At 10:10 AM 1/12/99 -0000, Samael wrote:
>>Sure, why not? If we OWN property then we can do anything with it
>>that we wish. Either the cow is my property and I can do as I wish,
>>or you (government, mob rule, whatever) give me a list of what I can
>>and can't do with the cow - then it's no longer my property.
>The problem being that lots of people feel that people torturing animals is
>in some way the same as torturing people. In fact, unless you in some way
>see people as not being animals, then it is the same. Admittedly, a society
>that sets itself up as either owners or owned must be definition see huamns
>as 'just plain better', but I have to admit that I'd rather not live in a
>society where people could torture animals in their own home if they felt
IAN: I agree. There's an interesting correlation between serial killers, like Jeffrey Dommer (sp?), and torture of animals, such that a high percentage of the most brutal serial killers first tortured animals, usually when they were kids. They see the similarity between humans and animals, but only in the worst ways imaginable. With this, we can see that the way person x treats animals is a measure of how person x could treat humans. A society that was particularly brutal toward animals would probably be more inclined than the less brutal society to effect various forms of brutality on the human animal.
" [T]he Indian sunya [zero] was destined to become the turning point in a development without which the progress of modern science, or commerce is inconceivable. ... In the history of culture, the invention of zero will always stand out as one of the greatest single achi- evements of the human race." Tobias Dantzig "Number, The Language of Science"