On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:40:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>
>>>> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!!
>>>
>>>Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those
>>>things?
>>>
>>>So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a
>>>talking
>>>pig?
>>
>> That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow.
>
>Exactly, so your objections have been bullshit, which says you have no REAL
>objections.
>
>>>You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the
>>>conscience of the meat consumer,
>>
>> No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will
>> be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge.
>
>BULLSHIT! It conveys how the author believes we should think about
>livestock.

Right. He wants people to think that livestock know they will be slaughtered,
and suffer mentally from that knowledge.

>>>never the pig itself.
>>>
>>>What a lying asshole.
>>
>> They are both fantasies.
>
>They are rhetorical devices.

Fantasies.

>They don't imply any powers in pigs or cows.

The pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows are not
capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken seriously.

>> The difference between you and I is that
>> I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If
>> there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value
>> in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of
>> things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There
>> is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn about.
>
>That's not the point asshole!

We are talking about things that are cruel *to the animals*. Most of the
things Salt's pig is talking about are things that pigs will never know about,
and therefore are not cruel to them. They aren't even aware that they are
in danger while at the slaughterhouse, unless things go badly wrong.