[Jim's Eclectic World] New comment on Why buffalo and why not the CUT deal? Against uti....

media has left a new comment on your post "Why buffalo and why not the CUT deal? Against uti...":

as an animal rightist, i found it offensive to see buffalo recipes posted here. animal rightists are few and far between, and we need safe spaces, as animals themselves need sanctuaries, when liberated from fur farms and factory farms.

(while i have read the articles on 'property rights', i will admit that since i personally run sanctuaries for animals i have rescued from the hostile american culture, it turns out to do this i need to endorse property rights as a pratical matter. and for this, ineed money, and so through my real estate company I am now working to privatize anwar to fund my sanctuary.

As Locke used human 'reason' (which 'jim' (TM) called 'dogma' ('dawg/ma' in dialect) at present we amynal rightists assume totally liberated sanctuary animals who are victims of human oppression differ qualitatively from wild animals, who hence are expendible when we are paving their habitat to build a sanctuary for freed lab mice. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' definately distinguishes greater goods from lesser 'evils'. (I wonder if evil knievel is still up in the air over hell's canyon; what a rough trip through paradise.).

(wild animals, following Locke, are lower than liberated animals (as Hendrix would have said, they've 'never been experienced'(TM), or as Hahvad historian Orlando Patterson said, without slavery there was no idea of freedom). They typically have no value, unlike cows (apart from a few beaver pelts, or that polecat or whatever it was my neighbors kept telling me to shoot so it would stop eating my frozen salmons, for $45 too!!! (i did explain guns to it with a few blasts and philosophy---'greatest number for the greatest good, and don't touch my salmon (greedy mf ate half my winter stash---up till then it was my pet, which i had to feed). the 45$ was tempting to get my investment back).

so, i can justify supporting my dependent animals, so far, so long as they do have 'reason' of the Hendrix/Patterson form above that of lower, thieving polecats. humans give them reason and rights, as god gave them to humans (see Peter Singer; they even get court appointed counsel if they can't afford it, and Pell grants). All that anwar oil can fuel some nice warm mouse cribs and AP tests.

And, as a humyn, i too use 'reasons' and 'rights' to justify why neighbors should leave my sanctuary alone (though they don't want to). It may be fundamental, or pragmatic. (excercize left to reader.) (My sanctuary crib so far has 1 raccoon, 4 squirrels, 3 opposums, and on adjacent property 1 big fox, 1 baby fox who can barely walk, some deers and coyotes. I rescued them---using the 'underground railroad' model, meaning they followed me and took up shop in the crib. Fortunately, my anymals are sufficiently healthy, to support them, i simply point to where they can forage, and they do. (Of course, there is a curfew for ins/outs between 12am/12pm and its enforced, following Zeno's law). If the ANWAR privatization is halted, my prius i use to conduct real estate deals to serve animals will be unusable, so i may have to start charging rent as well as start selling acorns, grubs and trashcan access. i guess i could allus reconsider and open a pet shop, zoo or invite dick cheney to shoot his friends, too. as 'property is theft', so one can allus find a way to make an honest living---where 'honest' is defined by law.)

however, as an animal rightist (who do have rights to a prius, and tenure in a university or at least a PETA funded plantation----i do refuse to pay anyone who works for me who eats meat or wears leather, damn straight), while 'buffalo wings' i find revoltingly offensive, because humans, as made in the image of God have no relation to animals (see David Berlinski in Commentary Mag on Intelligent Design), they have no such Lockean rationals (apart from animal rights sanctuaries) , and hence, though scorned in 'pc' or polite society, 'cannibalism' is something which is way ok. Any recipes?

Because my Prius requires its daily diet of corn, to solve the food scarcity problem cannibalism may be the way out. If we ate humans, we would not need to feed them corn, so it could be exported to Haiti and Egypt, to solve hunger. As guns and roses put it, its so easy. I think a similar idea was discovered in the 1880's. Even sustainable 'biofuels' may have a source here (the Germans have been a pioneer in sustainable energy, with 6% of it currently from wind power, and in 1945 they pioneered other ideas; even Jimmy Carter was born again and then did this for solar in the '70's. )

In, sum, to get to main point, the idea of Martin Luther 'rodney' King that 'an injustice in one place is a threat to justice everywhere' (or whatever the quote is) really I don't think is comparable to logical consistancy---except in one way which is common nowdays.

First, a 'threat' is not the same as a real thing. People fear eclipses of the moon, terrorist attacks, eternal damnation (in limbo over hell's canyon with no knowledge of whether you reached what 'jim' (TM) morrison called 'the other side') etc. Not all of these 'threats' are 'credible'. (But people do like them, to talk about, emote about...'ohh the injustice, b-tch set me up'.)

Like 'the good', threats vary from 'greatest' to least. (As noted the underprivildeged, hurt buffalos may need the most help due to threats from the dominants in the buffalo hierarchy----maybe you should deal with that rather than worrying about CUT. Environmentally, litter is a problem in yellowstone too, so maybe a 25$ million grant to pick up (only) camel cigarette butts would be better than CUT leasing---a cost/benefit analyses would be required, itself requiring an NSF grant. I could see earmarks devoted to each cause.)

People forget injustices, even when they invoke that quote. How many indians work at Yellowstone? do they want or need the jobs (or are they drinking themselves to death on the res)? People can justify their injustices, dance by the lake on the graves of others.

Justus may be the empirical reality, though the quote sounds good, like utilitarianism, like 'i have a dream, free at last, no money down'. the gift economy of stewardship---god gave it to me, its mine.

Logically, if one says 'injustice' is like 'truth', then in a consistant logical system an 'untruth' in one place likely leads to untruth everywhere (godel). But in the real world, 'justice' and 'truth' often are temporal.

There are 'temporal logics' which deny logical consistancy of the sort Godel endorsed as being particularily special or interesting. Resolutions of the 'liar's paradox' for example solve this temporally. 'i am a liar' for example may be 'true' meaning 'i was one' or 'i lied'. its a different logic, no more true nor false than any other. it may be empirically true. (even 'i' is a temporal concept for most lesser, mortal goods.)

so MLK's statement is as meaningless as utilitarianism's slogan. i hear in new guinea and brazil there may still be cannibals; any injustice is a threat to justice. to save the buffalo, maybe we can get the squids to become vegan.

anti-utilitarians are just lying or deluded, sortuh like anticapitalists, antiauthoritarians, antistatists etc. of course using temporal logic, these can be valid. one needs the 'metalogic' to know the mind of matter(s).



Posted by media to Jim's Eclectic World at 5/5/08 10:58 AM __________________________________________________
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
http://www.doteasy.com