Michael Vick: All Shook Up

Not sure what to get your loved ones for Christmas this year? Why not cheap out and go for a cheap shot? Send your mom a virtual Michael Vick snow globe courtesy of PETA.

When you click through, you're treated to a snow globe featuring Vick in the prison yard spouting semi-identifiable catch phrases. Click on the globe and wiggle your mouse to shake it.

Or if you prefer sappy to snarky, you could always opt for the cartoon kitties and puppies (and, oddly, monkeys) reminding the recipient that Jesus loves them, too. Apparently because they're just so darned adorable.

For more reason on animal rights and/or Michael Vick--sorry we don't have our own Christmas animations on the topic--go here.

For a website that suggests the people at PETA sometimes fail to be fully Christ-like, go here.

Comments

sage | December 19, 2007, 10:34am | #

Is that Mike Huckabee's son standing behind Vick? What a tag-team.

Taktix® | December 19, 2007, 10:36am | #

Yep, that Michael Vick ranks right up there with Colonel Sanders.

Wait... what?

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 10:42am | #

It's funny that dippy actresses and fashion models are up there with a guy who created some pretty good fried chicken, a hunter (let's not get into his other activities, because PETA only cares about the hunting), and...a guy who tortured and electrocuted dogs*.

* I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as he likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 19, 2007, 10:43am | #

PETA hates KFC. I used to live in a town where a PETA guy and gal (she was hot, outside of her costume I mean) would dress up as a chicken and picket the local KFC (I kid you not)...

I guess KMW doesn't see the irony in picking on PETA because PETA is making fun of figures that they feel violate their beleifs. Cause Reason and H&R never do that, right?

mediageek | December 19, 2007, 10:43am | #

Oh PeTA, your insane shenanigans never fail to entertain.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 19, 2007, 10:46am | #

"I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as he likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole."
Speaking of animals, property and assholes, I take it you'd be fine with bestiality Epi? Your neighbor could bang animals all day long and we should be limited to not associating with him I guess...

I love how anti-animal rights/welfare folks think the assertion "animals are property" finishes the debate. Are they property like my couch, which everyone agrees I can do with what I will? Because they certainly seem different from a couch, don't they (they move, like from the shade to the sun when they are cold, make noise, lick your face, etc)?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 19, 2007, 10:47am | #

So maybe they are property, but property that I cannot do with what I will, since they are obviously different from most property.

Taktix® | December 19, 2007, 10:52am | #

...a guy who tortured and electrocuted dogs*.

* I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as he likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole.

I'm going to take the easy way out here, and say that it should be up to the states to define their animal cruelty laws.

That being said, whether or not Vick should be in trouble for his violent, intolerable behavior is one thing, but harvesting food for eating or fabric for clothing, is not the same...

VM | December 19, 2007, 10:54am | #

Have some fun with PETA thanks to Penn and Teller.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 10:57am | #

Speaking of animals, property and assholes, I take it you'd be fine with bestiality Epi?

"Sex with animals? There's no time, man!"

First of all, thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to use that quote.

I'm fine with bestiality, yes. I'm really not concerned with the sexual practices of others that don't harm human beings.

Taktix® | December 19, 2007, 10:57am | #

Your neighbor could bang animals all day long and we should be limited to not associating with him I guess

I could care less whether a neighbor is banging their dog. In fact, it probably is keeping said neighbor from raping a human...

sage | December 19, 2007, 10:59am | #

Because they certainly seem different from a couch, don't they (they move, like from the shade to the sun when they are cold, make noise, lick your face, etc)?

Your couch doesn't do that stuff? You need to upgrade your furniture.

Anon | December 19, 2007, 11:00am | #

In PETAland, Jews=Chickens

mk | December 19, 2007, 11:01am | #

Speaking of holiday cheer, the picture of Hitch in today's WaPo at the Reason Mag holiday party really made me regret not having attended.

joe | December 19, 2007, 11:04am | #

Haven't you people ever heard of chairdogs?

Bill Pope | December 19, 2007, 11:07am | #

Ethics 101 people: animals are sentient beings with the ability to feel pain, and have physical and emotional needs just like people. As with all moral issues the question is this: how would you like to be on the receiving end of the treament you dish out to them directly or indirectly? They're not necessary for food, I've been vegetarian/vegan for years and enjoy excellent health. Use of them in medical research is a tougher issue, and I wouldn't ban it completely, but would subject it to greater scrutiny. Those who do not reflect on these issues have a HUGE moral blind spot.

Warty | December 19, 2007, 11:08am | #

Christ killed animals, didn't he?

Bill Pope | December 19, 2007, 11:10am | #

He also cursed a tree, causing it to whither and die. The Bible says a lot of things, and some of them are really stupid.

Warty | December 19, 2007, 11:17am | #

Those who do not reflect on these issues have a HUGE moral blind spot.

I'm gonna open up a vegan grocery store. For every $100 you spend, you get a free hairshirt.

jimmy | December 19, 2007, 11:19am | #

why are there prison guard dogs in the PETA video? doesn't PETA believe that any form of animal servitude (pets, zoos, etc) is immoral?

Bill Pope | December 19, 2007, 11:20am | #

To Anon: PETA is not comparing Jews to chickens, but the treatment of animals to the Holocaust. Consider the similarities:

1) Mass slaughter in an industrialized system.

2) Completely inhumane living conditions.

3) Hideously unnecessary medical "experiments"

4) Complete refusal to acknowledge even the most basic rights to the oppressed. Consider the Nazis referring to Jews in an animal-like way as "vermin".

Warty | December 19, 2007, 11:20am | #

I'm guessing they're OK with it as long as the animals get to hurt people, jimmy.

VM | December 19, 2007, 11:21am | #

more on PETA from Activist Cash

joe | December 19, 2007, 11:25am | #

jimmy,

PETA is a pretty savvy bunch. They espouse the most radical position when discussing philosophy, perform outrageous stunts to get press, but agitate for reasonable positions that a good portion of the public can on board with.

It's proven to be a very effective strategy and shoving the center of public opinion their way.

Pro Libertate | December 19, 2007, 11:25am | #

joe,

It doesn't matter, you still can't be the Kwisatz Haderach.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 19, 2007, 11:29am | #

" could care less whether a neighbor is banging their dog. In fact, it probably is keeping said neighbor from raping a human..."

I'm off to the movies, but I will make my usual animal-rights thread challenge that no one ever can refute:
What is it that gives human beings moral consideration that animals lack, and lack to such an extent that they deserve no moral protection at all? Just to save everyone's time I'll go through the usual list of stupid responses and provide a quick refutation:

1. Humans can reason.
Infants can't reason but we give them moral conisderation.
2. Humans are the only beings that recognize rights/moral claims.
Infants don't and we give them moral consideration.
3. The Bible says we are special.
See Bill Pope's comment on that topic. It says it all.
4. Humans can experience pain.
Animals obviously do too.
5. Yes but infants will develope reason, etc.
So I can torture terminally ill infants?
Have fun with your unreasoned out, unsustainable culturally inherited beliefs.

Oh, before someone beats me too it, the juvenile
Yum I love a juicy burger! comment must be made (it is an animal rights thread, no?)

sage | December 19, 2007, 11:30am | #

And the angel of the lord came unto me,
Snatching me up from my place of slumber.

And took me on high, and higher still
Until we were in the space above the earth itself.

And he set me down in a farmland of our own Midwest,
And as we descended cries of impending doom rose from the soil.

One thousand - nay - a million voices, full of fear.
And terror possessed me to end.

And I begged, "Angel of the lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel replied unto me: "These are the cries of the carrots. The cries of the carrots. You see sage, tomorrow is harvest day and to them, it is.the.holocaust."

And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
Like the tears of a million terrified brothers and roared:

“Hear me now! I have seen the light. They have a consciousness. They have a life.
They have a soul – DAMN YOU!”

“Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our bothers!
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah?

Thank you Jesus.

joe | December 19, 2007, 11:34am | #

I've never understood why advertising the fact that you don't realize plants lack a nervous system is considered an argument against animal rights.

What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you, kidding me?

Pro Libertate | December 19, 2007, 11:40am | #

Depends on whether the carrot is part of a giant, sapient network of überflora. Could be, you know.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 11:42am | #

I want some fucking recognition for my ATHF quote, god damn it. How often can you slip that one into a conversation?

What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you, kidding me?

One would be the meat portion of the dish and the other would be the vegetable?

mk | December 19, 2007, 11:42am | #

Joe,

Every time I see that Citizen's Energy ad, I think of you. Any chance you will change your handle to "Joe-4-oil"

Mo | December 19, 2007, 11:43am | #

joe,

Be careful. Plants
are more interesting
and senient than most people give them credit for they can even feel pain.

VM | December 19, 2007, 11:44am | #

"What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you, kidding me?

One would be the meat portion of the dish and the other would be the vegetable"

Or consuming the latter allows you to have your pudding.

joe | December 19, 2007, 11:51am | #

Mo,

I'm not sure what that "Science Daily" site is all about, but the way they anthropomorphize plants' internal chemical reactions is not terribly auspicious.

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 11:54am | #

What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you, kidding me?

Agreed, joe. A much better question for PETA folks is, "What's the difference between your children and the head lice they bring home from school?" IOW, you place a line somewhere too, don't you?

Mother Nature | December 19, 2007, 11:57am | #

What is it that gives human beings moral consideration that animals lack, and lack to such an extent that they deserve no moral protection at all?

Humans are animals and deserve no moral consideration. Animals kill each other all the time, why should humans be any different? An individual's only goal should be to take any action necessary to ensure the long term propogation of their genetic materials.

joe | December 19, 2007, 11:57am | #

J sub,

I place a number of lines.

I just try to make sure they reflect principled and rational determinations.

Not seeing a difference between the ability to experience pain and not is neither principled nor rational.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 11:59am | #

sage -

And I see another Tool fan in the crowd. ;)

Certainly, though, the point being made by MJK (namely that the perpetuation of life comes at the inevitable expense of consuming other lives) need not draw us into the absolutism of worth that either PETA or the KFC folk would require.

I'm not leaping on the Bill Popemobile, here, but it is clear that most higher animals have the capacity for forming memories, experiencing pain, and displaying preferences; I think these factors place them in at least the realm of ethical consideration, if not necessarily moral rights; they are certainly, clearly, in a different ethical space from furniture.

Pro Libertate | December 19, 2007, 12:04pm | #

So numbing medication is the key? If we numb the animals and/or plants, we're moral? Am I following this thread correctly?

I'm above this debate, as I absorb energy directly from the sun. You murdering fiends should all be ashamed.

VM | December 19, 2007, 12:07pm | #

On Numbing.

sage | December 19, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Elemenope,

That wuz from memory, such as it is ;-)

They're the best band out there, bar none.

Your musical taste is noteworthy.

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Yeah, well, choices always were a problem for you.

You know what you need, sage?

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 12:19pm | #

I place a number of lines.

I just try to make sure they reflect principled and rational determinations.

Not seeing a difference between the ability to experience pain and not is neither principled nor rational.

I too place line attempting to be rational and morally consistent. I place my line at the Genus level, that is Homo. If a Homo erectus tribe were to be discvered in New Guinea tomorrow, I would deem it to be immoral to treat them as "property". It all seems so simple, but it's not really and intelligent people would likely agree with the morality assessment difficulty.

For example, I consider dogs, cats, etc.property. I do not consider shooting, then treating them, in order to advance trauma treatment research, immoral, nor would I ever support banning the practice. OTOH, I, inconsistently, consider dogfighting to be immoral and actually support the legal prohibition of the practice. Butchering Fido for the dinner table - OK. Having Fido and Spot fight to the death for entertainment - Not OK.

Your point about experiencing pain, i.e. nervous system development, is where I base my "pro-choice with restrictions" abortion stance.

One last point, rodents feel pain. Would you support killing rats and mice when they get into a granary?

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 12:26pm | #

The usually reasonable Episiarch wrote: a hunter [Cheney] (let's not get into his other activities, because PETA only cares about the hunting

That's because PETA is a single-issue group. Are there other animal-related accusations against Cheney of which I'm unaware?

I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as he likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole.

Well, everything after the comma is pretty much gratuitous BS then. It's this sort of viewpoint that really keeps libertarians marginalized.

I want some fucking recognition for my ATHF quote, god damn it.

Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere. I'm too busy trying to have a serious policy discussion to fluff your ego.

One would be the meat portion of the dish and the other would be the vegetable?

Har, har, hardy, har-har. See above.

sage | December 19, 2007, 12:28pm | #

joe,

someone strong to guide me.

I can play that game all day. Except for where I can't understand what Maynard is saying. Many times I've had to look stuff up.

ed | December 19, 2007, 12:29pm | #

I'm still having leg of lamb for Christmas dinner.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Ethics 101 people: animals are sentient beings with the ability to feel pain, and have physical and emotional needs just like people. As with all moral issues the question is this: how would you like to be on the receiving end of the treament you dish out to them directly or indirectly? They're not necessary for food, I've been vegetarian/vegan for years and enjoy excellent health. Use of them in medical research is a tougher issue, and I wouldn't ban it completely, but would subject it to greater scrutiny. Those who do not reflect on these issues have a HUGE moral blind spot.

1. Not all animals are sentinent and feel pain. Besides, that's a stupid standard to evaluate whether you can morally kill something. People in comas can't feel pain and are no longer sentinent. Is it morally permissible to kill them?

2. You cannot drive, ride a bike, or walk to work without killing animals.

3. You cannot build a house without killing animals.

4. You cannot farm non-meat products without killing animals.

IOW, regardless of how you live your life, you will kill animals. You have to turn your brain off not to know this.

The problem I have with animal-rights moralists is that they draw arbitrary lines about when and how killing (some) animals is morally impermissible. But because none of them have clean hands, I call BS.

sage | December 19, 2007, 12:31pm | #

I was wrong...this changes everything.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #

*sentient

**Point of emphasis: Anyone who (1) drives, rides a bike, or walks to work, (2) builds a house, or (3) farms non-meat products is intentionally killing animals.

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #

J sub D,

I am ok with killing rodents at the granary, and even with raising and slaughtering livestock for food, as long as it is done as humanely as possibly. When I said I draw lots of lines, this is an example: I believe there is one line between who may be killed and not, and another between what killing requires affirmative concern for humane methods. I don't care if you rip a sponge into pieces over the course of a week, but I'm appalled by the conditions chickens are forced to live in at the farms that supply Tyson.

VM | December 19, 2007, 12:35pm | #

Tonio:

"[e-mail]"

BRAVO!!!!!!!

joe | December 19, 2007, 12:36pm | #

x,y,

Not "intentionally," though "knowingly" might be better.

Warty | December 19, 2007, 12:42pm | #

You all sure could use a vacation from this stupid shit, silly shit, stupid shit.

Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 12:42pm | #

x,y --

You cannot drive, ride a bike, or walk to work without killing animals...You cannot build a house without killing animals...You cannot farm non-meat products without killing animals.

No kidding. But that is never an appropriate standard when applying practical ethics. All actions have consequences, and some consequences are unintended. The fact that nobody's hands are clean does not invalidate their ability to make what is a different point altogether:

You should give a shit.

That's the real point. PETA people kill through their actions many animals, just as Ted Nugent and Dubya and You and I do with ours. The salient details are whether:

a. You care that you cause suffering and death through your actions

and

b. You act to minimize those two as you go about your daily lives and goals

There is a wide moral gulf between a person who lives in a modern society and by consequence lives at the expense of animals but wishes it were and acts to try to make it otherwise, and a person who just doesn't give a shit.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Tonio, sorry if you don't like my animals are property viewpoint, but that's the way it is. Having consideration for their pain, is, in my position, the moral viewpoint, but I do not think it should be legally enforced. Social "enforcement" (people being treated shitty by others who find out about their animal cruelty) is fine.

Is it OK to kill your horses to survive when you are trapped in a cave in December in the Rockies? Is it OK to kill your fellow humans in the same situation?

If you said "yes" then "no", there is a distinction. If you said "no" then "no", you are a fool.

Plus, see what x,y said.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Jeez, this place is just absolutely lousy with Tool fans. Why knew? ;)

...

You claimed, all this time, that you would die for me; Why, then, are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?

Warty | December 19, 2007, 12:45pm | #

I'm still having leg of lamb for Christmas dinner.

Speaking of brilliant bands, name the song and band:

In a hotel on the phone
You're gonna leave me, I should've known (i should've known)
And I was thinkin, it's so sad
I didn't want you to go
Don't wanna follow the laws of man (yes, sir)
Bloody apron, leg of lamb
It's so hard to win
When there's so much to lose

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 12:46pm | #

VM,

Congrats, you are the first to comment on this. I generally include a similar pithy "easter egg" in my posts.

Happy Holly Daze.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 12:51pm | #

PETA is a pretty savvy bunch. They espouse the most radical position when discussing philosophy, perform outrageous stunts to get press, but agitate for reasonable positions that a good portion of the public can on board with.

It's proven to be a very effective strategy and shoving the center of public opinion their way.

Then why can't Ron Paul crack 10% in any scientific poll?

[/Edward-like zing]

sage | December 19, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Liar, Lawyer, Mirror, tell me: what's the difference?

Kolohe | December 19, 2007, 12:57pm | #

That's because PETA is a single-issue group. Are there other animal-related accusations against Cheney of which I'm unaware?

He killed, (or caused to die), a bunch of fish in and around the Klamath river.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Kangaroo done hung the jury with the innocent...

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:01pm | #

joe,

I understand there's a legal distinction between "intent" and "knowledge" but for this discussion I'm not sure it matters. I'd say they almost certainly have constructive knowledge and most likley have knowledge. They might have no intent in the pure legal sense, but that's another question.

But that is never an appropriate standard when applying practical ethics. All actions have consequences, and some consequences are unintended. The fact that nobody's hands are clean does not invalidate their ability to make what is a different point altogether:

I maintain that it's an appropriate standard -- precisely because they intend (or, as joe says, know) their actions will kill animals. Sticking your head in the sand and calling the result an "unintended consequence" is a cop-out. Like I said, everyone knows (or has to be wilfully deceiving themselves) that doing any day to day activity means killing animals.

And what different point are they trying to make? They're trying to say killing animals is immoral. I'm calling them hypocrites of the worst kind. It seriously undermines their position.

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 1:03pm | #

"x,y" wrote: The problem I have with animal-rights moralists is that they draw arbitrary lines about when and how killing (some) animals is morally impermissible. But because none of them have clean hands, I call BS.

This is a reductio ad absurdum. Because ARMs refuse to be absolutists and stress about every organism that's classified as a member of the animal kingdom you conveniently call BS.

Generally, ARMs are most concerned with mammals and birds (warm-blooded vertebrates) because they are most similar to humans and most able to feel pain, having complex central nervous systems. This is not an arbitrary distinction.

Yes, insects and other small, relatively simple organisms are not as much of a concern. The large numbers and small sizes of such organisms makes it impractical to avoid killing them. Their relatively simple nervous systems (limited by their size) also is a factor in prioritizing which battles to fight.

Less scientific ARMs express the dividing line at "anything with a face," which is somewhat arbitrary and sentimentalist.

Any other straw men you need demolished?

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:06pm | #

1. Humans can reason.
Infants can't reason but we give them moral conisderation.
2. Humans are the only beings that recognize rights/moral claims.
Infants don't and we give them moral consideration.
3. The Bible says we are special.
See Bill Pope's comment on that topic. It says it all.
4. Humans can experience pain.
Animals obviously do too.
5. Yes but infants will develope reason, etc.
So I can torture terminally ill infants?
Have fun with your unreasoned out, unsustainable culturally inherited beliefs.

I no longer subscribe to this view, but this would be an effective take-down --

It's a variant on #5. And it's not that they "will" develop reason, the abilility to recognize rights and moral claims, etc., but that humans are the only species with the "radical capacity" to develop those tools. Framed this way, it's irrelevant that some people don't yet have those tools, e.g., infants. It's also irrelevant that some never could, e.g., mentally retarded or other genetically defective infants. As a species, we have a radical capacity that no other species has. That, goes that argument, is what differentiates humans from non-humans.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Tonio,

And what's wrong what reductio ad absurdum? Can you refute the point or not?

Generally, ARMs are most concerned with mammals and birds (warm-blooded vertebrates) because they are most similar to humans and most able to feel pain, having complex central nervous systems. This is not an arbitrary distinction.

Why is this not an arbitrary distinction? You can't farm without killing some animals that have these characteristics (like rabbits). People who take this position are just drawing the line at the point where it starts being inconvenient for them to hold the logical extension of their position. Perhaps it's not arbitrary, but it's intellectually dishonest.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:14pm | #

PETA members kill bugs when they ride their bikes.

The Reason Insitutue funds Social Security when they pay their employees' payroll taxes.

So what? They do what they have to do in order to function in the world they want to change.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:16pm | #

When x,y can show me a PETA statement against the killing of insects, I'll consider his point about their hypocrisy worthy of consideration.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Tonio,

A strawman? Do you even know what that means? The only claim I attributed to animal-rights moralists is that they believe killing animals is wrong. And there are plenty who don't subscribe to your oh-so-convenient distinction between warm, funny animals and all the rest.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Do your own research joe! The onus is on you! ;)

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:19pm | #

Also, I never said PETA. I said animal-rights moralists.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 1:21pm | #

x,y --

That would be a decent take-down if the definition of 'species' were not as plastic as it obviously is. Even on the chomosomal level, entities most people (including me) would define as human, such as sufferers of Down's Syndrome or Fragile-X Syndrome, fail the genetic definition of human.

And laterally, such people do serious damage to the theory that a 'species' can as a species possess any 'radical capacity' even if specific individuals demonstrably never will develop those capacities.

re:hypocrisy

In a world as complicated as ours, it is impossible to find anyone to champion any cause without the practical inevitability of some hypocrisy. e.g. Ron Paul and Libertarianism, for a salient example. That shoudl not prevent people from pointing out what others choose not to consider, which namely is that in those areas where our choices do allow us a difference between harming or not harming someone/something, we should choose to care rather than not care, and choose to inflict less pain instead of more.

Hypocrisy, accidental or intentional does not blunt that argument one bit. And you certainly can't say that PETA people don't care nor can you say that they aren't trying to minimize suffering of animals. On the hierarchy of hypocrites in the modern world, they rank fairly low.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:23pm | #

“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”

People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Not just *some* animals.

VM | December 19, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Tonio -

that thread is a particularly awesome reference, and one that is greatly appreciated!! hier is why!!!


cheers and Super Silly Season to you, too!

:)

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Episiarch wrote:

Is it OK to kill your horses to survive when you are trapped in a cave in December in the Rockies? Is it OK to kill your fellow humans in the same situation?

If you said "yes" then "no", there is a distinction. If you said "no" then "no", you are a fool.

Sorry, my answer did not match either of your pre-defined choices.

Plus, see what x,y said.

Duly demolished in an earlier comment. Disappointed that you would buy-in to x,y shoddy argument, you're usually more astute than that.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Not just *some* animals.

Neither the word "insects," nor the word "all," appear in that statement.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:31pm | #

Elemenope -

Point taken. I'll grant that PETA and its members are fairly consistent and are passionate about animals. But by the same token, I think you'll have to grant that they are hypocrites. I think it undermines their position (a lot), but I don't think I said it's enough to completely discredit their position.

Fact is, I'm an anarchist and don't think we should have animal abuse laws or laws against murder (of humans). I just wanted to point out that they stop caring about animals when it becomes convenient for them to do so. That's horseshit.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:34pm | #

I think it undermines their position by demonstrating its idealistic inapplicability, but there is no hypocrisy evident.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Don't be pedantic joe. You're all right when you argue in good faith. But that's lame and you know it. Plus see the part I set in bold. It's pretty damn clear they mean all animals.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:40pm | #

A hypocrite is someone whose actual actions belie his stated positions.

PETA members claims to support animal rights. As I quoted above (from PETA's own website), this includes all animals "regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all").

In practice, PETA members drive to work, walk on the grass, ride bicycles, build houses, and farm. In other words, they live. As I also noted, you cannot live without knowing that living means you are going to kill animals.

That is textbook hypocrisy.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 1:43pm | #

PETA members kill bugs when they ride their bikes.

The Reason Insitutue funds Social Security when they pay their employees' payroll taxes.

Voluntary action vs. coercion.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:45pm | #

It's pretty damn clear they mean all animals.

It's not clear at all to me that they are saying that insects have the same moral status as chimps. Not even remotely.

The actions they take and the concerns they express about the maltreatment of animals belie your self-serving misreading of their position as well.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Voluntary action vs. coercion.

If you don't have a choice, your actions are not voluntary.

They do not have a choice about whether they are going to unintentionally run over bugs.

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 1:48pm | #

x,y:

Elemenope answered all of your rebuttals quite adequately. Thanks, Elemenope!

Yes, you are using strawman arguments in the rhetorical sense of the word; there is a slightly different meaning in legal history that doesn't apply here.

And there are plenty who don't subscribe to your oh-so-convenient distinction between warm, funny animals and all the rest.

Well, I'm in the reality-based community, as are many ARMs.

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 1:51pm | #

PETA members also take insulin derived from animals. When called on it, they claim they need it to fight for animals.

No one in their right mind would use PETA as a good example of ARMs.

If you said "yes" then "no", there is a distinction. If you said "no" then "no", you are a fool.

Sorry, my answer did not match either of your pre-defined choices.

You going to tell me what your answer was? Because otherwise, your answer is meaningless.

joe | December 19, 2007, 1:52pm | #

This is one of those "Al Gore doesn't live in a mud hut" things, isn't it?

Al Gore doesn't say we should live in mud huts, but we pretend he did, we can call him a hypocrite for not living in a mud hut!

sage | December 19, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Perhaps the rights of invertebrates don't measure up to birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish, simply because of that whole backbone thing.

How does PETA feel about cephalopods? They're more intelligent than many humans I know.

VM | December 19, 2007, 1:57pm | #

"Al Gore doesn't live in a mud hut" things, isn't it?
"

compromise:

consider tipper. Al Gore obviously is fucking a mud hut.

now, moving on.

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 1:59pm | #

When x,y can show me a PETA statement against the killing of insects, I'll consider his point about their hypocrisy worthy of consideration.

joe, let's start with the definition of animal. Definitions are useful things when having a discussion.

From Merriam Webster on-line.
Main Entry: 1an·i·mal
Pronunciation: ˈa-nə-məl
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from animale, neuter of animalis animate, from anima soul — more at animate
Date: 14th century
1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
2 a: one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings b: mammal; broadly : vertebrate
3: a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational; also : this nature
4: a person with a particular interest or aptitude [a political animal]
5: matter, thing [the theater…is an entirely different animal — Arthur Miller]; also : creature 1c

From the PETA website home page -

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

Ignoring definition 3 thru 5, and giving PETA the benefit of the doubt, let's go with definition 2 in it's broadest sense, i.e. vertabrate.

PETA is against -
Farming/Ranching
Hunting
Fishing
Rodent Extermination
Animal Fxperimentation
Pet Ownership
Beasts of Burden

And that definition would not include Cephalopoda, of which many species have highly developed nervous systems. To include them you have to go with definition 1, and all that entails, roaches etc.

The point of this rather tedious post is, PETA is a nutjob organization that deserves all of the mockery and derision that intelligent people can send their way.

Mo | December 19, 2007, 2:00pm | #

joe,

The nervous system works through a series of chemical reactions, just like it does with plants. Just because it's a different kind of "nervous system" doesn't mean it doesn't matter. There are plants far, far more evolutionarily advanced than animals. Just because they don't move doesn't mean they're less amazing or worthy of respect than animals.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 2:03pm | #

x,y --

I guess I just have a very high tolerance for hypocrisy-in-the-course-of-daily-life. I think Joe put it very well when he pointed out that even Reason magazine deducts payroll taxes for all the entitlements they profess to hate; it is what they need to do in order to exist as a business. Without that act of incidental hypocrisy, they could not publish and hence could not get their message out.

Put another way, if Martin Luther King, Jr., after a long hard day of getting arrested and beat up by southern cops went home to fuck someone other than his wife and read a little Marx, these private in-the-course-of-daily-life hypocrisies against the life of a right-by-God minister do not diminish the moral authority that he had to speak on segregation, or even his ability to employ arguments from his faith to do so.

I cannot, every time I go shopping, think about all the consequences of each item I purchase. I cannot think, for every bushel of grapes, about my abetting of labor practices I find abhorrent by buying them; I cannot think of how many barrels of oil had to be processed to harvest, refrigerate, transport, and provide the packaging for each loaf of bread. To do so, seriously, would create absolute moral paralysis.

The only sort of hypocrisy that matters in my mind is that which includes the willful deception of others in pursuit of a practical effect antithetical to the stated principles of the actor. Thus, in-the-course-of-the-day decisions don't matter as much as the morally positive situations (i.e. where the moral choice is readily apparent, salient, and the actor's choice is dispositive).

I seriously doubt that many animal rights activists ever think about how many animals died to provide them with their wool sweaters or subcompact cars; so, even if they are willfully deceiving themselves, it is more likely than not a deception only calibrated to the practicalities of living modern life. I would submit that that is the wrong area to analyze the intentions of a person to look for hypocrisy. If a PETA member secretly attended bull fights, lit dogs on fire, or hunted for sport, then that would be relevant, salient hypocrisy.

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:06pm | #

J sub D,

PETA is an extremist organization that makes some good points and some bad points, and the public deserves to have discussions about the issues they raise take place in an honest atmosphere. Yelling "a-ha!" because their members don't do things that PETA has never said they should do doesn't contribute to anything except the sense of well-being among those who'd rather ignore the issues they raise than think about them.

Pro Libertate | December 19, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Actually, Gore living in an massive, extra-energy-sucking mansion until called on it is textbook hypocrisy. Something more than a mud hut but less than the Death Star probably wouldn't have drawn that much attention.

I thought the one good point that P&T raised on their PETA episode was that at least one PETA executive (and doubtlessly tens of thousands of members) use medications derived from animal testing. I'm not suggesting that they should die rather than use such medications, but, you see, they are making that suggestion. For other people.

Pro Libertate | December 19, 2007, 2:08pm | #

joe,

PETA's extremism is a critical point. Animal rights arguments are valid, and, in fact, most of us adopt some of them. PETA is helping to unnecessarily polarize the debate. I find them and their tactics disturbing and counterproductive.

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Mo,

The nervous system works through a series of chemical reactions, just like it does with plants. Yes and "jdkdm rm reiermfkfierkj eriemm dkd urehr fid" works through a series of characters ans spaces, just like a coherent English sentence. A pile of bricks and chunks of concrete are made up of the same materials as a house. A dead body is made up of the same things as a living human. So? It's not the ingredients, but what is made up of those ingredients, that creates the meaning and status.

There are plants far, far more evolutionarily advanced than animals. Evolutionarily "advanced" is a subjective judgement. "Advanced," how? They arose later? Their physical structure is more complicated? So what? None of those things is relevant to their moral status.

Just because they don't move doesn't mean they're less amazing or worthy of respect than animals. "Just because they don't move" is a straw man.

They are certainly amazing, but that doesn't translate into moral status, either.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Not to rain on anyone's "insects are animals, too" and "animals are property" parades, but...

Imagine you are a farmer who grows some insect-pollinated crop, and your next-door neighbor farmer happens to be the one on whose land the honeybees reside. He didn't put them there, and let's say for the sake of argument that they predate his ownership of the neighboring property.

Are the bees "merely his property" to do with as he pleases, or are they more like a river that runs through his and others' properties and therefore have a more complicated relationship enmeshed with the common interest? After all, your livelihood depends upon the presence of the bees, which predate your neighbor's property interest.

Making animals "merely property" does very little to solve some ethical and legal questions any more than making sections of river "merely property" did.

Can an animal "trespass"? A bear that wanders onto your property looking for food or out of curiosity is not your property. On what grounds (say, for the sake of argument, it poses no threat to your life or your property) could you shoot it?

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:15pm | #

Actually, Gore living in an massive, extra-energy-sucking mansion until called on it.. never actually happened. Al Gore began to renovate his existing home before the silly-season stories started being repeated in every right-of-center rag on the intertubez.

As for PETA's polarization, the proof is in the soy-pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues since PETA began its run. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.

Urkobold™ | December 19, 2007, 2:16pm | #

THE URKOBOLD SECRETLY PERFORMS ABORTIONS ON PLANTS. WITHOUT ANESTHESIA. HE IS SO ASHAMED.

Pro Libertate | December 19, 2007, 2:18pm | #

joe,

That's spin. He was spouting energy-use rhetoric for years before he made any personal commitment to it. You can support him without being blind to his hypocrisy. That's the problem with most of our so-called leaders.

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 2:22pm | #

PETA is an extremist organization that makes some good points and some bad points, ...

PETA is a nutjob organization that deserves all of the mockery and derision that intelligent people can send their way.

ALL extremist/nutjob organizations make a good point once in a while. See Aryan Nation, Scientology, Young earth creationists for other examples. Even a blind pig ...
ALL such organizations DESERVE mockery, ridicule and derision from thinking people.

Mo | December 19, 2007, 2:24pm | #

I think responding to physical damage by protecting itself and releasing an anesthetic shows that it's a coherent sentence, just a different type. What makes a roach or a fish more worthy of moral status than a redwood or a yew?

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 2:27pm | #

It would be very nice of PETA to give their definition of animal wouldn't it? Have they? I'm off to google to "see what he could see".

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 2:30pm | #

As for PETA's polarization, the proof is in the soy-pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues since PETA began its run. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.

As for Scientology's polarization, the proof is in the Cruise-pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized to thetan issues since Scientology began its run. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "batshit crazy" looks like, and their very extremism has put thetans, Katie Holmes, and South Park episodes into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.

Graphite | December 19, 2007, 2:33pm | #

"Cruise-pudding?" *Gross*

x,y | December 19, 2007, 2:35pm | #

joe,

If PETA doesn't mean all animals, what do you make of the following language from its website:

People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).

Looks to me like they mean all animals, regardless of whether they're cute and fuzzy. If you have a better way to reading that sentence or a different quotation to look at, I'm ready to be proved wrong.

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Mo,

I think responding to physical damage by protecting itself and releasing an anesthetic shows that it's a coherent sentence, just a different type.

I don't. Stimulus X causes release of Chemical Y. Chemical Y results in growth of material Z. No coherence, no sentience, just a number of chemical and physical responses that effect each other. The formation of a corrosion-stopping green patina on pennies exposed to the elements doesn't demonstrate sentience.

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Episiarch,

Your overly-cute parody falls apart here:

The country has become considerably more sensitized to thetan issues since Scientology began its run.

No, it hasn't. Unlike belief in the tenets of Scientology, concern about animal welfare issues has actually increased to a noticeable degree.

joe | December 19, 2007, 2:40pm | #

What I conclude from that, x,y, is that they wish to expand the circle of concern beyhond "charismatic mega-fauna."

x,y | December 19, 2007, 2:40pm | #

You know you're losing an argument when you've basically conceded the other peron's point and you're resorting to, "well sure, it's hypocritical, but it's not salient hypocrisy."

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 2:44pm | #

joe, my point was that you are expressing support and a sort of grudging admiration for a group of cultists (PETA is a cult, sorry but it is true) who have engaged in questionable, and illegal, and even violent, behavior to achieve their ends. Let's try another, less humorous one:

As for Eric Rudolph's polarization, the proof is in the fetus-pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues since Rudolph killed. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too far" looks like, and his very extremism has put issues into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.

See my point now?

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 2:48pm | #

It would be very nice of PETA to give their definition of animal wouldn't it? Have they?

From the About PETA website FAQs

"Where do you draw the line?”

The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.” We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not involve killing animals.

You will note the question is assiduously avoided. It appereas to be be a never ending quest, without boundaries. Like fairness.

VM | December 19, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Fetus pudding?

between that and "Pilly Peck(er)" on the NORML thread, there is a cannibalistic element stretching through H&R today!

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 2:53pm | #

And so, after performing the unenviable task of perusing the PETA websites, my previous conclusion "PETA is a nutjob organization that deserves all of the mockery and derision that intelligent people can send their way." stands.

sage | December 19, 2007, 2:53pm | #

Feed us a fetus.

joe | December 19, 2007, 3:02pm | #

x,y,

You know you're losing an argument when you've basically conceded the other peron's point and you're resorting to, "well sure, it's hypocritical, but it's not salient hypocrisy."

I'll have to take your word for that. I've spent the entire thread stating that there isn't any hypocrisy. Do you want me to do it again?

joe | December 19, 2007, 3:04pm | #

Episiarch,

The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues since Rudolph killed.

No, it hasn't. Does the fact that you can't manage to come up with a relevant comparison, one which demonstrates that these terrorist groups' behavior or influence are remotely comparable to that of the animal right's movement suggest anything to you?

Also, I haven't expressed any admiration whatsoever for violent acts, but for their press campaign.

Sulla | December 19, 2007, 3:06pm | #

Not to rain on anyone's "insects are animals, too" and "animals are property" parades, but...

Imagine you are a farmer who grows some insect-pollinated crop, and your next-door neighbor farmer happens to be the one on whose land the honeybees reside. He didn't put them there, and let's say for the sake of argument that they predate his ownership of the neighboring property.

Are the bees "merely his property" to do with as he pleases, or are they more like a river that runs through his and others' properties and therefore have a more complicated relationship enmeshed with the common interest? After all, your livelihood depends upon the presence of the bees, which predate your neighbor's property interest.

Making animals "merely property" does very little to solve some ethical and legal questions any more than making sections of river "merely property" did.

Are you using the term property in a legal sense? If so, I'm not sure I understand your point. Wild animals (like the bees) are ferae naturae and have no owner. Once someone has taken possession of them, they become personal property. If the bees become your neighbor's property, that might affect your livelihood, making it a matter of human rights, not animal rights.

Different states have different laws, but AFAIK, navigable rivers are under Federal jurisdiction and cannot be property. Non-navigable rivers are generally considered to be part of the real property through which they flow, and depending on which state you are (Eastern v. Western is a somehwat usefl shorthand), other users of the river may have rights to use the water (essentially real property rights because they are "attached" to the land).


Can an animal "trespass"? A bear that wanders onto your property looking for food or out of curiosity is not your property. On what grounds (say, for the sake of argument, it poses no threat to your life or your property) could you shoot it?

Again, do you mean trespass in a legal sense? A wild animal is outside the property/person framework of the common law and cannot in any meaningful sense be said to trespass. In the absence of anti-bear shooting laws, you need no legal justification to shoot the bear, it is ferae naturae.

As an aside, I think part of the problem is that you have a lot of consequentialist who are concerned about minimizing suffering, arguing with others who subscribe to a different philosophy. As an existentialist (more or less), I'm not really that interested in the morality of the issue. As a lawyer, I'm more interested in the justifications for legal restrictions on the treatment of animals.

joe | December 19, 2007, 3:07pm | #

J sub D,

You will note the question is assiduously avoided. It appereas to be be a never ending quest, without boundaries. Like fairness.

Or liberty. Or economic growth. Lots of ideals are open-ended like that - how much should we persue them? As much as we can.

Elemenope | December 19, 2007, 3:08pm | #

You know you're losing an argument when you've basically conceded the other person's point and you're resorting to, "well sure, it's hypocritical, but it's not salient hypocrisy."

I disagree. Hypocrisy is universal to the human condition, and accentuated in degree by the size and complexity of society and modern life. To say that all men are hypocrites borders on an infallible truism. So, the salience of the hypocrisy at issue (and also, how intentional its character) is of paramount importance in judging whether that hypocrisy blunts or damages any ethical argument the person at issue is advancing.

Personally I couldn't give a damn out of whose mouth a particular argument springs, or the contents of their character; my concern is with the idea, and not the person who professes it, and so hypocrisy for me matters next to nothing in arguments of this sort.

Some people, however, get hung up on the personal habits of people who have ideas and express them, and somehow associate the worth of one with the quality of the other. That is, quite simply, stupid. Assessing an idea is not like assessing a politician (who, one hopes, is being chosen based not just on their ideas but also upon their demonstrations of personal integrity and effective decision-making skills).

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 3:11pm | #

are remotely comparable to that of the animal right's movement

I wasn't aware PETA represented all ARM's. In fact, my point was that PETA is not someone you want to point to or admire. Why you feel a need to defend cultists is beyond me.

Also, I haven't expressed any admiration whatsoever for violent acts, but for their press campaign.

OK, considering that statement, let's try a better one:

As for Sinn Féin's polarization, the proof is in the blood pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues since the IRA began its bombing run. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 3:15pm | #

The "salient" point wasn't directed at you joe. Paranoid much?

x,y | December 19, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Elemenope,

I think we'll have to disagree about whether hypocrisy is important in and of itself or whether the salience of hypocirsy is what matters.

But even if I were to concede your point (which I don't), PETA is being intellectually dishonest and stopping short exactly where their members' beliefs would interfere with their day to day lives (a little too convenient if you ask me). That's salient hypocrisy to me.

J sub D | December 19, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Or liberty. Or economic growth. Lots of ideals are open-ended like that - how much should we persue them? As much as we can.

joe, people who are for liberty, economic growth, freedom don't shy away from a definition of what they are for. Hell, if I ask some left leaning statist, like you for example, ;-) to define fairness, you would. In a heartbeat. PETA can't or won't define animal in the term animal rights. Pathetic. You'd never let me get away without a definition of terms. Nor should you.

Ron Mexico | December 19, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Episiarch - "Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you got to kick them in the throat."

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Episiarch: I would like to answer your hypothetical question, but not here or now. Neither of us seems willing to reveal a valid email address online. Also curious to know whether you're the same "Episiarch" who comments on another blog which is generally contemptuous of this one, although both blogs share a core interest.

Your move.

joe | December 19, 2007, 3:48pm | #

You're the third person to call me paranoid today.

Who sent you?!?

Graphite | December 19, 2007, 3:50pm | #

I'm just hoping this thread goes on long enough for Episiarch to use the phrase "fudge pudding."

joe | December 19, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Episiarch,

Nope, still not there.

country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues since the IRA began its bombing run. No, it didn't. Self-determination for the Irish was a huge issue before the IRA or the Provos even existed.

Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.

This would be ok if you were talking about Sinn Fein and its political campaign, because that would be a fair comparison to the political media campaigns of PETA. I would agree - Sinn Fein's hard line was of great help in getting the Unionists to see the wisdom of working with the SDLP.

joe | December 19, 2007, 3:54pm | #

J sub D,

I can't provide you with any more comprehensive definition of fairness than Sweitzer's statement. Just as you can't delineate the precise boundaries of a "prosperous society."

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Episiarch: I would like to answer your hypothetical question, but not here or now. Neither of us seems willing to reveal a valid email address online. Also curious to know whether you're the same "Episiarch" who comments on another blog which is generally contemptuous of this one, although both blogs share a core interest.

Your move.

We're playing chess?

The only other blog I've commented on (and that's very, very rarely) is Samizdata, a British libertarian site. So unless you're talking about that...

Why can't you answer my question without an email address?

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 4:00pm | #

joe, you can nitpick my cut-and-paste semi-jokes, or address the actual focus of those jokes: why would you support PETA when 1) there are much more reputable AR organizations out there, and 2) they are a cult of personality surrounding Ingrid Newkirk?

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 4:04pm | #

Ron Mexico, finally, some appreciation.

"Getting it is easy. Filling it with illegal substances and sending it across the border is not."

Episiarch | December 19, 2007, 4:07pm | #

Tonio, I just did a search and found someone posting as "episiarch" (lower case 'e') on Reddit. That is not me.

Tonio | December 19, 2007, 4:35pm | #

Is it OK to kill your horses to survive when you are trapped in a cave in December in the Rockies?

Yes.

Is it OK to kill your fellow humans in the same situation?

Assuming that all other food sources were exhausted, that the party were near death, and that rescue was not imminent: Someone would have to die. I would volunteer for "lunch detail" if I thought my death would bring the greatest good.

x,y | December 19, 2007, 4:49pm | #

I would volunteer for "lun