I read your little editorial and must say that I feel sorry for you: you possess such noble sentiments yet struggle to justify them rationally. I am speaking here of a sentence mid-paragraph in which you ponder, “I don’t know why, but cruelty to animals makes me a lot more upset than cruelty to people.” Allow me to suggest that you struggle to rationally justify the ideas your editorial expresses because you are entirely irrational. Your opinions, though, can perhaps still be explained: they are the product of your intellectual diet—which I am sure consists primarily of liberal horseshit—and a poor physical constitution; you are weak physically, psychologically, or both. As to your intellectual diet, the humanitarian ideals you no doubt profess have warped your mind and removed it from the natural realm in which not all life is of equal value. Your weakness finds solace in the fact that there are life-forms which are even more helpless than you.
If I am right about this, your reasoning is suspect in two other ways. First, your ideas are hypocritical: you opine that our laws should treat those who take other lives more severely whether those lives are human or animal, yet by owning a dog, tacitly embrace the fact that as humans we are entitled to take advantage of lower life forms. Slavery! Also, while you salivate at the prospect of happening across a group cruelly beating an animal, you inaccurately predict the outcome of such an encounter. I seriously doubt that someone who values the life of a skunk more than the life of a human would even be capable of self-defense, much less the execution of a savage attack. For this reason, we share a mutual desire that some day you do in fact come across the group of people who tortured that poor skunk. I think they would rejoice at the opportunity to beat another offensive animal.
Leave a Reply