The Problems of Equal Consideration
On a more personal note ....
Quadraphonics said:
You seriously think that dressing up your shit-flinging as some kind of politesse makes you look better than expressing hostility directly? I don't. And I don't think that many others do.
Well, we do have a longstanding policy of encouraging people to put a modicum of effort into their insults.
But in more particular terms, having gone rounds with James on this subject before, I can tell you that the
fuck yous don't work because he actually seems to belive what he's saying.
This is a peculiar area of James' conscience; I'm not sure he understands to any great degree the implications of the shif taking place.
He has attached himself to a moral and philosophical assertion, this Principle of Equal Consideration. And even to someone like me, it sounds nice and all. But the problem is that it seems arbitrary; there is no real system to it.
I mean, think about it: Why
not strike the word "human" from
human rights? Why
not extend equality to animals?
And set aside the whole moral issue for a moment. That's essential to the question, so we can come back to it ... well, later.
As an analogy, think of the abortion argument. Very well: The child is fully human and alive from conception. Now, what happens to mothers? Do they collect rent for the forty weeks? Do they need to file eviction papers and go through proceedings to get an abortion? Oh, right. No abortions. Okay, now for every miscarriage, we need to conduct a homicide investigation to determine culpability. Did she fall at work? Well, why was she at work in the first place? Did she fall down the stairs? Why did she take such an irresponsible risk in the first place? Was it a car accident? Did she expose herself to noxious fumes like cigarette smoke or automobile exhaust? What's that? A
spontaneous miscarriage? Oh, Rh imbalance? Well, who do we prosecute for
that? The father, since it's usually off his gene that this occurs? Now then, what about those miscarriages where she didn't even know she was pregnant? What kind of irresponsibility is that? What we need, of course, is a regulatory agency with arrest power to investigate every menstruating woman, in order to check for irregularities and make sure no in vitro humans ever perished accidentally. Did her period come late? Did she fail to report that to the local authorities? Jail time? Maybe just a fine? Perhaps we can start stacking sentences on presumption, just like we do with drugs (e.g., more than one simultaneous possession conviction equals automatic distribution conviction), and just file murder charges against the women who don't properly report their menstrual cycle to the public authority.
We can do the same thing with the PEC. Like I said: Fine, then let's put the damn cougar on trial; I'll acquit. Let's file the lawsuit for the cows and pigs and fish. Oh, and don't forget the bees. You know, like that horrible film with Jerry Seinfeld? Oh, right. Bees don't qualify. Their nervous system doesn't meet the arbitrary standard.
The Honeymakers' Union? The Cheese-Cow Union? What are the dues? The wages? The health benefit allocation? The Precarders' Wool Producers Union?
How much should we spend prosecuting assault charges against a mosquito? Oh, right. Insufficient nervous system.
Four years ago, James wrote, "
nobody (or at least not me) is arguing that animals ought to have the same rights as humans."
But that's not the same as how the PEC works in practical application. What is the cut-off? Now
this is what James can't answer. Start with everything being equal, and scale back if you have a good reason. Well, what's a good reason?
Right now the only "good reason" we have is a not-quite arbitrary (e.g.,
convenient) standard pertaining to nervous systems, though even that is easily questioned by the data. Even so, the implications of that standard aren't clear.
You know, I remember being, like, ten years old when I first saw cattle fucking. We were driving through the dairy country in the valley on the way to my grandmother's. I remember it because it is the start of a particular, quaint habit of my mother's: denial. You know, like, "Oh my God! Those cows are doing it!" And she says,
No, they're not. Well, actually, Mom ....
But now, these years later, I wonder if the cow can file rape charges against the bull? Or if not cattle, what about cats? I'm sorry, but it takes
barbs on your penis to stay in long enough to complete the deed? And, hell, can I file a noise complaint against the raccoons? Or, at least, public indecency? I mean, if you ain't heard 'coons fuckin', you ain't heard shit. I mean, trees rattlin', the whole neighborhood's awake, and everyone's trying to lend you a shotgun since the damn things are in the tree in
your backyard.
Now, normally, I would just go inside and get high and laugh about the caprices of nature. But with this whole PEC thing?
Or the neighbor's dog? I was talking with a guy about it today. I mean, I get what dogs are for when raised and kept in that context, but these things go off if you raise or lower your blinds, if you turn on a light inside your home. Hell, it might have been coincidence, but I farted once while outside, and it seems to have set the dog off.
It wasn't
that loud a fart.
Should frustrated neighbors file a complaint against the dogs, or the owner? Current outlooks would hold the owner accountable. But why? It's just species bias. Let the dogs be responsible for their own behavior. Oh, right—and stop hitting them with rolled up newspaper when they chew your slippers, or piss on the rug.
But this is where we're at. It sounds like a kids' movie. Don't get me wrong; if the rat knows how to wash itself, and can cook, I say let the little guy cook.
Or there's the joke:
Support your right to arm bears! And yes, there was a cute Aussie joke about it that made one of the highlights of Australian cultural achievement, a
Crocodile Dundee film. I don't know, maybe you remember—when the poachers thought the kangaroos were shooting back at them?
Hell, we're already tapping into monkey, cat, and mouse brains (
O! the humanity!) as part of cybernetic interface and integration research. Why not attach guns to the critters? That way, when the hunters come to shoot the cougar for mauling someone who was trespassing on its property, the big cat can shoot back. The PEC/PAS (Principle of Equal Consideration Point And Shoot) 7.62mm automatic personal defense mechanism.
And what about nature shows on television? Pornography, I tell you! I remember the first time I ever saw an elephantine erection—I mean, by the Goddess! All huge and dripping and primed and ready. Won't
someone please think of the
children?
Of course, there are good reasons for avoiding these conflicts. Like, "
Oh, come on
! It's naure
! What the hell is wrong with documentary footage of elephants fucking?"
Or perhaps something more practical: "
Do we really trust
gibbons with handguns?" Well, why not? Oh, right. PEC. The fact that it's a
gibbon does
not qualify as a good reason. So ... um ... yeah.
I think part of what needs to happen is that PEC advocates need to start formalizing their argument a little. Right now the whole concept seems to be customized specifically to promote the moral superiority of vegetarians.
Gilbert Gibbon sez: "Gimme a gun! Why are you punishing responsible gun owners by denying us gibbons our Second Amendment rights?"
The result of this apparent fanaticism is that the PEC is very vague. Sure, any individual adherent to the faith can tell you much about where he or she draws the line, but it's all individualized.
Over the last four years, James hasn't done much to refine this argument; he presents it here with the same fanatical zeal as he did then. It's an identity politic, much like religion has become, a means of separating himself from the humanity he loathes by the establishment of his select moral superiority. So, yes, there's a reason why the details of the PEC are so vague. There is a reason why he sticks with moral condemnation and supremacism instead of rational argument. Which, of course, means there's a reason the
fuck yous slip right by him.
He doesn't know what they mean. He doesn't care. All you're doing is reinforcing his supremacist delusion.