Friday, December 23, 2011

"Equal Rights," My Donkey

The ARs don't afford them the same rights as humans. What they actually do is put up a set of ideas, like the "five freedoms" which don't hold up under scrutiny, at all, and falsely claim that those trump human rights. If your right to eat or conduct yourself as a human or your privacy rights conflict with a vague set of wrongheaded "animal rights" then theirs trump yours. It's entirely arbitrary and intentionally confusing. They often mislabel this as "animal welfare." That is part of their drive to co-opt and coerce.

The "Five Freedoms" are listed here: The words in bold are the original wording. The words in regular type are their qualifiers. Those qualifiers were a big mistake. When your enemy hands you poison and tells you to eat it, you don't put ketchup on it and try to eat it and smile. You shove it as far down his throat as you can, doing as much damage as you can, and you explain to him that his botulism sandwich is not fit to eat.

Something had to go missing for people to be able to swallow the wording of the Five Freedoms at all, and that was the recognition of positives intentionally phrased in the negative. There is a huge difference between "freedom from hunger and thirst" and "having enough good food and clean water." The qualifiers can be shed at any time and you are left with the original crap, which the Farm Animal Welfare Council was kind enough to set in bold print. An animal that is free from hunger, thirst, exposure to uncomfortable temperatures, emotional discomfort, or injury, is dead. By species it is extinct.

It is not too strong a statement to say that the people who foisted the Five Freedoms on the world belong under the jail for infamous crimes that include vandalism, arson, death threats against human beings, and the killings of innocent animals as part of the vandalism. Let them eat what I care to feed them and they will kiss up to me and beg for Burger King.

The "Five Freedoms" were deliberately, calculatedly, written such that only dead animals could fulfill the criteria. The FAWC would have been better off biting the bullet, or shooting it at the miscreants, than modifying their demands to make them seem palatable. When they give the extremists enough rope to hang US with, our animals are DEAD.

Real animal welfare would use positives. We feed and water the animals according to their needs. We comfort them and give them medical care when they are ailing or injured. We give them happiness when we can. It's a lot easier to do that for an animal than for a human. I'm going to dismiss entirely the "normal behavior" thing because it's bunkum and not worthy of trying to explain to an extremist. None of the credit goes to the extremists for "making" me do anything. They have caused the deaths of thousands, maybe millions of animals, the non-existence of many species individuals that the world is short of, such as tigers, lions, and cheetahs, and they are crazy sick hateful. I don't worry so much that abuse is "disgusting." I am concerned with the fact that I can create a place where animals are happy and healthy and I can give happiness and health.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Molly Ivins on how we hurt ourselves.

"When you make yourself less free, all that happens is that you are less are not safe."

Molly Ivins video

Learn it. Know it.

When you make yourself less free I am not safe either. I am also just less free.

Friday, December 9, 2011

More rambling...

They're really working to ignore the benefits to society. Someone wants control of those benefits and like the thieves that they are they want to get us to devalue them so that we will sell them at fire-sale prices. Even better for them, like the robber barons, if they can get us to pay them to haul them off, they will. Balderson is no better than the rest.

In many ways it would have been better for me to actually take advantage. I think I permanently put myself outside of a group that would have let me have what I desired as long as I was willing to bend over and RAPE the rest of the world. There I'd be trickling down on people because someone told me that I had to if I wanted the kind of life that I want. I feel like if I did that something would go badly wrong with my brain and I wouldn't be able to do useful work with it anymore. Which might explain a lot.

Am I abnormal because I want something less if someone else has it and doesn't want me to have it? Because I'm only willing to pay a fair price? Because I think if I rob someone I have already paid a price far in excess of the worth of whatever I took?

Just rambling I guess

I'm not going to name one particular name but she is an obvious drugged-out prostitute whose job title is a cover for selling illicit sex and drugs to whomever has the money, and she must have made a killing driving her van around servicing workers during hurricane clean-ups, until she learned that there were people who would pay her to viciously attack Michael Sandlin. Who would they be able to use but a lowlife who's about half smart?

And then we wind up being forced to dwell upon their crap. There are a lot of decent people here who, because of their decency, can't even adequately express contempt and anger when we need to. We don't know how to say "get lost" or the more popular versions of that phrase. We don't know how to use words as weapons. Our role is "straight" versus whatever they are, I guess some kind of freak or pod people or something. In all good faith some of us "went after" certain social deviants because we had to, but as soon as we did that we found ourselves more under the control of some of them than we would have been if we tried to be them.

A book that is not even yet in the works, proposed just this day by me, belongs in the potential futures of the next few months or couple of years. It might be titled "Circle of Power." It would be about all this.

I idealize contact with tigers and other big cats for reasons that I see to be as certain as some of the laws of physics. The ones who you see who own the animals who are neurotic and who attack others are the ones who "contain" them without human contact. Neurotics want everyone to be as neurotic as they are. They don't feel "safe" even though if they thought about it, the neurosis is more dangerous to them than the external dangers that they fear. Neurosis can be forced on people.

Having no defenses, being unable to self-promote, being unable to turn on one's own lights, these disabilities do not make us good people. If you read the book that hasn't been written yet, it would be easier to understand that our normal defenses and capabilities drive out corruption. Just a very few positives in any person's day drive out evil spirits, the ones that we manufacture by brooding over our hurts. Good friends, a warm cat, a good book, television, a good meal, those are positives.

The neurotic mindset sees our animals as dangerous because they help relieve neurosis and self-destructive behaviors. Ironically and not coincidentally, the people who want our animals away from us see the ones of us who need the animals the most as least suited to have them. Lord I know that there are problems with allowing unlimited access for those who need contact the most but cutting off contact is depriving humans of needed therapy. The hideous people who pretend to love animals have already attempted to deprive us of needed food. Most of us do eat animal products. I consider animal contact to be a necessity, like food, and people shouldn't be forced to consume or use what someone cares to allow them. Those who would restrain us should be kicked to the curb.