Appearing in this page:

Issue 20 - Page 05

Oh yeah, it would help if I remember to load the page into the hopper when I finish it.

Thanks to the wrist being sore and uncooperative, I spent Tuesday and part of Wednesday working up a cast page for you all. Click right here to give it a look. Caution, there are a lot of critters listed.

Comments [23]:

You know, last spring I had this argument with some christians during an 'abortion awareness' booth was set up on campus. I argued the same basic points the Fey are making, 'life is life; one must to eat live to sustain their life; subjectively one cares more about the lives of their kin than other animals; and remember: all life is equally precious'. Such beliefs were not well received.
Oh yeah, I can see why Moraine threatened to role iron tanks throw Winter and Summers backyard. I definitely think we'd think differently of a hamburger if the cows could give as well they take from humans.
I dont like that argument. Humans are obligate carnivores. Even a vegan must take animal byproduct derived supplements in order to survive, due to our high protein requirements. A vegan family once tried to raise an infant on a vegan diet. He nearly died from malnutrition. We eat because we must, what matters is their motivation for the hunt.
No, what matters is that the fey see mortals as mortals see cows... an expendable, lesser creature to be used as they see fit.
I think Moraine covered that a bit with Hunter. Her point also showed that her use of potential force didn't shift their view much either. In current time, it seems all Moraine did was shift their view of mortals to angry bees instead of cows. Theirs still good stuff to be had by the Fey with hunting mortals, but being as brazen as they were would most likely get them stung.
This certainly get's the point across what Moraine was telling Hunter about the Fey.
Vegan diets also take animal lives. A plow kills insects as it breaks up the soil. Rabbits' nests, along with any baby rabbits that might be nestled within them, are also destroyed. Then there are insecticides and rat poisons to think about.
I suppose that makes me a dead man, then. I'm pretty lively for a corpse.
On an unrelated note: so old Arthur's the aspect of Unity, huh? (It's confirmed on the cast page.) Is it bad that when I first read that, I was immediately tempted to make a comment along the lines of, "He's not gonna be happy about Scotland, is he"? :P (For those who don't know, there's a movement for Scotland to leave the Union and become an independant country. And now you know.)
The difference is that cattle do not have an awareness of their own existence and a possible future. When you kill a cow for meat, you deprive her of two things she will never miss. No one can live without harming something, but if you kill a cow and avoid inflicting undue pain, you do little harm to the cow herself.
Well, we actually have no way of confirming whether cattle have an "awareness of their own existence", because we don't even have a solid definition of "awareness" or "consciousness" for ourselves. We can only, to some degree, ascertain that they perceive themselves differently than humans do. We tell ourselves we know they don't so we feel better about killing them (and the common conditions under which they are raised).
M. Peach
There is a measurable difference in intelligence levels (a significant one) between humans and animals that is not evident in the fey-human question. Feys and humans seem to have the same level of intelligence (otherwise there wouldn't even be a discussion like this) and only a difference in magic and life span. It is more akin to one group of humans saying another group is merely cattle to be used for the feys to use this kind of argument. We'd probably be less likely to eat cows if they could argue back on the same level, and even outwit us. The fey argument is also flawed in that they do tithe their own when mortals aren't available. So comparing mortals to cows is merely subjective (how they feel) and not objective (a true comparison).
Right. One of the biggest problems we as humans have had to learn how to deal with is to see other human beings as more than human-shaped animals to exploit as the stronger group sees fit.
In the Winter's and Summer's case, it's a classic example of might makes right and their courts have it in abundance. What the non-magical cattle thinks matters little or nothing at all to them.
I'd argue that using human metrics of intelligence to determine the value of other lives is quite subjective. Not saying it's wrong, but I don't see it as coming from a place of objectivity. Humans are mostly only considered important by humans. When we argue that Winter's comparison isn't apt, we're doing so from the point of view of mortals who think we're pretty darn important. As for them tithing their own if mortals aren't available, I don't really see that as a factor. My understanding is that the tithe is not optional. Souls need to be tithed whether there are mortals available or not.
It's not even a point open for discussion for Winter and Summer. It's a blatant statement that their cattle and they don't get a choice in it no matter how well they could argue the point.
"We'd probably be less likely to eat cows if they could argue back on the same level, and even outwit us." And why is that? Because then we'd be more likely to have pesky empathic responses getting in the way of selfish behavior? Check. Because then they might actually be capable of fighting back? Check. Because it's the right thing to do? Bull. Intelligence is not required for sentience, the ability to feel pain and fear, and consequently a claim to the right to not be subjected to the aforementioned. Which makes your argument the one that suffers from a lack of objectivity. I also don't see how you can make that argument without raising awkward questions about mentally handicapped humans.
M. Peach
Even mentally handicapped humans scale higher in intelligence than animals, and I thought sentience does have something to do with intelligence. If none of that means anything and all life is sacred, only rocks should be food for any living creature (and we know how that would go). I was just saying that the difference between fey and human is significantly smaller than the one between human and animal (or animal and plant), and that the use of animal human comparison is more one of pointing out their viewpoint than an accurate comparison.
Sentience does have something to do with intelligence: the former is required for the latter, not vice versa. Actually, to be fully accurate, intelligence is a continuous scale that's rather difficult to measure, and all sentient beings may be said to have it to some degree, but most are decidedly unintelligent by human standards. But, again, none of that is terribly relevant. Sentience is relevant, and sentience is what makes the comparison substantially accurate. "All life is sacred" is going too far and twisting my words. Not all life is sentient; plants certainly aren't, lacking a central nervous system, whatever L. Ron Hubbard's slipshod science may say to the contrary.
It's really hard to set up a meaningful dialog with a race that views you as cattle. Also potentially dangerous if they don't like what you say.
Agreed, but cattle with weapons that can hurt or kill is a different story altogether
Now. The more interesting point is how would the fey argue if she did not, in fact, eat meat of any kind...
We don't argue with cattle why would fey argue with us other than we can fight back. Then again so can cattle to some extent take it from someone raised on a farm