Gideon Hallett
2003-08-18 10:16:57 UTC
During the morning's general webcrawl, I came across this:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/siamang/43717.html
Now, this entire thing looks like a hoax designed to provoke and
disturb. Certainly the language seems a bit faux (rainbow bridge!
aaargh!); and anyone who named their bunny Grendel possibly has
an evil sense of humour. And posting it in a public place does
seem knowingly provocative[1].
However, commenting on this unleashed the (highly predictable)
storm of outraged responses and invective from the
anthropomorphists and the hard-of-thinking:
"...If you really cut up your dead rabbit and cooked it up that's
just REPULSIVE"
And so forth.
Why?
The taboo against eating people (as mentioned elsewhere by
someone else) is, apart from all else, a taboo against eating
souls. According to Christian doctrine (a lot of the Outraged
seem to talk freely about the author burning in hell), animals
don't have them.
As such, making a parallel between eating an ex-pet and eating a
relative is blasphemy if you're a Christian; you are refusing to
eat a pet on the grounds that they are like a human to you.
As someone who grew up in a fairly rural area, I would have
absolutely no problem about eating Flossie, Bambi or Thumper,
even if I helped bring them up[2].
What puzzles me slightly is the giant double standard of people
who insist on their rights to eat <insert flesh here>, but then
castigate someone as being vile for, well, eating dead rabbit.
People are strange. City people doubly so.
Gideon.
[1] "I wanted to see how many reactionary idiots I could piss
off, so I made up a story about eating one of my pets. I bought a
rotisserie chicken from the grocery store, stuck it on a plate,
and hilarity ensued. Grendel and Sunday are both still alive and
well, and I had a good laugh at the morons who came out of the
woodwork to get indignant. I wouldn't actually eat a pet, that's
pretty fucking sick. Still, I've gotten enough laughs to last me
weeks."[3]
[2] Since I will only eat meat if I am served it by a host and if
I know that it has been ethically sourced and treated, and then
only in moderation, this isn't a big concern for me.
[3] I have to say I think this is something of a cop-out by the
author; I really don't see any problems with eating a pet after
death, as long as said ex-pet is something generally understood
to be a food animal. If said pet snuffed it of old age, it'd
probably be pretty stringy, though.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/siamang/43717.html
Now, this entire thing looks like a hoax designed to provoke and
disturb. Certainly the language seems a bit faux (rainbow bridge!
aaargh!); and anyone who named their bunny Grendel possibly has
an evil sense of humour. And posting it in a public place does
seem knowingly provocative[1].
However, commenting on this unleashed the (highly predictable)
storm of outraged responses and invective from the
anthropomorphists and the hard-of-thinking:
"...If you really cut up your dead rabbit and cooked it up that's
just REPULSIVE"
And so forth.
Why?
The taboo against eating people (as mentioned elsewhere by
someone else) is, apart from all else, a taboo against eating
souls. According to Christian doctrine (a lot of the Outraged
seem to talk freely about the author burning in hell), animals
don't have them.
As such, making a parallel between eating an ex-pet and eating a
relative is blasphemy if you're a Christian; you are refusing to
eat a pet on the grounds that they are like a human to you.
As someone who grew up in a fairly rural area, I would have
absolutely no problem about eating Flossie, Bambi or Thumper,
even if I helped bring them up[2].
What puzzles me slightly is the giant double standard of people
who insist on their rights to eat <insert flesh here>, but then
castigate someone as being vile for, well, eating dead rabbit.
People are strange. City people doubly so.
Gideon.
[1] "I wanted to see how many reactionary idiots I could piss
off, so I made up a story about eating one of my pets. I bought a
rotisserie chicken from the grocery store, stuck it on a plate,
and hilarity ensued. Grendel and Sunday are both still alive and
well, and I had a good laugh at the morons who came out of the
woodwork to get indignant. I wouldn't actually eat a pet, that's
pretty fucking sick. Still, I've gotten enough laughs to last me
weeks."[3]
[2] Since I will only eat meat if I am served it by a host and if
I know that it has been ethically sourced and treated, and then
only in moderation, this isn't a big concern for me.
[3] I have to say I think this is something of a cop-out by the
author; I really don't see any problems with eating a pet after
death, as long as said ex-pet is something generally understood
to be a food animal. If said pet snuffed it of old age, it'd
probably be pretty stringy, though.
--
(((( | ====***@freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
(((( | ====***@freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|