"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
3 comments:
His basic fallcious logic is this:
Abuse A (human torture) is worse than Abuse B (animal abuse) -- which is at least arguably true -- THEREFORE, stop protesting Abuse B and focus exclusively on Abuse A. No. Protesting Abuse A OR Abuse B are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Those who have not studied formal logic typically have trouble with the distinction between the "Inclusive logical OR" (A or B or BOTH) which obtains in this case and the "Exclusive logical OR" (A or B but NOT both) which does NOT obtain in this case. Political conservatives, in fact, love this kind of what I like to call "dislogic" and use it to support many similar postions.
I agree with both of you. I think PETA's antics are in dire need of revision. I think *protest itself* is is need of revision.
You're correct that fighting animal abuse and fighting human abuse aren't mutually exclusive; I personally consider them two sides of the same coin. We live in a world of unthinkable violence; could we perhaps help our own species by redefining our relationship with others?
Jason argues that humans should come first, that until human abuse is brought under some semblance of control efforts to "save the chicken" are secondary. One could just as easily argue that coming to the aid of the animals we so casually butcher could serve as a step in confronting our innate tendency toward violence.
But ultimately this is probably too trite. I think human and animal cruelty are symptomatic of one another.
The least we can do is boycott fast-food restaurants. All of them. They're all vile, unnecessary and incredibly damaging. I'm not going to try to convince people that meat is murder; but for heaven's sake, *think* before you bite into that hamburger!
The least we can do is boycott fast-food restaurants. All of them. They're all vile, unnecessary and incredibly damaging. I'm not going to try to convince people that meat is murder; but for heaven's sake, *think* before you bite into that hamburger!
You know, I actually do this. I had my "Burger King moment" several years ago, when an especially greasy (but tasty, it's true) Whopper stayed with me in a highly perceptible way for several weeks. Since that time, I really have sworn off of fast food entirely and even eat at real restaurants only VERY occasionally, and then only for corporate lunches at which attendance is basically required. I've also discovered that this policy is healthier not only digestively but also for avoiding communicable diseases.
BTW, I think that funky protests (like the chicken suit) can actually show a lot of imagination and even be a "fun" way to attract attention to a cause. I mean, the forces of evil push marketing tactics to the hilt in their pursuit of an illicit buck. Why shouldn't "we" do the same thing in pursuit of more morally legitimate motives?