People like Rush, or Michael Moore on the other side, can have a blissfully stupid happy-joy cult following among true believers. It's a lot of fun to hear a charasmatic figurehead validate one's prejudices--and no doubt rightists at a Limbaugh fan club have just as good a time as leftists at a Moore fan club. As long as people like this don't really believe they're talking about the truth, I guess it's harmless. But the problem with American political culture is that hard-core, proudly ignorant partisans DO think they have a monopoly on the truth, regardless of evidence or careful consideration.

My point is not that exteremists are necessarily crazy. Goldwater had a good theoretical point about that back in '64. But Rush? C'mon right-wingers. Have a little class, or at least brains. Start a Ron Paul fanclub.

Necro,

Yes, humans are animals. Moral animals. A dog, a cow, or a crocodile is not a moral animal. The special capacities that make us the so-called top of the food chain (reason, language, advanced coginition and the resulting social relationships we develop) entail morality. What makes us unique is partly our innate ability to practice moral reasoning.

It is not hypocritical to hold ourselves to categorically different standards of morality than we hold other animals. Rather, it is hypocritical to claim that we are the top of the food chain and then to advocate that we practice the amorality of the "lower" animals.

The point is not that dog slaughter is "icky." The point is weather and in what cirmstances it and the slaughter of other animals is morally justified. Does a person's taste for dog meat or pork justify the torture and death of the dog or pig?

Even assuming that humans need meat to survive and be healthy (which is debatable as the vegetarian and vegan lifestyles suggest), it's morally abominable to put animals through the suffering inherent in factory farms or in this local dog-slaughter operation. At the very least we should advocate the humane treatment of animals prior to their painless death for our consumption.

Yes, violence and wars happen. They always will happen, probably. But humanity's history does evince some (unsteady) moral progress. "An eye for an eye" was a moral breakthrough in ancient Babylon. Today it is seen by many as barbaric. In the nineteenth century the world's most advanced societies, driven largely by economics, began to condemn slavery on moral grounds.

Human morality develops as societies achieve greater standards of living. It is our nature, I think, to become more humane as our more basic needs are satisfied. The question is whether our needs here and now justify the suffering of animals for their meat. For most of us, I think the answer is no.

Tony, I see your point, and it is a good point. If we are going to oppose dog slaughter then we must be prepared to oppose the slaughter of other mammals as well. And consistency is necessary here.

And cultural reletivism is a perspective worthy of consideration. Who is anyone to impose his moral values? Well, I do think that there are some practices that are so indivudually or societally hurtful that no traditionalist or culturalist argument can morally justify them. Gental mutilation perhaps is one. I think the torture and killing of animals for meat is another. In my opinion, generally, it is wrong everywhere, in any culture.

Should we tolerate the oppression and abuse of women in traditionalist societies their particular traditions are sacred? Or the suppression of independent thought for the sake of traditional cultural authoritarian practices in, say, North Korea?

A carelessly reletivistic morality does not lead anywhere, at least nowhere worthwhile. A careful one doesn't do much better. At what point does a person draw a line and say something is unacceptable, regardless of culture or tradition? Murder? Rape? Slavery? What if the suffering beings are not human?

I think Tony is attempting to make a point about cultural reletivism. Not sure. Regardless, any westerner who would not accept genital mutilation on a traditional-cultural justification basis has reason not to accept the slaughter of dogs. And any person who is above being proud of his hypocrisy should not contribute to the suffering inherent in the meat industry.