h a l f b a k e r y
Where life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
According to the RSPCA, they are sometimes called out to
smoke alarms, plastic crocodiles, garden ornaments and plastic
sitting on roofs. Sadly, the RSPCA do not consider it within their
to prevent cruelty to inanimals such as these, only animals.
As a panpsychist
and hylozoist, I consider this to be severely
kingdomist in a manner which is severely out of step with social
justice. Therefore I propose the establishment of an RSPCI, charged
the Queen to investigate and prosecute instances of cruelty to
inanimals. The recent spate of gnome kidnappings is a case in point
and people frequently get away scott-free with taking the batteries
of smoke alarms, well, until their houses burn down anyway.
phone owners often allow the screens to get cracked and we all
people who pick up headphones and chargers by their cables. If
someone did that to a cat they would rightly be prosecuted.
of which, who has ever been shamed on the internet for putting a tin
can in a bin? Don't even get me started on those who grab laptops
their displays and swivel them round.
If people were treated in the same way after cruelty to inanimals as
they were when they're cruel to animals, they could be fined or
from owning such an entity ever again, and yet we accept people
throw away smartphones and tissues as upstanding members of
society. This must end, and the RSPCI is needed to do the job. After
there are many more inanimals than there are animals.
Leave the R off the beginning if you're republican incidentally - I
wouldn't want to be reported to the RSPCR for this after all. Or the
RSPCR for that matter.
||[+] but there's some inanimals that really deserve it.
||I read this, and can't help thinking we should generalise further towards an RSPFE.
||Royal Society for the Prevention of the Furthering of Entropy.
||In this way, rather than pushing the concept of "cruelty" onto inanimate objects, we instead take the more neutrally-charged idea of Entropy Reduction and bring that into the realm of living creatures, plants and so-on.
||We can still keep the concept of cruelty where appropriate, without potentially devaluing it by applying it to toasters, biscuits and jam-jars - except where some case for a non-immediate long-form of entropy reduction is successfully lodged, where for example breaking bottles in the process of recycling glass is deemed ethical within the wider context.
||Unhelpfully, this contextual argument puts us right where we started in the first place, in terms of applying a permissive framework regards, for example egg-cruelty within an omelette context.
||It really is time for us arrogant animates to check
privilege. Oh yea, just because we can walk and
think and breathe we're better than a rock? Explain
that to me. I would argue that the rock is truly in
tune with nature and causes no harm and is
SUPERIOR to animates.
||The sad thing is you could probably get a solid 25
percent of the population seriously on board with
this concept. Our civilization is currently in its, I'll
call it "ripe" stage.
||Just no, no, no to the idea. I already have guilt issues when it comes to inanimate objects. I see a dropped ball-point pen in the street, and imagine it feeling woeful and forlorn that its one purpose in life has been thwarted. So, I pick it up. This sort of thing is my only particularly irrational thought-pattern, and it does not need encouraging. In fact, [nineteenthly], I can't help but wonder whether you are, in fact, a ball-point pen trying to subvert your human overlords.