April 2, 2007
-
Freedom
I am all for freedom of speech, even for someone who often just uses it to express ignorance, bias, or moralistic judgments. I think there can be great things accomplished when people are allowed to let their stupidity show. It gives other people an opportunity to helpfully inform and/or lovingly enlighten them. If ignorant, narrow-minded people were required to keep their mouths shut it would cut down on both conflict and noise pollution in our society, but it would do nothing to raise the collective level of consciousness. So, please, everyone, feel free to leave your frank and uncensored comments on my blog. I will endeavor to do my best to respond to them as I see fit.
Here is part of a comment I received on my recent taboo-or-not-taboo entry:
[Eating dogs is] “just … not right. Companion animals should never be used for food.”This is the comment that followed that one:“^ ‘Should’? ‘Never’? Still more
evidence that the less one believes, the better off one is, since ALL
beliefs are limiting beliefs.When one is in tune with the universe, living in hozho (as the Dine
put it), living in a state of grace, in other words–there are NO
LIMITS.”I can find nothing in that second comment with which I would disagree. The first one, however, has pushed even more of my buttons than it apparently pushed on the writer of the second one.
I make an effort never to say, “never,” because I live in a world of infinite possibilities and follow a strict code of situational ethics. I also try to avoid shoulding all over myself and others. That word, “should,” is often problematical unless it is used to express likelihood, probability, or consequences, or as a synonym for “would”. The problem is that in its most common usage, it is used to lay expectations or demands on people.
should CORE MEANING: modal verb indicating that something is the right thing for somebody to do 
You should get more exercise.I should have told her I was leaving.The report recommended that children should be tested regularly.People use it to beat up on themselves and others for doing or not doing things they believe that they or those others have some compelling responsibility to do or not to do. People who go through life shoulding on everyone are generally dictatorial, judgmental, egotistical and moralistic. Those are not traits I generally admire in a person.
But that’s not the only objectionable part of that brief pronouncement, in my opinion. There is also that bit of sloppy semantics posing as political correctness: “companion animals.” For starters, the context suggests that the writer did not mean that phrase in its narrow, exact sense, of trained animal helpers for handicapped or disabled persons. I mean, who is going to go to all the trouble of training an animal helper and then eat it? No, I’m pretty sure she has the PC plague.
As it’s nonsensical to chow down on highly trained and useful non-human assistants (except, of course, in situations of dire starvation), it also seems to me to be nonsensical to use six syllables to replace a perfectly serviceable single syllable: pets. “Pet” is a word that’s about as warm and fuzzy as words can be.
1. animal kept at home: an animal kept for companionship, interest, or amusement 2. favorite person: an indulged or pampered person 3. loved person: somebody whom others find lovable I love my pets. I prefer their company to that of many humans of my acquaintance. They are my pampered, indulged, beloved pets, truly. I won’t diminish our relationship with mealy-mouthed, albeit trendy, pseudo-euphemisms.
I am at a considerable disadvantage in responding to someone who says my views or my actions are wrong or “not right.” I can’t say that the other person is wrong. I’m working as hard to eliminate dualistic thinking and moralistic bullshit from my mind and my vocabulary as I am in my endeavor to transcend all beliefs. I suppose, under the circumstances, I’ve said enough.
[Edit: responding to http://www.xanga.com/wixer's comment, I changed the wording of the 'graph that begins, "People use it to..." and eliminated the phrase, "ought to."]
Comments (10)
I am not consuming my 4 leg companions – and yet I realize and understand that in some cultures they would be part of the food chain… that’s why I keep them in my culture.
What an interesting blog you have. I haven’t been paying attention and didn’t know that you were subscribed to me. Thank you. I also try not to use absolutes and superlatives. I try not to say “never.” I hope I never have to eat my cat, but I think I’d put my needs before hers during the Apocalypse if she were the last food on earth (she’ll forgive me for it later). I have questions for you, but I’ll stick around to get to know you better first. Peace!
Whenever I am on the verge of making, or have already made, a “right or wrong” judgment, I hear your “voice” saying just about what you wrote here.
I just Love you.
Might want to add “ought” as another one of those “never”/”should” family of words?
My counselor at the women’s shelter, the first woman I ever clicked with… taught me that “should” is a shaming word. Since then, I have done my utmost not to use it. When I catch myself using it, I correct it and it’s rare that I can’t re-word things.. “should” implies that there is something better, by that token, that the person or their choices are not “good enough.” that in itself is reason enough for me not to use it.
I wouldn’t eat a dog. Or cat or any animal species that I’ve had as a pet… that’d be just too… weird and wrong, as they’re considered part of the family. It doesn’t necessarily bother me that others do. I don’t prefer some of the inhumane treatment that goes along with some of eating of “pet” animals, though. The pic of the dogs in the crate *does* bother more than the pic of the dogs in a bowl, though I didn’t like that one much, either. (I’d rather not have my food looking at me, no matter it’s species, thank you.) Several years ago I watched a program about eating pet type animals in other cultures. I watched the cat slaughter, but changed the channel before they got to the dog. The cat was bad enough. Partially boiled & then skinned alive… it was horrible.
I was wondering how you would react to that one…
And now I “should” go find something to eat! *chuckles*
/cheek!
Truth is that your beliefs and values tend to change in desparate and life threatning situations. There is a series of exploitation films from the 60′s or 70′s called Mondo Cane, in which several taboos are explored. Very interesting flim.
Also, if you have to eat meat, there is something to be said for being as humane as possible when killing the animals. I certainly believe the method of death would affect the meat, although NOT a big meat eater and stick to beef, chicken and sometimes pork and of course turkey.and fish……. but if I didn’t crave the protien i’d be fine with a non animal diet.
People get all confused and caught up in their emotions about stuff like this….
My mother went to a women’s gathering several years ago. One of the things they talked about was not “shoulding” on themselves…Language is a powerful thing, is it not?
Greetings, my pet! (Heh, heh.)
BTW–Xgram–on the gun show poster, please make “AGCA Gun Show” much more prominent than “Greyfox.” Place, Raven Hall, sponsor AGCA, Date & Time, Saturday April 21, 10:00am–6:00 pm, Sunday April 22, 10 am to 5 pm.
Thanks, and a tip of the Greyfox fedora in your general direction.
PS–I GET TO VOTE HERE TODAY–WOO HOO!!!