Bunny Hugger – and Future Racist?
Blatant racists use the emotive nonsense spouted by bunny-hugging imbeciles to pursue their own agendas of fostering hatred against Africans, or Jews, or Muslims. They do so by stirring up aversion to such communities for continuing valid and deeply-rooted customs involving sacrifice or ritual slaughter of animals. The bunny-huggers who are genuinely only concerned with the welfare of animals are handing this means of propagating racism on a plate to those whose only agendas are to express their loathing for other cultures or races. Thus they are also, in effect, racists.
Believe it or not, these are the views quite a number of ‘enlightened’ western writers have espoused. They brush aside the scientific studies which reveal that the traditional methods of slaughter, for example, do provide unacceptably higher levels of mental stress and actual pain than the properly-run abattoirs. They ignore the brutalising effects which knowledge of, or witnessing, such barbaric customs will have on impressionable minds. They also ignore the sheer absurdity of customs of this sort being sanctioned, let alone mandated, by a god worthy of anything more than revulsion and contempt.
There is a marked difference between xenophobia arising from nothing more than that the ‘others’ are ‘foreign’, and aversion to certain distasteful customs and characteristics assumed and fostered by another race. If these customs – such as public sacrificial or slaughter rituals – are adopted by all of that race, then all of that race are deserving of the dislike arising from such actions. Is this racism? They are not hated because they are ‘different’, but because their collective actions go against what one would reasonably expect from humans living in the era of current knowledge and education. Thus, if the English still universally pursued foxhunting as a pastime, one would be justified in regarding all of them with contempt as “the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable” as Oscar Wilde had it in The Importance of Being Earnest.
As for the validity of the worship of custom and tradition, this is fine for harmless little rituals when they are not too brain-numbingly stupid, but it needs to be recognised that they change and progress all the time. It would be absurd, for example, for all Zulus to insist on living in mud huts in a modern city because of tradition; by the same token other customs move with the times – including the cessation of the barbarities of sacrifice, ritual slaughter, and blood sports. These customs may be deeply-rooted, but they are certainly no longer valid.
Colonialist's Blog 
It is simple. The first thing you do is acknowledge that the global slaughter of animals and wholesale rape of the oceans is unnecessary.
So what are you waiting for?
LikeLike
If you believe it is that simple, good luck to you. It isn’t. End of this discussion.
LikeLike
Ironic; this is exactly how fundamentalist Christians usually respond when faced with the truth.
So be it …
LikeLike
Perhaps it is because you wander off at tangents. Here the topic is ritual. And, also, you make assumptions that your version is the truth when it is often opinion.
LikeLike
I thought you said we were done?
Ritual comes in many forms.
You object – and rightly so – to the ritual slaughter of animals for cultural & religious reasons that stem back to the year dot. It is about time we kicked such nonsense into touch.
I am merely drawing a comparison to the ritual of eating animal flesh per se and the completely unnecessary en masse daily ritual slaughter of millions of animals simply to satisfy preferential dietary habits.
You state is is difficult.
Most things are when looked at as a whole. But change so often begins with the individual.
And all you have to do is say: ”I will no longer eat animals.”
Exactly how difficult is that, Col?
That’s a serious question, by the way.
LikeLike
The difficulty lies in the fact that I remain unconvinced that not eating animals is healthy or desirable, or places one on higher ethical ground, however much I may despise the means so often employed. However, I want to keep this post, as with others like it, strictly in the province of ritual slaughter etc, which is why I have tried to, and still want to, avoid this aspect here. (I did express some of my views in comments on a post of yours, if I recall.)
LikeLike
And as I stated two comments previous, So be it …
LikeLike
Hare-raisingly relevant. Ritual slaughter is a bloody awful topic.
(sorry Colonialist. I did, however, read the entire post and it does make sense to me.)
LikeLike
You are so good at dishing out lashings of my own medicine! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have learned well from the master…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hear, hear! Well said, Sir!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, there are vast numbers of people who will disagree.
LikeLike
some days the world is just a really crazy place.
LikeLike
I don’t think it ever skips a day!
LikeLike
heh heh. You’re probably right!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you on this one . . . although your opening paragraph had me wondering for a moment.
LikeLike
I designed it to reel in the unwary who, as sacrifice season sets in, are visiting my blog in droves seeking support for their nasty little practices.
LikeLike
This is what is commonly known as a Slippery Slope – or can of worms.
One man’s meat and all that ….
LikeLike
I’m curious . . . what’s at the bottom of this particular slope that we should fear it so?
LikeLike
Good question. Unpopularity among the unspeakable?
LikeLike
Culture to one is anathema to another.
I, and many others, consider the practice of circumcision as part of a rite of passage among young Zulus to be barbaric and should be banned.
Every year young boys die during this rite of passage, which is not the hygienic method one would encounter in a first world hospital environment.
So if such barbarism is eventually outlawed why not the Jewish and Muslim practice of ritual circumcision?
Such a proposal was proposed to be put before a European human rights court a few years ago and it was quashed, fearing complaints of anti-antisemitism etc.
The term ”bunny huggers” is another emotive and unnecessary phrase.
Claiming traditional slaughter is barbaric but slaughtering animals in so called modern western abattoirs is okay borders on gross hypocrisy and certainly demonstrates a serious lack of awareness.
We balk at the thought of eating dogs and cats. The chines seem to have no such qualms.
Once you point a finger at someone else’s ”customs” be prepared to have ten fingers pointing back at you.
LikeLike
Ritual circumcision is yet another custom arising from outdated health issues (like pork prohibition) richly deserving to be outlawed.
The ‘bunny-huggers’ phrase was coined by the writers equating them to racists. I’m sure finding links will be easy..
Abattoirs certainly have serious issues of which I am quite well aware – but as I said recent studies indicate the ‘traditional’ methods involve additional and unnecessary abuse.
By your ‘first stone’ dictum, nobody would be able to criticise anyone else. Ever. That is a lovely idea, but scarcely practical.
LikeLike
Criticism of abhorrent practices be they cultural or simply ”part of life”is just fine as far as am concerned. However, by this token be prepared to have one’s own practices scrutinised.
As for animal slaughter. I doubt the animals feel so much better for being killed in an abattoir or having their throats cut by a Rabbi.
LikeLike
Given a choice of being instantly stunned, or having your throat cut after a lot of manhandling, which would you take?
LikeLike
The truly sad thing about this comment, Col is you believe there are only two choices.
And that is what is wrong with your entire argument.
LikeLike
Only if I dismiss reality from the argument – as you appear to be doing. In fact, those are the current choices until people are persuaded to murder plants to the exclusion of animals.
LikeLike
Dismiss reality?
Perhaps you should consider this reality: if for no other reason than the amount of damage animal farming is doing to the planet.
Once you have considered this then you could try to work on empathy.
LikeLike
The planet would be far better off all round without humanity. And, idealistically, I would like to see humanity exist on totally synthetic, non-cultured, non-sentient in any way, food.
However, this is where reality comes in. These options are unlikely in the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Realty is often based on personal choice.
You have the choice not to eat animals .
You currently don’t eat dogs and cats.
Some cultures do and I suspect you find this abhorrent.
If you make the decision not to eat animals then you have altered ”reality” accordingly and the ‘foreseeable” future has become the now.
So, aside from the fact you might enjoy eating a nice steak or leg of lamb, what is it that is stopping you from taking that first step towards a new reality?
LikeLike
How much ‘reality’ do you think has been altered by those who have currently chosen to become vegan/vegetarian? Or are likely to do so?
Don’t you think cannibalism would be in the ultimate interests of the planet? After all, it is only an extension of the anti-cannibalistic ethic that makes the eating of dogs and cats distasteful.
Your arguments only hold good in a world where man is the only predator.
LikeLike
Stats show that last year several million less animals were slaughtered in the States alone.
Your argument holds no water as you eat animal flesh as a choice not a necessity.
The question is: why do you when you are aware of the negative impact such massive animal farming causes across the globe?
When one considers this it puts ritual slaughter in perspective.
LikeLike
These stats result from a number of factors of which residents becoming vegetarian forms only a tiny part. In the main, increased costs, land shortages, and health fads have caused people to reduce their meat consumption, not give it up.
In any case, this is not the topic I raised. I was specifically targeting ritual slaughter and sacrifice and that does not bring with it a compulsory clause to include meat eating and the practices that go with it. This is also an extremely important – vital! -area for reform, but not one I am addressing here. And a massive wrong does not make a smaller wrong any less wrong, nor does it in any way dictate that the smaller aspect should not be chosen for direct focus.
LikeLike
You consider ritual sacrifice more important that animal slaughter in general
LikeLike
Are you being deliberately confrontational? Topics written about do not have to be ranked by importance. As it happens, this topic has come up because of the annual cycle of its relevance.
LikeLike
Are we not reasoned individuals who can perhaps stop on the side of the slope without in fact plunging to the bottom?
The slippery slope argument is currently used by opponents of gay marriage . . . “Where will it stop? Are we going to allow people to marry their pets? Appliances?”
As a matter of historical perspective, many advancements in civilized behavior, ethics, morality, and what not have been met with fears of slipping down fantastical slopes.
And, we are, in fact, at least peripherally involved in a discussion about ethical obligations to animals we eat. Are we saying this must per force lead to everyone becoming vegetarians, or can we arrive at a consensus of not having animals needlessly suffer a miserable life and still be a part of the food chain?
Will it be that in one hundred years we’ll be eating artificially grown meat and animals will not need be slaughtered at all? Is that the slippery slope?
As for circumcision, I’m not seeing it as equivalent. Parents make that choice freely, as well as some adults. It’s a different thing if someone forces the practice on others.
BUT . . . yes, parents should be educated regarding the practice, especially when the method is dangerous (a rabbi biting off the foreskin seems barbaric no matter the tradition).
And, in that vein, should we also excuse female genital mutilation (far, far worse than male circumcision) in the name of respecting traditions? That seems a clear-cut violation of individual rights that many are reluctant to tackle.
Why? Because someone might point at something we’re doing that they might not like? If that something does in fact cause pain and suffering, perhaps we should examine it with a different and more informed understanding of it.
So, yes . . . slide down that slippery slope; it’s how civilization has progressed, from abolishing slavery, to ‘allowing’ women to vote, to any number of rights won both by groups and individuals challenging the status quo.
Side note: conservatives here are now using the rights of the fetus as a way to ban abortion. I wonder if they have thought this through . . . if, indeed, the state must safeguard the health and welfare of the unborn, why would it then stop at birth? Are these same conservatives going to be happy with having the state telling them how they should raise their child? Force them to do things they may not want to do? We already do that to some degree (vaccination, education), and some already bitch about it, but grant the state that very broad right (responsibility) and the “must do” might be greatly expanded once the state assumes the mantle of responsibility for the health and welfare of that life from conception through adulthood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The main thrust of my comment was directed at culture which included the ritual slaughter argument while ignoring the practice of eating animals per se.
This I consider hypocritical.
I utilized the slippery slope phrase because when criticism is levelled at crtain barbaric practices one better be very sure of oneself that someone won’t turn around and point an equally valid finger on your direction.
But yes, I agree, yes indeedy! Let’s ”Slide down the slope.”
As for circumcision: I believe all circumcision on children ( whose rights are totally ignored in the name of ”culture” should be banned, period ( other than as a medical necessity.
LikeLike
A can of worms is food … for thought. It would be well-received by non-seed-eating birds, for starters. And are the seed-eaters more evolved? Therefore rabbits are more evolved than humans?
However, the issues here are surely clear-cut enough for those who will allow a few previously numbed brain cells to function.
LikeLike
I think that maybe the term ”clear-cut” has vastly different meanings for different people.
LikeLike
It does, indeed, depend on the amount of cerebral sophistication.
LikeLike
And how would you determine which group/ culture has more cerebral sophistication?
LikeLike
By having the cerebral sophistication to differentiate.
LikeLike
Differentiate between what , exactly?
LikeLike
*with considerable patience* Between which group/culture has more cerebral sophistication. That was your question, wasn’t it?
LikeLike
And which group would consider this is?
LikeLike
Question incomprehensible.
LikeLike
Apologies. Typo.
Which group/culture, in your opinion has more cerebral sophisication?
LikeLike
Ah, right. You know the answer to this and regularly exercise it. That which bases a stance on logic and evidence rather than superstition and ignorance.
LikeLike
On this then, I wholeheartedly agree.
So, to extrapolate on the logical side of this idea, and to try to enlighten this ignorance, considering the global damage caused by the desire to eat animals, including the wholesale rape of the oceans, ( which is pretty much nothing more than a greed based industry these days) surely the logical choice ( and empathetic one) is therefore <strong< not to farm animals for human consumption?
LikeLike
In short, it is not that simple whether based on practicality or ethics, but to debate those main issues is not within the scope of the side issues specifically dealt with in this post.
LikeLike
That, unfortunately is a hand-wave comment and somewhat undermines your post, I’m afraid, Col.
The barbarism of ritual slaughter is a mere blip when compared to the barbarism of global animal slaughter, especially as it is equally as unnecessary and is, by and large, simply pandering to dietary preference rather dietary needs.
And while I wholeheartedly agree with your take, it is somewhat disingenuous to use a phrase as ”not that simple”.
LikeLike
Dietary necessity versus preference, and ethics, and health generally, are some of the aspects forming the subject of considerable debate. That is certainly not simple, and needs another forum.
LikeLike
You might in fact just have provided me inspiration for yet another story. Yikes, help me… I need to finish the Shooting Star series first, and the Friday Fairytale, and the Interstellar Revenge…
LikeLike
Jot down the headings of what you have in mind, and then relegate it to its proper place in the queue!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, that is a fantastic idea!
LikeLike
That’s right! Otherwise, let us insist on our right to continue our ancient Nordic practices of draping the entrails and hanging the heads of our enemies on what has become cutified as the “Christmas Tree”. Anyone who refuses us the right to this is a bloody racist, because ancient cultural practices are sacrosanct.
I don’t know when this madness is going to end… 😦
LikeLike
Quite so. I couldn’t believe it when I read some of the Pathetically Correct bleats about anti-ritual slaughter etc being a tool of racism!
LikeLiked by 1 person