So Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is in trouble for declaring that he has "no objection" to eating darling little puppies. Of course he in trouble: his comments were intelligent and utterly reasonable, suitably backed-up with caveats, but also happen to go against a deeply held belief that dogs are 'pets' and sacrosanct as such.
Hugh is not claiming that he wants to, or that anyone should, eat these furry little creatures, just that there is no sensible distinction between eating a purpose-reared puppy and a purpose-reared pig. Both are intelligent enough creatures, but somehow, the thought of eating the one is abhorrent, but eating the other is utterly acceptable. In true Daily Mail style, there is even a revoltingly cute picture of a little puppy attached to the article, just to hammer home how inhuman you would have to be to eat one. You have to love their sheer gall; ever petrified their 'readers' will form their own opinion on a set of facts. Ha. Hark at me. Facts in a Daily Mail article!
Anyway...It can't be diet. True, dogs eat all kinds of shit - dog food is hardly what you would call haute cuisine - so I wouldn't necessarily want to eat anything that had been feasting on cheap gristly sludge. Pigs, on the other hand, aren't exactly known for their discerning culinary tastes either.
It is surely not about intelligence either. In most 'intelligent' animal lists dogs and pigs feature pretty consistently. Of course what most people mean by 'intelligent' in animals is actually their faculty to do as they are told, which dogs, most of the time, are pretty good at.
I am unwilling to suggest that my pathological dislike of dogs has me cheering in support of the Hugh's comments, but only because I agree whole heartedly. There can be, there is, no reasonable difference between the two.
I would eat you if you had been fed on the right things...
No comments:
Post a Comment