:: We don't argue morally, instead we argue ęsthetically, that underlying most animal-rightists concerns, imminent within their argument, is a distrust/dislike of the sheer utilitarian performativity of Modern treatment of Animals. that animals are not treated as a thing in-themselves, but instead use-values, mechanical permformativity (of the sort you describe above).Perhaps you speak only for yourself here Red but take note that I didn't participate in this thread until I heard a moral judgement. If phrases such as "...their self-indulgent lives", "...pressures of conscience", and "...someone else's idleness in a world screaming out for help" are not moral jugements I'll concede that Kevin doesn't argue morally. Come on now, Red. The animal rights movement is emotionally manipulative and quite purely moralistic in its opposition to animal use. Why must you argue otherwise?
:: Further, there is a degreee of projection, as there is within all human perceptions of totality, which feels the techno-bureaucratic medeical surveilant gaze to be an active threat to their humanness/humanity.
I don't disagree with that. There is a fine line that must be walked to maintain all facets of humanity as technology encroches upon societal moires and notions of civility but this is only a tangential issue with these folks and you know it. Precious few of them will accept meat eating or any other form of animal use as a normal and acceptable thing. I liked that techno-bureaucratic thing though.
:: there is no 'spiritual' facet, if by that you mean an apprehension of things that are not material, there is an ęsthetic facet, of which religion is a subset. What is Bob if not the worship of the Sublime. Yeah, though I walk through the valley of death, surrounded by hard bastards, God is the biggest and hardest bastard of them all, and he's my bastard.
You ought to attempt to draw the line better between illustration and offense in your posts, Red. This puts me off attempts at thoughtful discouse.
:::Isn't it wonderful how this issue forces the soul to introspection and forces those who will not acknowledge God to argue superficially and peripherally?
:: Isn't it wonderful that Philsopobhy dealt with most of these questions two hundred years ago?
Did they? Perhaps a small cadre of intellectuals are pacified with the mental meanderings of philosophers but those of us that think too simply cannot keep up with them. But perhaps listing a few of the pertainent meanderings will bear light on what you might possibly mean by issuing such a statement.
:: Let me ask you a question- where does the Bible get its authority from? Who decided to put in Paul's letters to the Cornithians, but not Paul's letters to his mum? Who decided which of the numerous available Gospels to put in and exclude? Is the bible dissiciable from the authority of these people? Do you believe in the apostlic tradition and the Nicean reed?
All good questions, but did I frame this argument within the context of biblical theology? No, I did not. This argument of relative morality vs. ecclisastical standards exists outside of any specific religion. I'll save your tangents for another time and await the basis of Kevin's moral judgements.
Stuart Gort
