What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Degradation Of Man To Beast (1 Viewer)

rockaction

rockaction

Footballguy
So I was just thinking of COVID-19 and how it likely jumped in a wet market. I was thinking that it used to be that man was exalted and that our livestock laws, even before the foothold gained by animal rights concerns, reflect that status of man as superior to beast. It was not so much the dignity of the livestock, but our separation from stock as divine that was the impetus of most of the older livestock laws that were in place to serve not only this status, but also to keep filth and disease in check, lest it jump like medieval Europe from stock animal and vermin to man.

That these laws are not universally followed within societies where man is considered little more than meat is not surprising. What, then, in the face of the death of God in the West do we do with livestock laws that apply not from a sense of respect for animal qua animal or pantheism, but from our place in the natural pecking order of man and beast when not reciprocated by, let's face it, immigrant populations that have no conception of the dignity of man as separate from livestock? 

Yours in advance,

rockaction

 
Last edited by a moderator:
March 1: Up at 4:00 for a run.  In the office by 7:00, home by 4:30.  Eat supper with my family.  Another life in the day of a man.  Provider, husband, father.

April 30: Should I even bother to wear pants today?

 
tougher to achieve?

2,633 consecutive SiP days

a person having back to back to back recoveries from Covid

57 straight posts in the C-19 mother thread that don't allude to politics 

... asking for @TheWinz

:coffee:

 
That is a lot to unpack @rockaction

I myself think that the sensible approach to take with livestock laws in helping to limit* disease transfer is one based on biological data and reality. Not the exalted man vs the inferior beast. Not some other religious or cultural ritual. Science is our best chance here.

* I use limit because we are never, ever going to totally prevent species infecting each other with nasty stuff.

 
I thought for sure this thread was going to involve a WalMart employee wheeling out a pallet of toilet paper and the ensuing frenzy.

:kicksrock:

 
Ilov80s said:
I saw wet markets in Spain
Click to expand...
Somewhere there's an argument about The Crusades waiting to be made, but damned if my gap in history can do it. Spain has always been different than the rest of Europe regarding its treatment of beasts and man; see: Hemingway, bullfighting. I was mainly riffing on a special animal law presentation we had to do in Sports Law with our esteemed professor of law presiding. (I won't name his name for fear of Google searches). His contention -- and mine -- was that the history of American animal law was tied up not-so-neatly with religion and blue laws rather than pantheism and animal rights. While the latter had something to do with it, the nature of man was largely the consideration, as was health to a degree.

In his wisdom, we came to the conclusion that there were really three impetuses for laws involving the regulation of livestock displays and commingling, some finding their root and precedence more deeply than others, all at play. I'm wondering in cultures that haven't developed similarly, what sort of laws and markets would we find; what sort of health and/or ethical issues waiting around the corner. 

You have provided us with Spain as an example.

 
Jagov said:
That is a lot to unpack @rockaction

I myself think that the sensible approach to take with livestock laws in helping to limit* disease transfer is one based on biological data and reality. Not the exalted man vs the inferior beast. Not some other religious or cultural ritual. Science is our best chance here.

* I use limit because we are never, ever going to totally prevent species infecting each other with nasty stuff.
Click to expand...
If science finds no efficacy of the distinction between man and beast then the commingling for ethical/animal concerns takes a leap or a step back, then? Asking for my animal friends.

 
rockaction said:
Somewhere there's an argument about The Crusades waiting to be made, but damned if my gap in history can do it. Spain has always been different than the rest of Europe regarding its treatment of beasts and man; see: Hemingway, bullfighting. I was mainly riffing on a special animal law presentation we had to do in Sports Law with our esteemed professor of law presiding. (I won't name his name for fear of Google searches). His contention -- and mine -- was that the history of American animal law was tied up not-so-neatly with religion and blue laws rather than pantheism and animal rights. While the latter had something to do with it, the nature of man was largely the consideration, as was health to a degree.

In his wisdom, we came to the conclusion that there were really three impetuses for laws involving the regulation of livestock displays and commingling, some finding their root and precedence more deeply than others, all at play. I'm wondering in cultures that haven't developed similarly, what sort of laws and markets would we find; what sort of health and/or ethical issues waiting around the corner. 

You have provided us with Spain as an example.
Click to expand...
That is all above my head but the wet markets shocked the hell out of me when I went to Barcelona. They weren't selling bats or dogs (though we joked maybe) but there were lots of fish and birds that were alive. You pick out what you want and the guy butchers it right there for you. The food was definitely fresh and not loaded with preservatives. Also while it seems to be safe to eat, our animal practices regarding food are pretty damn disgusting and cruel. 

 
Science provides different layers/dimensions to us. The atoms, chemical bonds, molecules, proteins and such in animals are identical to what we humans have on board. From this perspective we are equal animals. And as most animals do, we consume other animals for energy. Zoonotic diseases happen for these reasons.

Stuff would probably be much different (and stranger?? or easier??) if we had a totally different underlying makeup. But at building block level, we don't. Where we do pull ahead of the field is in the areas of speech, intelligence, reflective thought, ethics. I don't think a pig has ethics or can contemplate it's own existence. And it sure as hell can't speak!

Whether or not it is wise to co-mingle concerns between humans and other animals is something to apply our intelligence towards. Certainly not the perfect solution, but I think it is the best we currently have.  Starting with stuff like ... What do we want to achieve? Is it reduction of disease transfer to humans? Is it lower animal suffering? A combination of both? To what extent can we combine the various interests?

I personally hate to see animals suffer. I love my dog more than most other humans. I also really enjoy pork chops and steak. 

And in all of this, we as humans are still not really good at taking care of ourselves.  

 
Jagov said:
Whether or not it is wise to co-mingle concerns between humans and other animals is something to apply our intelligence towards. Certainly not the perfect solution, but I think it is the best we currently have.  Starting with stuff like ... What do we want to achieve? Is it reduction of disease transfer to humans? Is it lower animal suffering? A combination of both? To what extent can we combine the various interests?

I personally hate to see animals suffer. I love my dog more than most other humans. I also really enjoy pork chops and steak.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think this is a pretty good starting point. What exactly are we trying to achieve with our animal laws? To try and understand them is to understand where they once came from. That's why I was so surprised by the presentation. The animal laws, regarding say, cockfighting and livestock were not necessarily a product of animal cruelty concerns back then. It is interesting the deconstruction of law back up into its reconstruction.

Ilov80s said:
That is all above my head but the wet markets shocked the hell out of me when I went to Barcelona. They weren't selling bats or dogs (though we joked maybe) but there were lots of fish and birds that were alive. You pick out what you want and the guy butchers it right there for you. The food was definitely fresh and not loaded with preservatives. Also while it seems to be safe to eat, our animal practices regarding food are pretty damn disgusting and cruel. 
Click to expand...
For sure. Maurile Tremblay has noted that part of our reflection on the current state of our moral/ethical societal framework will center around the acceptance and use of factory farming as our main food delivery service. We will find ourselves wanting regarding these practices, he intones.

@Maurile Tremblayfor any comment. I don't want to put words into his mouth. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It could be the case that the origin of animals laws (and many others for that matter) are not based in a rational, logical, what are our goals mentality but more often than not derive from some scriptural, tribal base. I think some of your earlier words in this thread may even point in that direction.

I would be for an approach that seeks to establish animal guidelines and laws in which ...

... animals are not mistreated or subjected to un-needed suffering

... produced food is safe for humans to consume

I think this could be achievable, even without factory farming. It could lead to smaller quantities of meat being available and higher prices for that meat. 

 
Jagov said:
It could be the case that the origin of animals laws (and many others for that matter) are not based in a rational, logical, what are our goals mentality but more often than not derive from some scriptural, tribal base. I think some of your earlier words in this thread may even point in that direction.

I would be for an approach that seeks to establish animal guidelines and laws in which ...

... animals are not mistreated or subjected to un-needed suffering

... produced food is safe for humans to consume

I think this could be achievable, even without factory farming. It could lead to smaller quantities of meat being available and higher prices for that meat. 
Click to expand...
I agree with your main points and would like to add that a reduction in factory farming leads to supply questions, as you point out. That would result in a lesser supply and higher prices, but it may be that the net benefits derived as a society from the move away from factory farming offsets the increased cost to consumers. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
So I was just thinking of COVID-19 and how it likely jumped in a wet market. I was thinking that it used to be that man was exalted and that our livestock laws, even before the foothold gained by animal rights concerns, reflect that status of man as superior to beast. It was not so much the dignity of the livestock, but our separation from stock as divine that was the impetus of most of the older livestock laws that were in place to serve not only this status, but also to keep filth and disease in check, lest it jump like medieval Europe from stock animal and vermin to man.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

So I can better understand, can you unpack this more?

Specifically the bolded? 

And by "livestock laws", what exactly do you mean? Like regulations for how animals are butchered? 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks.

So I can better understand, can you unpack this more?

Specifically the bolded? 

And by "livestock laws", what exactly do you mean? Like regulations for how animals are butchered? 
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think I'm just, as pointed out later in the thread, thinking of something I had an inkling about but a professor (who was hardly a religious man) helped me out with one day in class and expounded upon it. It was a Sports Law class and we were hearing a presentation about boxing and regulation. The student giving the presentation brought in Connecticut's blue laws regarding cockfighting and in the subsections of cockfighting were the livestock laws of the state for state fairs and exhibitions. By livestock laws I mean the public display and consumption of livestock -- think 4-H stuff at fairs and then consider that these laws specifically applied also to live butchery. So simply, display and consumption of animals in a public setting, either for display or market purposes.

Where it came from was that the student looked to draw parallels between the cockfighting and the boxing regulations. It didn't sound right to me, so I sort of gently asked about the livestock regulations and talked about general welfare laws and where they came from. Not only was it filth they were concerned with, but the language also revealed religious impulses in the regulatory language. It was quite clear that these were God-derived as they had language, IIRC, about the Sabbath. The professor then intoned that the two (cockfighting and livestock regulation) were together in statutory construction not because of ethical concerns about animals (this would be his gentle way of telling the student that the inference of drawing conclusions from boxing to cockfight regulations wasn't necessarily correct -- that the cockfight regulations weren't for the animal, but for the human) nor our treatment of them as godly agents, but out of the concern about the dignity of man being reduced to beast. In cockfighting, it was a concern about the vulgarity of cheering over the beast-like nature of the fight and the disposal and display of the animals in an ungodly way that made it taboo (not to mention the gambling aspect) and in livestock it was the commingling of man and beast on such an intimate level that it was taboo to have these markets. Concerns about filth also played a role in the language, though not so much as hortatory concerns.

So my question becomes this: In traditions where animal and man commingling is separated by the impulse of man's belief in God, what happens when God ceases to be the ultimate object of worship in man's mind? Is there a move towards pantheism, that is, the worship of nature simple because of its awesomeness, or does it reduce us to among the beasts and therefore more inclined to treat animals abjectly and badly? If the latter, then what do we do with a world that sees differing concepts of that which to worship and how to act accordingly? 

And the live wet markets across the world (including subsequent wet market exposes going on in America now, notably by TMZ in Southern California like I saw the other day) brought this question to the fore in my mind. What about these old blue laws we used to have before we became exotic gourmands that saw fit to ditch old dietary and animal restrictions that came from religious impulses?

I hope that unpacks it a bit.

TL;DR

Livestock laws = public display and consumption of animals, including butchery techniques and practices

Exalted state of man over beast = God before existentialist footholds in the West and subsequent declining religious participation

What to do then, and what lies in our future regarding both public health and our ethical treatment of animals. 

 
rockaction said:
Sure.

I think I'm just, as pointed out later in the thread, thinking of something I had an inkling about but a professor (who was hardly a religious man) helped me out with one day in class and expounded upon it. It was a Sports Law class and we were hearing a presentation about boxing and regulation. The student giving the presentation brought in Connecticut's blue laws regarding cockfighting and in the subsections of cockfighting were the livestock laws of the state for state fairs and exhibitions. By livestock laws I mean the public display and consumption of livestock -- think 4-H stuff at fairs and then consider that these laws specifically applied also to live butchery. So simply, display and consumption of animals in a public setting, either for display or market purposes.

Where it came from was that the student looked to draw parallels between the cockfighting and the boxing regulations. It didn't sound right to me, so I sort of gently asked about the livestock regulations and talked about general welfare laws and where they came from. Not only was it filth they were concerned with, but the language also revealed religious impulses in the regulatory language. It was quite clear that these were God-derived as they had language, IIRC, about the Sabbath. The professor then intoned that the two (cockfighting and livestock regulation) were together in statutory construction not because of ethical concerns about animals (this would be his gentle way of telling the student that the inference of drawing conclusions from boxing to cockfight regulations wasn't necessarily correct -- that the cockfight regulations weren't for the animal, but for the human) nor our treatment of them as godly agents, but out of the concern about the dignity of man being reduced to beast. In cockfighting, it was a concern about the vulgarity of cheering over the beast-like nature of the fight and the disposal and display of the animals in an ungodly way that made it taboo (not to mention the gambling aspect) and in livestock it was the commingling of man and beast on such an intimate level that it was taboo to have these markets. Concerns about filth also played a role in the language, though not so much as hortatory concerns.

So my question becomes this: In traditions where animal and man commingling is separated by the impulse of man's belief in God, what happens when God ceases to be the ultimate object of worship in man's mind? Is there a move towards pantheism, that is, the worship of nature simple because of its awesomeness, or does it reduce us to among the beasts and therefore more inclined to treat animals abjectly and badly? If the latter, then what do we do with a world that sees differing concepts of that which to worship and how to act accordingly? 

And the live wet markets across the world (including subsequent wet market exposes going on in America now, notably by TMZ in Southern California like I saw the other day) brought this question to the fore in my mind. What about these old blue laws we used to have before we became exotic gourmands that saw fit to ditch old dietary and animal restrictions that came from religious impulses?

I hope that unpacks it a bit.

TL;DR

Livestock laws = public display and consumption of animals, including butchery techniques and practices

Exalted state of man over beast = God before existentialist footholds in the West and subsequent declining religious participation

What to do then, and what lies in our future regarding both public health and our ethical treatment of animals. 
Click to expand...
I am not sure of everything you said and there is obviously A LOT there. My most simple answer is, ultimately people will (and should) become vegetarians. While I do it regularly, the eating of animals is gross and the means by which we procure the vast majority of the meat we eat today is exceptionally cruel. If we are what we eat, what does that say about us? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
My most simple answer is, ultimately people will (and should) become vegetarians. While I do it regularly, the eating of animals is gross and the means by which we procure the vast majority of the meat we eat today is exceptionally cruel.
Click to expand...
This is really where this is logically headed the more I write it out on the page. Perhaps I'm steering (get it?) the conversation too much and I should let people draw their own intuitive conclusions about animal and human commingling rather than dictate logically.

In other words, perhaps abandoning reason on reason's grounds is actually the most ethical/moral thing to do. It is certainly our prejudice that logic should dictate, but what of inherited wisdom and intuition?

 
I guess I mean that inherited wisdom is different than logic. Inherited wisdom often has its own dialectic not neatly severed by purely deductive or inductive concerns.

 
rockaction said:
This is really where this is logically headed the more I write it out on the page. Perhaps I'm steering (get it?) the conversation too much and I should let people draw their own intuitive conclusions about animal and human commingling rather than dictate logically.

In other words, perhaps abandoning reason on reason's grounds is actually the most ethical/moral thing to do. It is certainly our prejudice that logic should dictate, but what of inherited wisdom and intuition?
Click to expand...


rockaction said:
I guess I mean that inherited wisdom is different than logic. Inherited wisdom often has its own dialectic not neatly severed by purely deductive or inductive concerns.
Click to expand...
I don't know but I've never heard of a religion that said don't eat carrots. 

 
rockaction said:
Count me among them. Googled and found. "Root vegetable, religion, dietary restriction." Sounded like someone would have a way of the spirit crossed by the weirdness of the root. Sure enough... 
Click to expand...
A quick read on it and I see their point. Too extreme for me but I see it. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Solved: Last resort: help find a replacement for my 6 year old's stuffed animal
Replies
27
Views
714
SWC
SWC
Joe Bryant
A Glimpse of Beauty In an Ugly Place
Replies
0
Views
225
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Looking For Your Thoughts - The Challenges and Opportunities of AI
2
Replies
72
Views
2K
Uruk-Hai
Uruk-Hai

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top