Caleb Stegall ponders the topic, and comes down against the idea of pets. Excerpt:
"Pets" as a category are a symptom of the deeper rot and sickness of conspicuous consumption in American culture and life. Eat your pets? One may as well ask if it is morally acceptable for one to eat his new sports car or eat his country club membership. Which is to say, the question is a non sequitur which will inspire suspicious backwards glances at the questioner, as if dealing with some kind of sociopath."Pet" derives etymologically from the same root from which we get "petty," as in "trivial," or "inconsequential," or "a trifle," or "beneath dignified notice." A pet is a bauble, a frill, a decorative undignified phrase. A pet is quite literally, gaudy--which is to say, pets began as status symbols of the aristocracy and have become garish imitations in the mill of democratization.
All I'm saying is that I'm not letting B'rer Caleb near our Roscoe unless he puts down the fork and the hot sauce.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Only a highly puritanical religious-right lawyer would come up with such a "logical" case against animals that would be seemingly useless - - other than the not insignificant fact that they bless God by their very existence and are in their own way a blessing to those made in His Own Image.
What would he have them and us do about this terrible moral scourge of pet ownership blighting our nation? By "us" I mean society? Are we supposed to say that there should be a law banning pet adoption for people whose lifestyles don't reflect "family values?" Would that satisfy Mr. Stegall's high moral standards?
And what about the fact that in normal families, pets are excellent training tools for children to care for those who cannot care for themselves. including their future children?
Caleb Stegall - the pet Nazi - "no pet for you!"
And yes, I am indeed disgusted in DC. As Charleton Heston might say, "you can take my kitties away...from my cold dead hands!"
"Anonymous", you seem to have quite a lot invested in defending Caleb's post.
What's up with that?
"Pets" as a category are a symptom of the deeper rot and sickness of conspicuous consumption in American culture and life."
Sometimes, there's really no argument to make about such pompous idiocy except to point and laugh.
"a good belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms" - H.L. Mencken
John E., every resident in a neighborhood has an interest in shutting up nearby dogs that simply bark all the time, do they not? Otherwise engaging blogs, such as this one and FPR, tend to get bogged down by such nonresponsive barking. Someone in the blogosphere (Millman) asks, "isn't it wrong to eat one's pet?" Another blogger (Stegall) responds, "no." Then some loud mouth says, "Stegall told us all to eat our dogs and cats because they don't do anything!!! What is he, a Communist?" or some such thing, and the whole original point of conversation is lost because the loud mouth didn't read either of the first two bloggers' posts (or at least didn't read them well).
The little old ladys with their white dogs..... they didn't have anything else in a world that sped by
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.