Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Devil Shat 1998 09 24
.ili. Devil Shat Thirty Six .ili.
-------------------------------------
Trite Bright ....................................... by Morbus
Animal Rights: The Wrongs! ................... by Colin Lodder
This is Devil Shat Thirty Six released on 09/24/98. Devil Shat is
published by Disobey and is protected under all copyright laws. All of
the issues are archived at the Disobey website: http://www.disobey.com/
Submissions, email, and news should be sent to morbus@disobey.com. Your
comments are welcome. What do you want us to write about? Send an email
and let us know.
I sure wish I had more of me.
------------------------
.ili. Trite Bright .ili.
------------------------ by Morbus
Here I am Lord, listening to music in the background, a bunch of
"raunch-a-billy" mp3s I downloaded from a server called The Roost...
don't really like em, but it's noise and drowns out my always present
headache.
Some questions come to mind, mostly inspired by the screaming headlines
on the paper in front of me, and the muted TV to my left: Will Bill
Clinton be impeached? Is this the biggest invasion of privacy that the
world has ever seen? Is Kenneth Starr a glass-eyed representative of
Satan? Is Hillary really pissed even after she (sickingly, I might add)
says that she is "proud of her husband"? And what the hell is sweet
Chelsea and her preppy boyfriend thinking of all this? Or the dead soul
of the White House dog, forever roaming the hallways looking for its
presidential bone? Or Roosevelt, who seems to have started the trend of
making the White House sexually immoral?
But, really, who the hell cares?
Sure, there ARE some people who care... most likely because they're
advocates who are getting paid big bucks to be a part of this phenomenon
or people who have help orchestrated the big thing. Scratch that...
pathetic cries of "Wag The Dog" won't be appreciated in this pages.
Perhaps there is someone who honestly cares about the whole thing.
And I think, although a big and cautious "think", that I am one of them.
Fascination with other people's lives is paramount to me... I'm one of
those "editorial" type people who write about everyone but themselves...
afraid to reveal any sort of inner truth, but rather just spout about
stuff around them. It's easier that way.
Besides the fact that I could barely hear the TV at the time, I recently
learned that Bill Clinton listens to Sarah McLaughlin, and so does
Lewinsky. Hell, when she hears that fifth track (fifth track? no one
ever refers to titles anymore...), she always thinks of little Billy.
How trite... I just learned about Clinton and Lewinsky's musical taste
in the five minutes where I could have been learning something useful
(like what kind of music Hitler listened to). Such a small detail, but
infinitely interesting to someone like me... a detail that will stay in
my little pot of esoteric trivia.
Besides the loose connection between Clinton's musical tastes and my
apparent lack there of (re: this "raunch-a-billy" stuff), there comes a
time to talk about privacy. Sure, people like the Electronic Frontier
Foundation have harped about it up and down, just as the self-proclaimed
Mentor-wannabe hackers have said that "information wants to be free".
Yet as much as people will fight to the death when it deals with their
own, they are more than willing to throw privacy out the window when it
comes to anyone elses. No one holds the slightest regard toward a lock
on a diary, a notebook left on the table, or an open door. A furtive
glance becomes a wiping of the table, to an "oops, knocked it off" to a
"while when I was picking it up, I saw...". It's all fun and games until
you poke your eyes out, or at least read that your sister runs around in
your clothes and masturbates in 'em.
And now Clinton's testimony has been released to the public for all the
world to see. The Internet thinks it was stressed when Kenneth Starr's
report was published, just wait until we see all the idiots scramble to
livefeed RealVideo to all the people at work. Is it an invasion of
privacy? Theoretically, yes... grand jury testimonies are typical meant
to be private... that is their whole purpose.
It seems, though, that everything is thrown out the window because he's
the capital "P" president.
Yet, the wonderfulness of our capital "R" rights seem to be
diminished... sure, he's the president, and this is for THE country, but
he is still of sound mind and body, whether he fucked around or not. I
hesitate to think if Bill Gates ever found himself a girl (and yes, I
know that was your stereotypical "Microsoft is Evil" comment, but so
what... it illustrates the point). The loss of his rights to privacy and
dignity, even for the good of the country, cannot be sacrificed just
because they fondled each other in the presidential bathroom.
I was walking home the other night and I saw a car which had a large
hand written sign in the back window reading "Honk if you trust the
lying bastard!" and "Honk twice if you think he should be impeached!"
I don't know about you, but people don't lose their jobs because they
had sex. Why should this have any impact on his own merit as a
president? Sure, he lied to us and we can run up and down the streets
calling it a betrayal to the American public... but he was trying to
cover something up that we, truly, had no god damn right to give a shit
about. It's perfectly fine when we lie to cover up something we've
done... no one broadcasts that to a pathetic nation who hopes to find a
life sadder than their own.
One has to admit that, if you are interested in the makeup of a person,
the whole Clinton bullshit is rather interesting to watch. The wagging
finger could have been an inspiration for the title of that famed movie,
but more than likely it's going to become a synonym for "lying, but want
you know that I'm lying".
Kinda like that shifty eye movement I pull all the time.
--------------------------------------
.ili. Animal Rights: The Wrongs! .ili.
-------------------------------------- by Colin Lodder
I listened to an interesting debate on the radio the other day. Those
taking part were an animal rights activist and normal people. The latter
included a scientist who used animals in his work. Now, regarding the
latter, I have no interest in entering into any argument regarding the
use of animals for either research or even food. There is no reasonable
argument.
However, there was one aspect of the debate which did interest me. It
was the philosophical view about the rights of animals. That is, do
animals have rights?
Somebody from the audience argued quite eloquently in favour of that
motion. They said that we confer rights upon babies, upon the mentally
inadequate because they are helpless. Therefore we are morally obliged
to confer rights upon animals, as they too are relatively helpless. And
there the point of view that animals have no rights flounders.
Unfortunately, the counter argument was rather weak. Namely, that we
confer rights upon infants and the weak because they are members of our
own species. However, though inadequate, it is still valid.
There is, however, a far better reason for denying animals rights.
Though, firstly we must look at exactly what we mean by rights. Now, it
seems to me that there is much confusion over the semantics. People can
argue, fruitlessly, forever about this. Simply because they are arguing
about different things.
For example, are rights conferred or do they pre-exist? The answer to
that is, both. There are two types of law. That which we call social or
civic law, and that which we call natural law. Certainly, regarding the
former, we can confer rights upon anything, from standing stones to
trees, from rivers to buildings. Moreover, under our current system,
animals already have some rights. So we can define one sort of right as
something given to somebody or something under the rule of law.
Yet, there is another type of law. That which is natural. The law of
nature. In the natural world, no animal of any description has any
rights of any kind. There, power prevails. If we examine those societies
which are closer to nature than ourselves, what some might call,
primitive cultures, we can see natural rights in action. For, in those
societies, there is no right without duty.
For example, in most primitive societies, babies have no rights. They
can be killed just for being the wrong sex. The disabled are never given
the opportunity to grow up. However, when an individual reaches a
certain age then he inherits duties, and by default, rights. Often, this
move is seen as the most important event in the persons' life, and is
accompanied by much ritual. A warrior has duties and also rights. A
child has no duties, no rights and is a mere chattel. He survives
because his parents have certain relevant duties that have their genesis
in genetics.
This divide between natural rights and civil rights can be easily seen
in the argument over fox-hunting. It may be a cliche: that those who
live in a rural environment are closer to nature than your average city
dweller, but it is also a fact. Obviously, therefore, the two sides will
see things differently. The city dweller hardly ever experiences natural
law. On the other hand, those who live in the countryside experience it
daily.
From the perspective of rural man, foxes have no rights whatsoever. They
are a pest, a killer and can be hunted and killed in any way that man
thinks fit. Indeed, neither do foxhounds or horses have any rights.
In conclusion, whether or not animals should have rights is a personal
thing. Is the 'law of the land' more relevant than 'the law of the
jungle'? That again, is a personal thing. 'Animal rights' have no basis
in nature; it has no strong philosophical backing; it has no rational
support. All that it has is emotive. That is no good reason to force
such ideals upon others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website edition includes images, a nice design, and all of the email
we have received about this issue. Go there and um, er, have fun:
http://www.disobey.com/devilshat/
Copyright 1997-1999 Disobey. You may not steal, maim, hold for ransom,
kill, or rape any part of this issue.
http://www.disobey.com/
TO SUBSCRIBE: majordomo@disobey.com BODY: Subscribe DevilShat
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: majordomo@disobey.com BODY: Unsubscribe DevilShat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
