We herein inaugurate a new, occasional feature of this blog: the SWNID Forum, wherein we offer topics of interest for our gentle readers' engagement and discussion.
The point is to provide a place to discuss an emerging issue not presently under discussion elsewhere.
Our first topic is prompted by the picture at left:
In Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, the eating of talking animals is understood to be grossly immoral. In light of the picture, is the same true for anthropomorphic vegetables?
We assume these strange creatures indeed talk as well, but we cannot confirm the same. The lettuces do apparently wear makeup.
Please share your discussion in the form of comments on this post.
8 comments:
Mr. SWNID:
We find your support of our cause both invigorating and enlightening. Thank you for speaking on behalf of vegetables who can speak for themselves but find no forum by which to orate. We appreciate your shining light on the darkness of the American society and hope for a day when our organization can thrive.
Sincerely,
The Members of VETVe:
Vegetables for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables.
Bob and Larry
(farris)
I have to turn it over to Mr. Jack Handy on this one
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."
Wasn't Jack Handy also the one who said, "The face of a child says it all, especially the mouth part of the face?" I guess a child vegetable (like Bob or Larry) is different.
C.S. Lewis DID make the clear case that the eating of talking animals is wrong. However, in doing so he implicitly drew a line between talking animals and non-talking animals. It is, after all, perfectly acceptable to eat non-talking animals.
We beg SWNID to thus carefully examine the vegetables being served for various meals. With careful attention to detail, we have found that it is possible to discern the anthropomorphic features of dinner vegetables. The distinction thus being made, we are happy to consume the non-talking vegetables.
The choice should be left up to the gardener. While I myself am against eating the said vegetables, I do not wish to withhold the right from anyone who might choose to eat them. It is not the job of government to infringe upon the rights of anyone to do what they wish with the produce of their own garden. This is especially true in instances in which the health of the gardener may be in danger if he/she does not eat the vegetables. For instance, the posted photo has a picture of a talking tomato, which contains high amounts of vitamin C and lycopene. These supplements are key in fighting scurvy and promoting prostate health respectively. Fortunately for us, this decision has already been sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Hoe vs. Spade.
I must kindly refer the gentle SWIND'ler (no disrespect - only pun intended) to last year's hubub about the Swiss and their concern for "the silent scream of the asparagus".
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp?pg=1
So to answer your question - you are making that assumption that the eating of a "non-talking" vegetable is indeed moral - when in fact both talking and non-talking vegetables have organistic feelings and thus rights. Immoral is immoral (there is no "gray" shade = "grossly" immorality) - therefore, the conusmption of vegetables is immoral....period.
Veggies have rights too!
Of course I could quote the cow and say "Eat Mor Chiken" (hold the bun of course without a drag through the garden) - but it occurs to me that chickens occasionaly eat - yes - vegetables - so I am now in a quandry. The next hypothesis is......is it immoral for us to consume animal life that eats vegetables?
May the circle be unbroken......
Yes.
I'm reminded of a jumbo tron advertisement in old Riverfront Stadium that featured a hot dog running and sliding into second base. The disturbing part of the video had little to do with the idea of a hotdog playing baseball, but that said hotdog was picked up by the second baseman and then eaten (even though he was clearly safe). I think it should be a given that whenever two opponents agree to meet each other in the arena of athletic competition, consumption of the other is not allowed even if one side is made up of hot dogs (of course, Mike Tyson may object).
Post a Comment