Sadi Ranson-Polizzotti is a published writer in both the United States and Europe. She is widely known for her music commentary, particularly her writings about Bob Dylan about whom she runs a highly-trafficked site. …
Visit Sadi Ranson-Polizzotti's author page
— Sadi Ranson-Polizzotti's Blog
exceptional advice, I too examined my options for reinventing the world in my youth - you have been a force of nature of late, Sadi, thanks!
thx eric... i've decided to offer up auntie sadi's philospy (which you can see more of at www.auntisadisadviceforgirls.blogspot.com, though it's also for boys and i'm encouraging folk to post their issues in teh comments section and i will do my best to give auntie sadi's advice. something to do for fun, and since a lot come to me for advice, then why not formalize it; this way, we can have a nice, neat book. like Tiffany's table manners for teenagers etc (lol lol).
oh, i amuse myself... sad sad sad.
anyway -- i have been a bit of a hurricane lately, it's true eric. not sure what that's about. some kind of hypergraphia no doubt. ah well, it's all to the good. chat soon.
and contribute to the cause..blogcritics, ten clams a year = bargain.
Actually, I think it was Shaw who said the Prince of Wales was like a stream of bat's piss.
I'm a supporter of activism, but "animal activists" just make me wonder at human delusion. No, I don't advocate that bunnies be used to test cosmetics, but damn, they sure are tasty.
When I have the unfortune to speak with most "animal rights" people, it turns out they have no experience at all with animals or nature. They are just Mary Provosts in the waiting. Almost always they have never had to raise or cultivate their own food. Now, if they were activeist about the black market labour required to harvest their food, I'd cut them some slack. But of course migrant workers don't have the sense to wear bunny costumes.
i actually agree with you. i've never been anti hunt or whatever or even anti meat. You and i agree in that i think it shows a helluva lot more respect to kill your own food rather than see it all neatly packed etc. etc --THAT is agood thing and too bad we don't see more of that. As for bunnies, was poor satire to make a point. For me, i've been a vegetarian since i was fourteen, but only because to me, if i couldn't kill it then i felt i had no business eating it. that's just for ME. What others do is irrelevant to me unless it's just horrific testing and unnecessary the way the GM thing was. THAT was absurd. It proved nothing.
But on the whole you and i are agreeing. I do hope you weren't judging me as some flake activist, because a. i'm not and b. i wouldn't judge a hunter or whatever that way. i have nothign but the utmost respect. i even know how to shoot myself (whaddya know), but i just couldn't kill an animal, unless i absolutely had to to survive; but again, it's not a view that i impose on others and that's the main point. there's no need to assume i'm removed from nature (i'm not) or any of those things.
mainly, the point anyway, wasn't about animal rights. it was about just being young and getting involved. i could care if one joined the republican party (which, for the record, i did volunteer work for as well, at the same time i was working for an animal rights group and running a soup kitchen (that yes, served meat, my god)... do you see what i'm saying?
thx. for your comments and for reading; i hope you hadn't pigeonholed me because it felt a little like that, and it's dead wrong. not me at all.
maybe true of many, but not this kid.
Michael Berumen's Do No Evil gives a superb analysis of why we ought to include animals in our moral judgments. He basically says that avoiding suffering is the princple object of morality, and that equal amounts of pain ought to be treated equally, whether we are talking about humans or other animals.
intentional cruelty should always be avoided, animals should be treated with respect and consideration, but I do not believe they have the same moral rights as humans
I have read Berumen's book, too. He says moral rights do not derive from our rational nature. If that were the case, one ought to differentiate between the less rational or more rational...fetuses, grownups, infants, the mentally disabled, etc. Moral agency...a function of rationality...must be distinguished from being a subject of the moral realm. Rationality requires us to avoid doing harm to ourselves without a reason....add impartiality to the mix, we are required to avoid harming others without a reason. The common denominator, here, is to avoid causing others to suffer. Impartiatliy, by definition, accords this rule to everyone without reference to who loses or benefits. Therefore, one ought to avoid causing other animals to suffer, unless we can come up with a reason, one that we can will as a universal rule for the given circumstance in conformance with logic. Nature or rationality alone do not confer moral rights, we prescribe them in accordance with impartial rationality. Nature is indifferent to morality. Insofar as we accept these conjoint princples,however, animals have moral rights, too. Equal pain ought to be treated equally. Only science, Berumen says, can help us judge how to measure the suffering or loss of consciousness (self-awareness) of others.