tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-458556229137845931.post1243164548366799408..comments2023-03-28T05:41:07.901-07:00Comments on Wobbly Times: Wobbly Times number 10Mike Ballardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05410520975856239745noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-458556229137845931.post-30955331717931374582009-07-07T21:18:48.256-07:002009-07-07T21:18:48.256-07:00But hypocrisy is a moral position. To say that me...But hypocrisy is a moral position. To say that men and women are free and that we live in a democratic society is hyocrisy as well. Most of us have to sell our time and skills to the employing class in order to make a living. We are not chattel slaves; but we are wage-slaves. As such, we give up the power to control what we produce in exchange for a handful of dimes. We can make the moral argument that this is hypocritical; but until the time comes when most people become class conscious and act on their class consciousness by organising One Big Union, their moral condemnations concerning hypocrisy will be ineffective. There has to come a time when workers recognise that it is in their interests to organise an OBU. Interest is the key concept there. Interest is based on one's own will to live and be free. Without feeling the necessity to 'dump the bosses off your back' and backing that up with classwide organisational activity, you're still within the realm of Idealism and ineffectiveness. The reason why the State, such as it is, can say that killing humans is illegal AND immoral and make it stick is because the State is synonomous with power, the power to hire armed men and women to put you in jail and/or kill you. Not only that, but most people take this power and the moral convictions which back it up for granted and that has happened over eons of time as humans have developed their consciousness of what is and what is not moral and acceptable behaviour. <br /><br />What I'm saying is that this evolution of consciousness among humans and their morality can occur; but to be effective, it has to be tied to generally recognised interests amongst humans. I think that those interests and vegetarianism are now begining to find synchronicity with the growing recognition that we cannot sustain the enviornment with the population which now exists (over six billion) and keep on keepin' on with animal husbandry...that increasingly, it will dawn on people that not only would they enjoy better health by becoming vegetarians, they could also contribute to conserving the environmental health of the Earth along with serving their own interests to survive. Along with that realisation will come the moral positions which include elements of what is now known as Animal Rights.Mike Ballardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410520975856239745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-458556229137845931.post-24402102396600701592009-07-06T19:19:16.966-07:002009-07-06T19:19:16.966-07:00I wouldn't compare religious intolerance to me...I wouldn't compare religious intolerance to meat eater repugnancy. Humans, in their definition of criminal homicide, have decided that the unjustified & unexcused killing of humans with malice aforethought is morally culpable. To say that only killing humans is bad, but killing animals is an acceptable social custom is basic hypocrisy. Also, what animal rights activists said that animals cannot be or do evil? I disagree with that, however, if I were to look at the most culpable of animals first, the most hypocritical, greedy, & exploitative ones would be staring me straight in the face; the humans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com