I’m
sick
of writing how animal welfare is the chink in my rationalist armour,
because the contradiction doesn’t concern me. I have no argument against
anything Lindsay Perigo says in
his piece on the senseless (40 hour long) cruel killing of Cecil the lion
by the monstrous American dentist, Walter Palmer. Lindsay is categorically
correct in his summary:
Rights pertain to the species capable of conceiving
them—human beings. Cecil had no concept of rights—just ask any zebra or tourist
he might have eaten. Humans may arguably bestow honorary rights on animals incapable of conceiving them (or
protect them via ordinary human property rights), and prosecute each other for
their breach, but let's keep our empathy for Cecil in perspective. It shouldn't
blind us to or trump—much less justify—man's
inhumanity to man.
Lindsay
is correct in a way that my old Catholic friend who believes God created
animals for, quote, ‘man’s enjoyment’ is wrong. BUT, regardless, my empathy for
the animals in this piece remains unbounded.
If
Mr Palmer weren’t bad enough, now we have American accountant Sabrina
Corgatelli, who is relishing her fifteen minutes of fame posting
sicko pictures of the wildlife she has slaughtered. Ricky Gervais’ observation about this woman who is killing and maiming her way through Noah's ark, is apt:
Following
from that, within my own philosophical framework, I wonder if the libertarian minarchy
I advocate is possible in a society populated with a subset of violent psychotics. I
use that word advisedly.
This’s
the dictionary definition of psychosis:
An acute or chronic
mental state marked
by loss of contact with reality, disorganized
speech and behavior,
and often by hallucinations
or delusions, seen in certain mental illnesses
…
I’m
afraid Corgatelli’s words cause concern against this definition as the
benchmark. According to this human iteration on the theme of evil:
'Everything I've done here is legal, so how can you fault somebody
because of their hobbies?' she said.
For
her the killing of a sentient creature for enjoyment (not for food or
self-preservation) is a hobby.
'To me it's not just killing an animal, it's the hunt.
If
she had the capacity – and she’s a heartless bitch, so she doesn’t – to think
around the empathy by-pass involved in that statement, she might understand that killing after the torture of the hunt on an animal scared out of its wits, possibly painfully maimed as Cecil was, is more repugnant.
'Everybody just thinks we're cold-hearted killers, and it's not that.
There is a connection with the animal, and just because we hunt them doesn't
mean we don't have a respect for them
That
last idiot notion seems at the heart of this psychotic trophy hunting industry;
noting you are a cold-hearted killer,
Sabrina, the civilised mind doesn’t buy into this communing with nature
bullshit – you’re just getting your jollies
by perpetrating senseless slaughter. You might have Enya playing in your damaged
head, but you’re just killing. If you want to commune with nature, grow veges,
or take your camera on safari instead. (How does this even work? I have so much respect for you Mr Giraffe: bang, there, I've killed you. I have so much respect for you Hippo mate: bang, I've killed you. ... No, I don't get it.)
It’s
hard to avoid the logic that to monsters such as this accountant and her
dentist buddy, a war fought for no reason other than the hunt, would be seen by them as communing with mankind, or some
such rot.
Indeed,
her final comment – in the context she has paid money and made a ten hour flight to stalk the animal
concerned before killing it with primitive bow and arrow - has me wondering:
'Giraffes are very dangerous animals. They could hurt you seriously very
quickly.
Is
psychosis the right word? These monstrous dreks who are communing with their
inner-psychotic bring to my mind another definition – retardation:
(Psychiatry) psychiatry the slowing down
of mental functioning … [snip] … Impaired
intellectual development.
No comments:
Post a Comment