People are Full of Shit Pt. 2

1/5/07 S.E.N. - Even though I don't need current events examples to justify my opinion, it can't hurt my dubious credibility...

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3212

Self-righteous? To be damn sure. Truly righteous? Maybe never, and certainly only when it is convenient. In light of this article, I take back all the concession I give at the end of this blog. Eat the shit that you are full of.

People Are Full of Shit:
Pt. 2


Item: P.E.T.A. 'n Friends
Man oh man these guys have some nerve. Isn’t it nice that their tender little sensibilities can be catered to in such distanced, sterilized society? Imagine if these fancy poofs had to actually fend for themselves because some hippy company in Southern California wasn’t importing bean curd and tofu for their pasty grey complexion. Imagine if they put this seemingly boundless time and effort towards something that actually bettered mankind rather than push a fringe agenda on John Q? (Then I wouldn't be writing this, instead I'd be traveling, pollutant free, in mankind's new utopia, but nooooooo.)

Imagine still if poor migrant workers weren't handling the ugly side of food so modern weenies may just go pick it up in a tiddy, sterile package from the grocer, removing themselves from nature's gritty reality of life feeding on life. Imagine if you will, these wimps having to chase something down and eat it. Impossible. These are the would-be victims of Darwin’s rule, if not propped up by civilization, for they are anything but the fittest. Lucky for them to be born in this time when they can afford to behave like some expectant brat raised by and abusing yet another poor immigrant housekeeper, growing up thinking those people exist for their disposal.

I don’t know where that came from, I’m distracted. I hate them.

I could bring up Chris Rock’s argument here that there isn’t one person in a starving nation who is lactose intolerant, but I won’t.

Instead, let’s say this particular starving nation is in Africa (that seems to be where most of them are kept). These Africans have a very grounded view of the world’s food chain, because they may not always be at the top of it. Nor do they have any qualms about biting the bejeezus out of a fat piece of meat, even if that meat is days old and lying in the hot savannah dirt. They’ll probably eat it without a second thought and won’t even sweat the diarrhea that came right behind it. They’re so used to eating bad food (if even that) and drinking water with microbes in it that if they actually had a solid bowel movement, they’d go right to the local witchdoctor in order to quickly get their stool the motherfuck back into watery shape. In this essay, these people are the least full of shit because they couldn’t hang onto it if their assholes slammed shut like Fort Knox.

The point is, these hapless folks haven’t the luxury to discriminate. Unfortunately for the rest of us living in civilized society, there is time for discrimination. Civilized society and the birth of agriculture, which offers us the chance to not always worry about our next meal and instead contemplate art and recreation, philosophy and literature, theology and science, etc., also offers the opportunity for some to become pompous, crusading cocksuckers, righteously insisting that everything they don’t subscribe to is wrong and should be stopped. If not, then they will form the biggest pussy pressure group in the world and force their opinions down your throat and into law or they will slander you from a national platform until you are discredited, your good name smeared, and your company bankrupt!

Practice peace and tolerance, go Vegan!! YAY!! People for the Ethical Treatment of Their Own Clique and Nobody Else.

For all the time freed up by modern convenience, this is the best they could come up with?

Well let’s just take our own close look at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Right. How many of these people hold doctorates in philosophy? If so, would that person perhaps point out that “ethics” are immaterial and highly subjective? Probably not, because that person is an ass persuing selfish desires. But philosophy aside, how about taking a look at the way THE WHOLE WORLD WORKS!! You just don’t see animals struggling with these issues. “Well, animals lack the capacity for morals and abstract thought.” So? Does that make them or us any less a part of this dog-eat-dog world? Animals don’t NEED morals, they aren’t hampered by a mind that can make this kind of shit up. Rather, that’s something we made up to keep people from being jerks to each other all the time, and it still doesn’t work. Animals, on the other hand, follow one thing: need. I’m hungry, I’ll eat that deer, I’m thirsty, I’ll drink, horny, fuck, tired, sleep, nature, poop, etc.

The idea of morals isn't such a bad one, in and of itself. The problem arises when one or a few people are charged with maintaining these for everyone else. They become unavoidably intoxicated by this station and then make the mistake of believing they and not the collective, are the fountain from which these ideals should spring, then further compound that mistake by believing they are right, there upon compounding it even more when they decide everyone must abide by these ideas alone or a certain simpleton someone on the moral payroll will arrive at your door with a subpoena. Hey sorry, Mack. I'm just doing my job.

Indeed.

As though that were excuse enough for taking on the task of fucking someone else over as employment. A responsibility that no one forced upon you, but merely a gig these lofty self-serving dicks dangled in front of just the kind of toolish automotons that enjoy a little authority over the regular joe. I feel the same fierce lack of sympathy bordering on murderous lust for "parking enforcement," or meter maids, which much more accurately describes the bitches they are. If any of you reading this are meter maids, stop. You aren't allowed to read my blog anymore. Go fuck yourself.

At any rate, back to the matter at hand, lest I digress...

To the people of PETA, I'll allow that your hearts are probably in the right place. Maybe. This is a tough concession for me to give, but I'm trying. I love animals too, but goddamn! If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine with me. Just know that I do want to eat meat so get outta my face. If you don't want products tested on animals, by all means, step in as their proxy. Testing has to be done to save lives but at least then no one could sniff at your resolve. But y'know, last I checked, we aren't running out of lab rats. If you don't want to wear fur, you haven't been stuck anyplace cold enough where a North Face jacket wasn't available, but cute deer were.

Let me be clear that I'll concede on one point: I'm all for throwing shit on super models, though DNA, not paint, would be my first choice.

The problem is, instead of making the world a better place by going directly against nature's grain, you are driving yet another wedge between people who, in most other regards, are probably very similar. You are re-enforcing unimportant differences in much the same way that affirmative action and work place quotas do. Everyone is different, that's why this place is so interesting. Can you imagine if all music were Kenny G? I'd fucking kill everyone, starting with you guys. But looking clinically close at the small, negative differences ignores any individual benevolence(except for Kenny G). If you do that, then everyone is a jerk and your enemy rather than an opportunity for a broader, more colorful existance. The world is not becoming a better place because of your needling, rather a more aggravated one. Of all the tragedies in our time- starvation, disease, genocide, mtv- you decided to pick on what I'm eating for dinner.

That, and you're all a bunch of pussies.

stabby

Faith & Doubt

stabbtastic editor's note: This is, as yet, an unfinished string of thought. The style of which falls decidely outside of my usual, but I'm posting it in hopes that its presence in the public ether will behoove me to wrap it up. Or at least attempt to. Or, barring that, at least throw out a few more reckless meanderings, worthy of slappable contempt. If that could possibly be confused with something that means anything...

Though I am actually posting this on August 3, 2006, the original date on my draft tells me that I started it about a year ago, which means the subject matter demands enormous amounts of "time" and "effort" on my part, but could also reveal that I'm "lazy" and prefer "video games."

Organized Religion: Faith & Doubt

Nothing is scarier to the faithful than doubt. To the faithful, nothing carries with it such a dark taint as uncertainty. Some one who has put all their eggs in one basket for emotional and supposed spiritual stability can become offended when it is raised to question, possibly to the point of insult and violence, for in most people’s case, reason has already left the table. To the faithful masses, it becomes a matter of what is “right,” as in it’s not “right” to shake the easily crumbled foundations of their belief. The truth is, nobody knows the truth. The faithful will argue that they do indeed know, when in fact they merely believe so completely that they’ve convinced themselves beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Sister Mary Michael of the Lincoln Cathedral said this about the filming of “The Da Vinci Code”: “I don’t think it’s right that they are filming this story here. I know the bishop and dean argue it is fiction – and it might even be brilliant fiction – but it is against the very essence of what we believe.”

So what if it is? Is she in danger of changing her mind? If her belief is so secure, this shouldn’t even faze her because she is “right.” There must be a shadow of a doubt the haunts back hallways of her mind, an ego in danger of tarnish if a fictional story can threaten her so. And her distinction between the two is clouded and self-serving. Her beliefs lie in fiction, yet she doesn’t see it that way. She believes one book, not the other. One is “right,” the other, “brilliant fiction.” If the Bible and Quran aren't the most brilliant pieces of fiction out there, I don’t know what else could be, for no other books have galvanized people so and ultimately polarized the world more than these two preachy, astonishingly seductive works of folklore and fairy tale.

And indeed, they have all the ingredients for a wonderful fantasy tale: heroic and humble protagonists, vile and corruptive antagonists, magic and mystery, the unanswerable, catastrophic failures and glorious redemption. Yet somehow, these particular books turned to fact in people’s minds rather than something like “Beowulf” or even C.S. Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a collection so steeped in Christianity, one wonders if the timing were right, would people fear the Ice Queen instead of Satan and revere the Lion instead of Christ. There is little difference in the fantastical elements that lure people in.

The key difference lies in the question of an afterlife. It offers the necrophobes and the downtrodden and destitute a solution. Don't worry that life here is often unbearable for you, when it's all over, you will have everything you've ever longed for. All your problems and hardships will disappear and you will bask in the glory of the lord, whichever one that might be. While it's true that the problems and hardships are certainly over for the dead, the faithful believe that's highly circumstantial. The originators of their faith found a way to dominate them even in death.

...to be continued, when I've decided to ponder this some more.

stabby