Post by kanin on Oct 16, 2009 13:27:55 GMT
Birdie,
I'm not saying this has anything to do with loving your pets and their babies nor am i placing any judgement on you. What I'm saying is that chosing to feed a live snail to another snail is something you choose to do. And choosing to do so is your moral choice and that it has nothing to do with naturality at all.
The issue of natural death is a romantization, there is nothing better about being eaten alive than being slowly frozen to death in a freezer. It's all about what you choose to do. For humans the "natural death" could easily be defined as beaing eaten alive by predators or to freeze to death or dying painfully from illness. One could ask oneself if that is a better death than calmly dying in a bed of high age which would be a very unatural death. what i'm trying to say is two things
: that there is a moral descition in this that you'll have to make
: and that naturality is a construction which shouldnt be mixed up with these descitions.
I understand your concern about rehoming unwanted babies but that fear is often blown out of proportions untill you are standing in front of the problem. I have had unwanted babies in the hundreds to rehome and I managed without letting any go as livefood and when i was facing the problem it was not at all as scary as it was before when invisiualized it. I dont mean to bigot you I just want to say is that making this kind of descision about population control perhaps should be made when one is facing the problem instead of as a precauscion.
aerlis,
I didnt mean to say that the change in perceprion is negative. What I was trying to comute is that whenever you deside to kill eat or keep an animal it is in fact an abuse against this being. So is all of our snail keeping. We have all choosen to force our will upon them, myself included. We all have our own way of justifying this which we all hopefully fell fulfilled with but in the end what we really doing is degenerating them below ourselves. We all have our reasons to do so often on a unconcious plane. When you change the premesies of your animal keeping, like desiding to feed their young to another animal or starting to breed them for profit e.t.c. you also change the premesies for this justification. And what i wanted to say about this is that this is something you should be aware of and it comes from my own experience I'm not trying to force my principles upon any of you. i myself noticed this change when I started breeding certain species for profit as an exampel and this is something one should be aware of when making this descision.
I understand that you interpred my position based on my vegetarian principles but this is not the case. And yes it depends on personal preference and, yes, it varies from person to person but there is an actual change in perception.
I am very acustomed of the farmer who loves his animals but still single handely slaugthers and eats them but he is a modern stereotype based in the romantization of animal husbandry and lies on the border to mysticism. This romantization arises from the eco fad and is yet another romantization of naturality. I'm not saying this kind of persons does not exist, I myself know one, they do. - but only because stereotypes is something you apply on yourselves and/or others, fogging your perception. If one would present this vicar with the question of why he chooses to kill his pigs which he claims to love he would most likely answer like my own represantation of this stereoype. His descision would arise directly from the idea of naturality and the idea of normalization.
This is why I dont think naturality should not be mixed up with this descitions. - because it is a mysticism - it places itself over the dilema like a fog of war and within this concept reason is lost.
I do not mean to offend any of you or to belittle your principles, and i hope you understand that.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with loving your pets and their babies nor am i placing any judgement on you. What I'm saying is that chosing to feed a live snail to another snail is something you choose to do. And choosing to do so is your moral choice and that it has nothing to do with naturality at all.
The issue of natural death is a romantization, there is nothing better about being eaten alive than being slowly frozen to death in a freezer. It's all about what you choose to do. For humans the "natural death" could easily be defined as beaing eaten alive by predators or to freeze to death or dying painfully from illness. One could ask oneself if that is a better death than calmly dying in a bed of high age which would be a very unatural death. what i'm trying to say is two things
: that there is a moral descition in this that you'll have to make
: and that naturality is a construction which shouldnt be mixed up with these descitions.
I understand your concern about rehoming unwanted babies but that fear is often blown out of proportions untill you are standing in front of the problem. I have had unwanted babies in the hundreds to rehome and I managed without letting any go as livefood and when i was facing the problem it was not at all as scary as it was before when invisiualized it. I dont mean to bigot you I just want to say is that making this kind of descision about population control perhaps should be made when one is facing the problem instead of as a precauscion.
aerlis,
I didnt mean to say that the change in perceprion is negative. What I was trying to comute is that whenever you deside to kill eat or keep an animal it is in fact an abuse against this being. So is all of our snail keeping. We have all choosen to force our will upon them, myself included. We all have our own way of justifying this which we all hopefully fell fulfilled with but in the end what we really doing is degenerating them below ourselves. We all have our reasons to do so often on a unconcious plane. When you change the premesies of your animal keeping, like desiding to feed their young to another animal or starting to breed them for profit e.t.c. you also change the premesies for this justification. And what i wanted to say about this is that this is something you should be aware of and it comes from my own experience I'm not trying to force my principles upon any of you. i myself noticed this change when I started breeding certain species for profit as an exampel and this is something one should be aware of when making this descision.
I understand that you interpred my position based on my vegetarian principles but this is not the case. And yes it depends on personal preference and, yes, it varies from person to person but there is an actual change in perception.
I am very acustomed of the farmer who loves his animals but still single handely slaugthers and eats them but he is a modern stereotype based in the romantization of animal husbandry and lies on the border to mysticism. This romantization arises from the eco fad and is yet another romantization of naturality. I'm not saying this kind of persons does not exist, I myself know one, they do. - but only because stereotypes is something you apply on yourselves and/or others, fogging your perception. If one would present this vicar with the question of why he chooses to kill his pigs which he claims to love he would most likely answer like my own represantation of this stereoype. His descision would arise directly from the idea of naturality and the idea of normalization.
This is why I dont think naturality should not be mixed up with this descitions. - because it is a mysticism - it places itself over the dilema like a fog of war and within this concept reason is lost.
I do not mean to offend any of you or to belittle your principles, and i hope you understand that.