industry.

Animals will always be a big part of my life, that is without doubt. They feed me, they clothe me, they spark wonder and fascination with nature, and they wonderful to care for in specific situations. But I will never believe that animals have anything resembling the cognitive abilities of people. Doniger's interesting observations about animal language includes a thought provoking line: "[animals speak], and we refuse to grant them the dignity of listening to them. (Course Anthology 355)." This may be the case, but I will never think a dolphin will have anything relevant to say to me other than "Feed Me" or "Don't Hurt Me." A dolphin may wish to communicate to me that it wishes for me not to hurt it. But if the dolphin is tasty, nutritious, and has enough members in its fellow species that harming him would not endanger his species existence, than I will harm it without hesitation. I bring back the same analogy from my last post, does a dolphin EVER show sympathy or mercy for the thousands of fish it will inevitably kill in his life? No. As a fellow "Earthling," a fellow animal, how can anyone expect me to show mercy for a dolphin if I need to harm it for my personal benefit?
http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/dog-meat-22.jpg

I think one fascinating aspect of this discussion that I have not yet touched on is how I feel about eating dogs. Well to put it bluntly, I don't care at all. Dogs are loyal and fun, but they have been bred to be that way. Their ruthlessly efficient predator cousins, the wolf, is not nearly as loyal or charismatic (in most people's minds, to me wolves are beautiful example of evolution at its best: fierce, determined, powerful). Our society does not eat dogs simply because we view them as pets, and it would be strange indeed to eat animals which most members of our society share emotional ties with. But if another society somewhere in the world feels the need to raise dogs for consumption, I can say nothing about it. Indians can just as surely attack me for eating and wearing their sacred cows, so how could I attack a Korean for eating dog meat?

As disorganized and messy as this post was, I hope it helps explain my viewpoints. I also hope that anyone reading this appreciates my frankness and honesty. I do not care about animals I eat, wear, or benefit from experimentation on them. And I never will.