Sample Insurance Business Letter Of Introduction

Niedialogiczne buses and infallibility samoznośna


"Official" Arthur Ciechanowicz pen and "Election" Kinga Dunin - probably in preparation for the celebration of Darwin Day - have agreed to Łykend in promoting atheism. Although, traditionally scholar versed in the art of dialectical speculation, representatives of the camp for the Adversary imagined such a thing as "promoting atheism" react normally puts out the language. So too, as in the "Official" I read, the Union of Atheists and Freethinkers of Catalonia, the organizer of a local Atheist Bus Campaign , slipped on wytkniętym language was an act of Maria Casellas:

Atheists do not even realize they give us a favor by giving money to their campaigns. Thanks to you zagonieni all the people who move between work and home, remind yourself that there is also something else. They begin to think about God - he adds.

matter, let it be that the promotion of atheism by some postmodern version of a miraculous transfiguration became a promoter of religion. In any event, the two biggest Polish newspapers in their editions łykendowych accommodate wraży texts on the subject. The "Official" text on the abovementioned / English ateuszy linked combinations shares (under the patronage of Richard Dawkins' God-fearing), and their growing number of mainland followers. In addition to already quoted Mrs. Maria is worth paying attention to the statement of another representative of the camp UP on similar initiatives - unfortunately did not come to fruition - in Genoa:

Gianfranco Calabrese, who is responsible for the evangelization of the archdiocese, asked about the project shrugged. - These are methods that promote dialogue, others feed intolerance. This campaign will not lead to anything, because the desire to open confrontation is always a sign of intolerance - said one of the Italian news agencies.

But the priest is a pessimist, after all, the better for the Project "There is a God!" Let father take an example from Ms. Maria from Barcelona, let him translate his defeatism at its optimism! After all, the atheist roar threateningly, the more aggressive, provocative, insolent, insulting their performances are on all buses of the World, the more we must unite around basic issues the Church, not so? And this note: ateobusy do not have, I think, to "promote dialogue", but only atheism, godlessness. (In this sense it is definitely an expression of "willingness to open confrontation."'s The way it is with ateuszami and other Masons, they do not play as much as the openness and the opportunity to confront various Racyja.) Understand that from a certain perspective itself is no longer a mortal sin, much worse than intolerance (from the UP through the history of his people effectively uchowuje). But, again, I urge Mr. Calabrese and all other shaken but not mixed, and therefore firmly outraged: accept with dignity philosophical pluralism of the street, there are things worse in this world than the public expression of opinion on any subject, in any event, if the expression does not entail the use of hate speech.

is worth mentioning that the text Ciechanowicz paper appeared under the title "Holy War bus". Title the same text in the net is much more pronounced and evangelical (in the literal sense of bringing the good news). Bus war is over and its verdict more than obvious.

At roughly the same subject, or commenting ateobusową mental challenge, Kinga Dunin in "high heels" . To write the essay, as she says, inspired her next comment, this time home, the official UP:

with patronizing smile said that atheists are pathetic, because there is nothing they form represent only emptiness. Gospel truth! Maybe absolutely nothing wrong, but in an interesting area priest actually nothing. The rich mythology of religion, the cultural and literary values \u200b\u200bcan not be denied, opposed a-theism. A-theism. This prefix, despite what is often said here, does not mean a particularly negative attitude towards God or desire to fight it, it's not anti-theism. A-theism is a lack of interest for obvious reasons - to be something of interest, the object of interest must exist in such a way that he could latch on to him our mind. God is unknowable is as uninteresting as this non-existent, it's just a hole in our projections. Ms. Dunin

pierwszoklasowo provokes. However okołoreligijną provocation of the week and announce a decree BXVI so that by his own infallibility questioned the infallibility of JPII, returning to the bosom of several leading KK Lefebvre and behind them a large sekcinę anything. And so, once again in history, representing the worlds brightest minds in this vale, conclusively proved the existence of a most perfect Being. This proof is well known to readers, "not the tofu ..." since the slope above the survey of "Europe" on faith, and her voice over the Professor Bauman. He flies (an argument no voice) something like this: The more ridiculous something is, the more worthy of belief, amen. Thank God for Tertullian, he explains everything.

Heart Murmur And Irregular Heartbeat

"Political Criticism" wants to liberate animals, but is afraid.


made another appearance in accordance with the Declaration on the animal in the 15 block of text issue of "Political Criticism." The block has a title of "non-human politics" and not entirely "animal." Its theme is the right of all types of entities, or any such objects, which can be thought of as entities. From this perspective, the authors consider a number of reports human-animal, human-nature, man-machine interface, human-human fetus (fetus, a not-yet-man). (To all Przemyslaw Czaplinski adds an essay on "conformation" Brach-Czajny and "Lubiewo" Witkowski, but honestly I have no idea how it relates to the theme of the block. Maybe there was simply no better place in the current issue of this piece.)

whole has an interesting visual interlude: Sanja Ivekovic presents the work of "Faces of the language," which consists of pairs of photographs, depicting a woman with traces of violence were made on them, and females of different species. Pair of images linked by common title-descriptions. They are simply presented the names of species of animals, which - as somehow culturally made - in the world of interpersonal relationships also serve as a tool for bullying. Goose, goat, cow, hen, bitch, mare. The artist brings to the surface mechanism of deeply concealed in the catacombs of our culture: to possess the ability to "innocent" use of violence against another, it must first and foremost odczłowieczyć. Man - what he knows, each child brought up on the respect of the Pentateuch (the estimate does not mean, of course, knowledge) - is the highest earthly perfection. All other filth-ranked below the human level, like God himself skleconego, majesty. Hazing non-human animals is a daily bread homo sapiens, it is an old tradition and the old philosophy. Names of animals is therefore perfectly suited to the justification of violence carried out on the other, not just women, "Polish pigs", "German pigs," "Jewish pigs", "gay pigs." These pigs are a whole bunch of everyday language. Interestingly, as far as their status as creatures to be permanently stigmatized as-is to the biblical origins, and how much comes from the constant practice of treatment of these common animals in the food economy.

animal-political and starts reading from Kinga Dunin , which in the text Fri "Is empathy a leftist?" corresponds to the titular question, that is. You obviously read the political consequences of such a settlement, even without having to look to the text, if empathy is a leftist, a right-wing does not know what is empathy. What is empathy (and altruism - in the text Dunin also appears that the concept) does not know or (neo) liberal laissez-faire. Since the right hand of ethology is chosen with empathy, in which it finds its biological basis? The "hate and stadności!
"On these emotions builds its strength right-wing conservative. However, the liberals of the variety available to us to elect an individual to feel selfish." (p. 62)

Well, the manifestation of genetic fajności salary niefajności left and birth defects in the political opponents is impressive, impressive bio-political scandal. However, there is concern that, despite the willingness of the left most (including, perhaps especially the environment, "Political Criticism"), or she so sympathetic, as she seemed (especially interesting to me here in the sphere of relations of human-subhuman), nor the Right Such insensitive. Examples of the inaccuracy nieempatyczności right: (1) the involvement of staff of "Diary" on issues related to environmental protection, (2) below gossiped about the number of Znak, (3) Lech Kaczynski's happening with the release of Christmas carp into the wild (though the other men do not have sure if it's not a simple decal hypocritical crib with life dziękczynnemu turkey pardon by the President of the U.S. I hope that Kaczynski was somewhat honest), (4) performance in the previous mentioned book by Tomasz Pietrzykowski dispute over animal rights Katowice 2007, which the motto no quote from Isaac B. Singer: "For animals all people are Nazis, and the world an endless Treblinka," and in the introduction, which we read inter alia:

Reliable description of the facts, real ways to treat animals in their daily practice by using them in enough industries for this to realize that the issue of "liberation" of animals is not only inverts wydumanym pseudoproblemem attention away from really serious social issues, but elementary moral challenge with which everyone must deal fairly and treating seriously the value declared by them man, whose silence and lack of interest in an agreement in practice (if not complicity) to support this "endless Treblinka." (Pp. 13-14)

Pietrzykowski Or so he did not know that it is lewakiem, or empathy is not a leftist, and most left-wing sometimes (okay, the truth that much more often than right), empathic.

To naturalistic agenda of this blog I also noted that empathy, stadność, altruism, selfishness is not a metaphysical machetes, which may be the wave of political struggle, but the concept of a body of science. And if nevertheless cultivates their ideology, it is worth keeping in mind their obosieczność. Neither selfishness is not as scary as it seems a metaphysical moralists, nor snow, and empathy as given by the creator. All these adaptations and chasing for replication.

Tokarczuk pomieszczonych is the author followed by "Animal Masks." The text begins with a paragraph calling for absolutizing animal suffering: the suffering and death

easier for me to bear than the suffering of the animal. Man has its own extensive, rozgłoszony all and sundry ontological status, which makes it a species privileged. It has culture and religion to support him in suffering. It has its rationalizations, and sublimation. He has a God who will save it in the end. Human suffering is meaningful. For the animal there is neither comfort nor relief, because there is no salvation awaits him. There is also no sense. The animal's body does not belong to him. The soul does not exist. Animal suffering is absolute, total. (P. 63) It puts

made the same sharp jerk cuglami social reflexivity. Until then, the movement built on an ethic of animal liberation has a lot of trouble in the dissemination of the thesis of the equivalence of human and animal suffering (although there is on this strong and day by day strengthening scientific knowledge.) Meanwhile Tokarczuk radically, 180 degrees, reversing the situation, and proclaims the superiority of animals in art pain and suffering. The thesis as much fun as controversial. Granted, that animals suffer when it (most likely) suffer more, because (most likely) do not know the cause of his pain. Nothing is so greatly enhances not suffering, as the fear flowing from ignorance and powerlessness, which directly follows this ignorance. (By the way remind concerned that fear as a component of animal suffering is good posted Wajrak discussed below in the 'Mark'.) But the shape, What matter is Tokarczuk, is worrying for the same reasons, with which I had a problem before with Kinga Dunin: made absolute animal suffering may lead to bring the whole matter of metaphysical astray. Cause animal suffering writer wears at the start of a mythical figure. I am not sure whether the tactic is the happiest idea. On the other hand I understand that Tokarczuk esteem can have strategic considerations, not to be a writer to dwell on battle plans.

Then followed a few paragraphs by way of introduction to the history of ideas on the status of the animal throughout history, from "przedsokratejskiej Greece" by St. Thomas, Descartes, Kant, Bentham. Then Tokarczuk longer stops at peterz Singer - the most radical contemporary etyku known dazzlingly logical chain of arguments in favor of animal rights (p. 65) - mainly to, strongly rationalistic konstatując his insight into human-animal relationships , confront him with prozwierzęcą literature John Maxwell Coetzee'go , with "the lives of animals." When Singer to change the paradigm recommends tenacious, analytical the work of reason, Coetzee suggests work on the level of emotions and an overall ideological change through what he calls "insight."

Costello [fictional heroine of "Lives of Animals" - Reb.] Seems to belong to the people who saw, realized, or perhaps better to say they saw some basic, frightening nature of the world, because the word "see" one-off implies, the act of perception singleness . The fact that it can not see every day that we're missing, it does not freezes in terror, is amazing. Is that strongly defense mechanisms work - all these colloquialisms, pragmatic arguments, but also those that are found for example in the writings of Descartes and Thomas Aquinas? Can this simple human fear of the shock, perceptual habit of laziness, lack of reflection, the comfort of ignorance? Enough for us simply that the world is concerned, that is what it is. But our perceptual passivity is moral significance because it perpetuates the evil. Not wanting to see, we become partakers of evil and accomplices. The effort is moral and in essence, cognitive effort - we have C l see a new, painful way. (Pp. 1968-1970)

Finally, Singer and the next Coetzee'go - Costello, Tokarczuk points to Jane Goodall as a figure representing a third alternative way to replace the present paradigm antyzwierzęcego prozwierzęcy in the future.

Singer goes wide treaty - a way for everyone. We all have the ability to reflect and know how to use reason. His reasoning can be applied so that it became accessible to people of different cultures and ages. I can imagine a version for children who are in school ethics classes [especially since it is now available in Polish appropriate literature, in which This role is the first chapter of the first volume of "Tour of philosophical Stephen Lava - Reb.].
Costello Road is narrower, which she herself is fully aware of it. Why is it, what for some seems to be repulsive and scary, the other brand does not move? Maybe we're mentally differently built, can experience the world at different levels, maybe our sensibility is innate and can not be trained. Why did not everyone has the capacity to empathize, and many people simply do not understand what he says the older writer and eventually non-existent.
And finally, Jane Goodall - it's very narrow path reserved for those who have the sensitivity, the senses, intellect and integrity to penetrate prejudices and illusions. Look through these strange masks [animal masks - Reb.] And see where other, incomprehensible, and being close to us, such as animals. (P. 76) Thus ends

Tokarczuk essay, and the ending is perhaps has a cognitive value, even though I'm not sure about this. If, however, has this so that explains why Peter Singer, and no one else (no one else from the list Tokarczuk anyway) under the patronage of the liberation movement of animals. Notwithstanding the fact that they każden us no salary mental aim of the movement is political, and revolutionary. A policy should be cultivated by plowing berets greatest possible air raid carpet.

Slawomir Masłoń publish the text Fri "Reason and its antipodes: Coetzee, Singer and animal rights." So, roughly, on the same subject as its predecessor. It is a pity that the editors had committed to such double wins, though the text Masłonia (prepared by the author of the Guide on KP Coetzee'go ) anything more than Tokarczuk breaks away from the titular names and positions, combining reflective in its own way. These combinations are formally at times difficult to digest, and even merits tend to be annoying. Here's how Masłoń defines the core problem with Animal Liberation Movement :

Contrary to what Singer says that this is a political movement and vegetarianism and veganism is the best method of boycott today of power, which is the market, it is the ideology of the status quo, which is seeking to change our eating habits, hopes that everything else is business as usual. (...) The animals are treated as objects not primarily because people are stupid (irrational) habits, but because they are privately owned (and remember that it is a holiday), and the highest form of rationality of capitalism is profit. (...) It is therefore not in the Singer case, it is consumption (change of diet) is replaced by a policy - we are dealing with the movement, which pre-market subordinated to reason, whose consumption is at the heart and solemn duty, because "there is no alternative" . (Pp. 85-86)

(With quotes cut the lengthy piece, with the assumption of an example to wander skrytokapitalistycznego Singer as a reactionary. The example concerns the general weakness of the argument for vegetarianism from hunger in the world, resulting from waste plant food resources for the production of less energy efficient on balance of meat and dairy products. Same objection to this argument seems to be accurate, but what has that to do the heart of the problem with the Animal Liberation Movement not quite understand.)
So says Masłoń, animal liberation movement is not a political movement, because it strikes at the base prevailing economic regime. It is Traffic status quo ideology. Rather than put up with capitalism, seeking to change within the system. Therefore, as a pisło, this is not a political movement.
Cisna numerous allegations.
first I note the above reasoning as a grotesque example of the inaccuracy of intuition Kinga Dunin empatyczności on the left. For Masłonia problem is not unnecessarily (but profitable, and therefore) reproduced the suffering of millions of animals. His problem is to push an ideology. Has the audacity to assess the animal liberation movement as a movement to defend the status quo and deny its political role, precisely because it does not fit within the framework adopted by Masłonia ideological borders. Where is the supposedly typical leftist, combine the empathy in Masłoniowym? She's not an ounce.
second Masłoń, which after all is to judge the movement of pro-animals as "politically" because no anti-capitalist, it seems not to understand completely, nay, not even to know something about what peroruje. Because animal liberation movement is not just, and (even today) is not primarily Singerowska "pro-animalsiarza bible." This grass-roots resistance movement, fighting against the very (and not according to ) market principle, declaring that animals are property. That is why this movement - whose most famous radical arm of the network of local groups direct action: Animal Liberation Front - called liberation movement animals, not ruchem ich wykradania . Jak pisze tutaj Steven Best,

Animal liberation is the culmination of a vast historical learning process whereby human beings gradually realize that arguments justifying hierarchy, inequality, and discrimination of any kind are arbitrary, baseless, and fallacious. Moral progress occurs in the process of demystifying and deconstructing all myths - from ancient patriarchy and the divine right of kings to Social Darwinism and speciesism - that attempt to legitimate the domination of one group over another. Moral progress advances through the dynamic of replacing hierarchical visions with egalitarian visions and developing a broader and more inclusive community Ethical. Having Recognised the Illogical and unjustifiable rationales used to oppress blacks, women, and other disadvantaged groups, society is beginning to grasp That speciesism is another unsubstantiated forms of Oppression and Discrimination.

Well, whether the abolitionist movement is not inherently a political movement? Does "being political" simply means "to be anti-capitalist"? What is the status quo wants to keep the Animal Liberation movement , since the foundation is a revolutionary movement, changing (seeking change), social relationships on a global scale? Masłoń does not understand that moving targets are simply prozwierzęcego distinct from the broader objectives of the Left. Animal liberation movement does not treat the abolition of capitalism as their promised land. Animal liberation movement - please try to imagine it yourself - seek the liberation of animals, nothing else, and consider the dispute with capitalism (which may be seen) as a more or less effective tool rozpierduchy Abolitionist, or even as a condition of possibility of the latter. From the perspective of an abolitionist prozwierzęcego Masłoń, who is not seeking the liberation of animals, but only to abolish the property is not only dangerous utopian, but it can only be apolitical apologist for the status quo.
Masłoń Singer judges as the flywheel of the capitalist ideological strategy: after all, Singer urges to consume! Consuming differently, but they consume! Regime rubbing his hands, and making fun of Masłoń Singer, that he had been caught up in the promotion of capital, the policy changed to "change the menu." This mockery apparently suggests that, according to Masłonia there life beyond consumption. If so, then even better. Let consistently follow this path, and perhaps the world proves that not only do not have to eat the pigs, but carrot: Also, I'm too! That

issue on which he writes, he knows Masłoń weak and likely did not read even the most important texts published in Polish, also comes to light here:

Animal rights are not, strictly speaking, animal rights, because they can not be a source of animals . The law is not something that objectively exists, but is formed by insisting on it, so when people ask for animal rights, they are actually right man, not animals. (P. 87)

truism for nieobiektywnego character of the law does not contradict in any way the possibility of having the rights of animals. Moreover, the conventionality of law as the foundation of the institution guarantees the animals to have them. We agreed on the fact that the basic condition for the possibility of establishing a legal entity to have its interests. Ultimately it is the violations are of interest to the institution of law. What
inability to claim the animal's own rights, without making specific findings noted here that even infants and the mentally patients are not able to claim rights for themselves, which, hopefully, in the eyes of Masłonia not prejudge anything special. The problems associated with the idea of \u200b\u200banimal rights is discussed extensively in the 18th issue of "Ethics" in 1980.

Next up for Agata Czarnecka stopped reading the text Fri "Pornowegetarianizm. Empathy that the author just can not be denied. Empathy than analytical skills. On the question of what it means to eat meat? corresponds thus:

Series imperceptible (or rather, not perceived) of the decision prior to an order of rabbit stew, tripe and steak include: the idea that what I do well, a decision that the argument that something I do well, it entitles me to take action to obtain that thing, the distinction of species (even a man-cannibal eating another man, knows what he's doing, and This knowledge gives flavor to the dish, probably the same with each other rather faint), setting their own species above and usurpation of power over life and death of other species, the decision to use the power of this, a decision that someone should do it for me, I did not see / a a series of bloody consequences of my own krwiożerczości; granting authority over the life of the animal to someone who takes responsibility for his death. (P. 90)

Czarnecka anything bałamuci reader when constructing classification vegetarians, lists "vegetarian against chlewniom" (I understand that it is a protest against the great "animal factories" because if not that, I do not know what, but less with it) and writes about them, as follows: "this type of vegetarians usually do not have anything against the venison or fish niehodowlanym" (p. 92). Blood in man storm when reading such stories. Vegetarianism by wiki is "the type of diet is characterized by excluding food products origin of meat and possibly eggs or dairy products from the motives of moral, ethical or health. "I can stick it up, really. For a moment it appears that everyone, without exception, we are vegetarians for a long time, but did not know it.
Apart from this flower not bad, in any event can not help but agree with the article's argument:

Popular attitudes mostly vegetarian recognize one of two forms of power - an expression of protest or in respect of torture, sentencing to death of animals, or to the livestock industry, animal sentencing prepared their lives. Veganism or a radical form of vegetarianism (eating only eggs with a "0", the consumption of products from goat's milk or sheep), applied on a large scale will require a radical transformation of food systems and with them the whole economy - without it could be disastrous from the point view the progress of social justice. However, perhaps the only chance for deconstruction of the two vectors of power over the animals, the power over death and power over their lives. (P. 94)

The last part of the work the author takes the project vegetarian consumer boycott of the problem "of industry porn, "which - like meat and dairy industry -" almost always is a powerful engine of power and violence. "Subject to a separate development, rather than trójakapitowy paragraph, which may be the main function is to justify the strong aesthetically title.

Another text : Donna Haraway, "Laboratory animals and their people." reads the horrible, like all Americans, copying text in the manner of the French cultivation of the humanities. In short: the thing is about vivisection. The author tries to establish a new model of relations between humans and laboratory animals . According to this model the animals are to be regarded as "working parties" (p. 112). Do not use the lab animals, but their "use" and their "work." Category of work, Haraway argues, allows a new way to look at the problem of inflicting pain, suffering and death in lab animals.

suspect that a greater opportunity to build a responsibility towards other animals and gives them enhanced job categories than the category of rights, and their entanglement in the essential similarity, analogy, calculus, and honorary membership in the enlarged human abstraction. (...) Taking animals seriously as workers (...) is probably something new, and may allow us to stop killing machines. (P. 105)

trouble is that the author does not seem to look for a way to stop the "killing machine". Seeking answers to a lot less ambitious question: "how multispecies laboratory work practices may be less lethal, less painful and more saturated freedom for all employees?" (P. 109) Seeking, looking, and in my opinion does not discover anything sensible. But, most of the carnivorous habit of humanists who are concerned about the interests of animals more than vegetarians, undermines rejection of the meat / dairy from the diet:

Although we have tried to distance themselves from this fact, there is a way of life that does not entail the death of someone - not just "something." Vegans are not from the downstream than anyone else, and their efforts geared to avoid eating or dressing up in animal products sprowadziłby most of the animals to a protected heritage item muzealnie or condemn them to extinction of species and individual. (P. 112)

So: enough that prokapitalistyczny, maintaining the status quo, then this acting against the interests of animals! Eating animals as a form of concern for their "quality and individual" survival - I love it! (In the next sentence after the quoted author adds: "I do not deny that, vegetarianism, veganism, and opposition to experimentation on sentient animals can be convincing positions within feminism. I do not agree, however, to constitute a feminist dogma." I understand that consistency is a feminist identity Haraway rate much higher than the insight into the quality of life of all sentient beings.)
After Criticism provides excerpts from Giorgio Agamben Fri "Open" in the translation Agatha pea. I'll probably book in its entirety (it is preparing to issue a universitas) and at that time about her experience, so here, just for flavor, jednen short lc:

Just because something like animal life have been separated within man, that distance and proximity animal were measured and known primarily in what is most intimate and personal, may be contrasted with a man other living beings and at the same time create a complex - and not always edifying - the economics of the relationship between humans and animals.
(...) the question of how - within the man - man has been separated from a pet nieczłowieka from the human, it is more urgent task than to take a stance in the great debates about the alleged values \u200b\u200band human rights. (P. 125-126), Edwin

Bendyk in the text Fri "Man - Titanium" writes about the expanding field of subjectivity in both parties, that is, toward the human-animal-and post-human machines. He writes about it, because I write about things that you need, because the "performance of a modern, liberal biopolitical discourse, based on scientifically based standards governing the status of the person and its wide subjectivity, collapses' (P. 140), and rightly collapses. Therefore, "time to put the question on the possibility of a political project, which would allow the articulation of interests, not only humans but also in the discourse entities having the status of a modern silent objects" (p. 148). This is a question which has been struggling with Bruno Latour, developing a "politician of Nature project, which would be to renew the concept of democracy by its openness to the articulation of other non-human interests" (p. 148).

extension of the collective social non-human objects do not have to rely on the fact that animals, humans and robots sat at one table. He has to rely on the renewal of the idea of \u200b\u200brepresentative democracy, which enable the articulation of the collective interests of the participants by representatives who are able to stories of their stakeholders. (P. 148)

I am very curious how this plan is theoretically justified in Latour book, which is preparing to issue a political critique.
theme raised by Bendyk Maciej Gdula then moves to the text "No-humane allies." I do not have nothing to reproach him, but nothing particularly weighty to comment, so I conclude, politely thanking all doczytującym to this place and I fall snack slice of bread with pate celery and pumpkin seeds, spreads, award-winning laurels in 2008.

Brent Corrigan Movie Stream

Poor Christian Looks at the suffering of animals


long, long time ago, in zaprzeszłym century, and the system in 1980, appeared in 1918 issue of "Ethics" devoted entirely to the human-animal relations (among authors such as Peter Singer , Tom Regan , IJA Lazari-Pawlowska, Jacek Hołówka). According to my knowledge since then, until recently, no complete title of the writing instrument is not impressed devoted so much space issues in their pages. 2008 years for it brought up two solid blocks of texts on human-animal relationships in two different (in nominal terms, ideologically and politically) titles. The point is to June, "Mark" ( "The suffering of animals", No 637 ) and 15 issue of "Political Krytki (" Non-human politics "). Today the performance of the first block, on the day of the second.

Animal "Character" begins the text of historical Janusz Tazbir Fri "People against animals", for s posobu treatment of animals in man's history and its theoretical and ideological grounds. Professor, even though the "Mark" is not wrapped in cotton, pointing influence of Judaic and Christian dogmatics to justify atrocities against "lesser brothers". Throughout the Bible - writes - with great difficulty could be to find the places where it is forbidden, even in an indirect way, animal abuse . For this Christianity, giving people the soul (and the associated entity posthumous), only deepened the chasm between them and the animals. ( p. 18) Apparently no news to anyone even vaguely interested in the subject, but makes a big impression that publish similar content in the pages of the Catholic journal. Sure, "sign", however, "Character" and that in "Sunday" or "Frondy" liberal perversions of this type never never see (that was only postmodernism!). However, I feel that progress is progressing, that a redefinition of human-animal relationship is an issue that is waiting just around the Winkle on the scourge in the framework of Serene Nam Reigning Public Discourse - a framework much broader than those of even the most pofundowane rozspekulowane leftist fink-tanks. (Another basis for this courageous hope: the book "The dispute about the rights of animals" by Tomasz Pietrzykowski, of which the author can say different things, but not for the fact that he should sympathize however, defined the left.)

Tazbir Return to text. Apart from a few oczywistościami type above wynotowanych (which however are still not sufficiently clear and therefore it is worth repeating), it brings you many interesting relationships on the extent of permanent war against the humans to animals. For example, a paragraph about the deeply spiritual - in any case arising from certain decisions of the spiritual nature - man's relation to the cat as the incarnation of all evil:

In many countries, cats were burned on Ash Wednesday and Holy days. John and feast thrown Wniepowstąpienia them from the church tower (the latter has happened in Poland). In France, bag or basket of cats hanging over the pile, which is then lit. It's cruel spectacle, held June 24 (the day of St. John) took place from the time the Governments of Louis XI (1461) until at least the early eighteenth century. Honoring them with his presence successive rulers, usually in the company of dolphins. To make synkom pleasure, just let them kindle a fire. One of these cruel, in our eyes, performances remained at a certain view of Polish history. Namely, June 24, 1573, Charles IX, to celebrate the election of Henry of Valois to the throne of the Republic, personally lit the pile, which burned two dozen cats and foxes. (Pp. 22-23)

From these and similar historical episodes of scrappy, this is an interesting essay, shedding additional light on the strictly historical historical-philosophical analysis of the relationship of human-subhuman, which you can find a lot longer, even in Polish, and the stranger that more. Quietly, I hope that Tazbir article published in "Mark" is the beginning / the exception of the forthcoming monograph by a wide professorship. It would be great to be able to do such a historical book.

Okay, Tazbir passed, and behind him was a black hole or even a large size because of the two texts composed niekrótkich, fault theoretical writing. Waclaw Hryniewicz (I have a feeling that one day I read somewhere interesting articles from this author) in "Christianity and the natural world" and Albert Michalczyk in the "Holy Saint Francis of Assisi and the creatures' defenseless served to the reader such a dose blubrystycznej theological chatter, that is easily susceptible to indigestion. No, no, not in this thing, that theology, because theology - I imagine - may be substantively interesting and even more interesting formally. Gentlemen sent However, the "Mark" texts like nothing prepared for a boring press conference at which one does not hear anything, nobody wants to say anything, for which - save for the ritual reading readings - and nothing happens, and the least at the level of ideas and their exchange. For all that is missing Hryniewicz good impression after reading Tazbir, contradicting the obvious is not a registered quite obvious, and therefore worth repeating. Contradicts them and withdraw too good opinion of editorial magazine. It seemed during Tazbir that "Mark" is in question człowieko-animal matured, and after Hryniewiczu goes, that only a pluralistic, at any particular advantage in the era of the hegemony of pluralism is not.
Okay, okay, but what we talking about? Ano to, for example: Bible does not justify an absolute and ruthless attitude of man towards the rest of creation . (P. 31) As no excuse, if excuse? According to Hryniewicz is not the Bible is bad for animals, but the bad guys are / were for the latter canonically interpreters of the Good Book. I do not know, maybe I have a kosher copy of the Bible. Moreover, I do not intend to argue the facts. Hryniewiczowi in any event, I give good intentions, which paved his naive in my opinion and whatever taut reading of both Testaments. Still prefer I give him a sense of responsibility - as a Christian - for the state of things shaped by centuries:

Biblical faith in the creation of the world can not be an excuse for the absolute powers of man over nature. The Bible does not provide a command control unforgiving land. False turns out to be widespread in the consciousness of the Christian view that the words of Genesis (1.28) imposes an obligation on the man's unlimited dominion over the earth and nature. Traditional Christian theology zachodzniego proclaiming the word dominium terrae bears at least some complicity for the current ecological crisis. (P. 31)

Amen.

After two decidedly weak texts (which, I feel the glory days, "Mark" would not have the chance to appear in Superior) is just better. Barbara Chyrowicz publish a story entitled "The suffering of the people - the suffering of animals" and a story that holds up to a load of philosophical reflection disputes. Thesis: People are suffering and the animals suffer, but the animals suffer less. Why less? Otherwise there and their way of existence impregnates them to suffer only appropriate homo sapiens. animals is animal existence, the existence of people - personal. Personal beings are human beings, without exception. We do not know what the author embeds his belief in this topic, but (for whatever) inside is not allowed to voice any doubts:

pain inflicted by animals, humans can not be justified, because in relation to the perpetrator is not a sufficient reason, and for to the victim - none. I do not think that the man had no right to use animals for their purposes. The animal is not the subject, it is not a person. Provides value for the sake of it, that man can do something more useful, but due to the fact that exists. The existence of the animals, however, differs from the existence of humans. (P. 61)

Pal six non-personal status of the animals (for an additional twelve pole above inconsistency of the authors expressed the view pomieszczonym later in the text of the statement: we may assume that the higher animal species have some form of his "I", which links them survival and is the basis for individualising) , something else amazing in that inference. The man, according to him, has the right to use animals for their purposes, although there is no justification for causing them pain. How to reconcile with one another? In the face of inability to justify the animal suffering enough controversial author (with psychoewolucyjnej perspective) non-recognition of their personality to morally legitimize the pain, suffering and exploitation of non-human non-persons? It is not a cheap plea, but rather a question about the possibility of justification zastanego order of the human-animal while challenging the Christian-Cartesian theoretical basis of this order. And even if you really can not be granted the status of the animal (which is the impossibility is not a foregone conclusion, on the contrary, now researchers are explicitly suggest the adequacy of personal characterization of animals) to dismiss the prospects uprzedmiotawiającej it inevitably forces an ethical reinterpretation of all inter-relationships with humans as the dominant player.
Chyrowicz can not justify the animal suffering. However, justifies the use of animals by man for his benefit. Somehow she manages to move the agenda on the issue of justification of the use of animals, which usually involves asking them to unjustified suffering. He writes that there are different from animals and humans, as a result of further reading, this is for the fact prejudging the question of ethics of animal exploitation by man.

Every man is like a "white crow", his life is unique, priceless and unique. Each of us has experienced its uniqueness, reflected even in the statements: "This is my life," "I have the right to think differently," I'm somebody else. " Pets are only instances of the genre. As such, they live the life of a biological species, while a man lives his own life. This is because owners may have pets, man And is not anyone's property (...). (P. 71)

I have a right to think otherwise. I think otherwise. I think the author - although it raises important moral questions - wandering in the dark, drawing on knowledge of this part of the reality of the philosophical treatises of different ages and autoramentu, while not reaching the authoritative texts on this matter, ethological, socio-biological, psychoewolucjonistycznych. A pity, because - for example - "Through the keyhole" Jane Goodall read and happy, and with great benefit cognition. After reading it probably would be much harder Chyrowicz said that "animals are only copies."
And let there! Even if it were, after all, remains in przesłynne here and there (ie, between hers) benthamowskie: should ask is not about whether animals can reason, or if they can speak, but whether they can suffer . And in the end, this was supposed to be a text - under the title "human suffering - the suffering of animals" in the booklet "The suffering of animals" - the suffering, not a mental differentiation between species! Comes out that all reflective of the author, and so the robot crashes into the classical genre Prejudice, the basis of which at times seems to assert itself.

Next in line for a careful reading of the text is "Forest and its suffering people," Adam Wajrak . Heavy text to reflect on mental suffering of animals.

This kind of suffering is very often overlooked when talking about animals. Perhaps because it is still possible at our disposal in the field of physical abuse are so great, that what we might call mental suffering, seems slim. Maybe this is because the animals as beings refuse to "lower" the right to such sensations like pain other than physical.
I am convinced that animal mental suffering need not necessarily be associated with death, lacerations and corrupting. It may also be suffering due to the loss of the environment or the lack of contact with the representatives of their species. Yes, animals can suffer, because they are lonely, for example. (P. 75)

Wajrak below shows some interesting examples in support of its position. He writes, among others about living in his crow and his behavior, which clearly demonstrates the increasing social need in the bird. Another issue worthy of mention in a very fajowskim well-known and liked an essay (not by all - you know, Election!) naturalist a cry for growth, dissemination and awareness about animals. Wajrak peroruje rightly, that knowledge has the power to multiply happiness (in this case the animal, in this case by minimizing the disaster) and the stupidity of the contrary. (...) By

see [animal suffering - Reb.] Need not so much empathy as knowledge about what animals are and what their life. (P. 78)
(...) even the best rules will not work if the majority of the population will have little or no knowledge of the animals. The more we know about some of the species - as dead as it propagates, how to care of offspring, as food gets - the more rights we are willing to admit it. (Pp. 79-80)

something to it, but not everything is true. The pigs, cows and hens we know almost everything, but these animals do not enjoy any special rights, among other species. Why? The answer is obvious. Perhaps this is also the question of knowledge, knowledge is by no means biological. From the history of man in any case that empathy knows no substitute, however, can not rest.

After Wajraku the (bitter, but cooked perfectly) dessert Michal Olszewski text serves Fri "A winding path carnivores." If someone would write a history of animal suffering, it would be the history of human hypocrisy . So begins this essay, Hiczkokiem total, so it takes quite subsequently spicy. Author - tragic, because the reflective carnivore - sketched out on a dozen pages of text, "a set of elementary logic derailments in parallel with the ongoing struggle for the dignity of animals." Only mixing of these two currents - justifies his project - can bring about as complete, but certainly a paranoid picture of our relationship to suffering "lesser brothers" (p. 83)

We assigned the animals to feel right. For many years, on the occasion of Christmas, the struggle for a dignified death, carp, by all means correct, because the greatest enemy falls do not wish that He performed his last breath, suffocating in a plastic bag or tub filled with water poimieszaną with blood. The average citizen realizes a much greater extent than ever aware of the ordeal of Polish horses for slaughter, which Italy arrive with broken legs, racing with fear. He knows that keeping a dog on a short chain with no food or water, is cruelty. Disclosed by the media, cases of cruel neglect toward animals are extremely emotionally accepted if we see a real change in sensibility.
views disappear tightly fused with the rural landscape. EU rules meant that the slaughter of more and more frequently transferred from backyards to the slaughterhouse. Melting of dogs and cats, has gained an alternative in the form of sterilization. It is more hygienic, more and cleaner, less suffering, played out before our eyes.
cleared space in such a humanity is intertwined with hypocrisy. We want to reduce animal suffering, not eliminating the actual causes. In the language of specialists in environmental protection, this method is called "end of pipe". Of course, the question whether the pig will die a horrible death, or rapidly, is of great importance. Karp, who dies for hours in a little water, is suffering more than the carp skillfully put to death with a hammer.
But the big question is whether the carp at all must die? (Pp. 83-84)

author's reply, with all the subtle objections, reads: needs. This mousse comes not from theory, however, constructed to justify (and here I am full of admiration for the author, who after all has a wide range of mięsożerczych autousprawiedliwień shacks for better or worse. None of them have not yet ostaje what is true under the blows animalsiarskiej ethical criticism, however, always be able to make up a good face and even better humor vide "right for the cows, and that you good!"). Rather, it launches an existential malaise. Olszewski understands and accepts rations formulated by the ethics of animal rights, but can not put them in your life. Hence the sentence passed on the carp.
Back. Judgement for carp was issued not by the impotent Olszewski. Olszewski is rather a victim of his own reflection in the world is not accustomed to reflection. Custom, culture, social context, tradition, religion - all this is against the thoughts, ideas, which tended to his incarnation. At stake, of what is at stake, is to be ultimately the quality of life, followed by the same force of sentient beings. Meanwhile, at a rate that, regionally and historically, it is only a gesture of defiance, a personal break from the practice of humiliation and killing of non-humans. Perhaps it is the reason for this rather than another sentence? Vegetarianism is a choice right from an ethical point of view. It is also a choice that from the perspective of a pair of vegetarian (or not) the eye does not change the world iota. As noted by Gary Francione somewhere at a time when vegetarians come twice, the world's consumption of meat and dairy products increased fourfold. The effectiveness of the consumer boycott of the slaughterhouse is practically zero. Okay. Snag is that it does not justify immoral moral choice. And that's why Olszewski writes his text. Declaring respect for animals and the simultaneous acceptance of their killing is just fake. Death descends to the underworld, but a corpse remains. (p. 84)

I do not love animals but do not deceive myself, at least that this sincerity allows me to avoid blindness. With the growing awareness is made about the process because otherwise - we reduce our knowledge of inconvenient for us as a compassionate and humane beings, the chain of events, so here is that between a pig in a sty charming and apetycznym cutlet on a plate stretches the great expanse of intermediate stages marked by pain. Disappears awareness of shared responsibility for the killing. Suffering disappears in the spaces planned, according to standards HACCP, takes place not on the floor and manure, just with a sterile stainless steel and white tiles. Ceases to affect us. Drop a self-evident complicity, even though we - carnivores, amateur leather jackets, fur boots and good - we are principals. (Pp. 1984-1985)

I do not remember ever reading the text written so much about the exploitation of animals is not deleted by hand-vegetarian. The mere fact that the author eats meat, is paramount for me, ethically defined vegan, nurzającego the theories under the sign of animal liberation with pleasure and satisfaction not that is weak-funded places wegańsko światoobrazu. (I know, just that the term overview of the lack of weaknesses, is its weak point. Once I found the same weak point but I can calmly go back to the point.) If anything, what and how Olszewski wrote, wrote, say Peter Singer, podpadało by the ideological manipulation of the plea (plea materially poor, but the carrier publicystycznie).
last thing you want to write, is a proposal out of the moral stalemate, which formulates Olszewski (not the first anyway). If for some reason can not / do not want to be a vegetarian while not able to come to terms with an existing state of human-animal relationships, trying to minimize animal suffering by withdrawing from the consumption of large farms, feed lot, slaughter - of everything that can be reduced to a common denominator factories animals for meat / dairy. Wielkoprzemysłowy livestock is in fact the fundamental problem of ethics of liberation / animal rights. Industrialization is the idea of \u200b\u200bsentient creatures devilishly, a grim side effect of the industrial revolution, which brought with it the institution of the production line. In a dairy cow or a pig in a pigsty for producers milk or ham tool against which to behave more or less as a producer of corrugated sheet metal is harassing the press. What are the moral implications of this development? Numerous. I do not generally perceived, therefore - not taken into account in making consumer choice situations. Once, however, the question inevitably wmyśleć scheming up a way out of the system dependencies.

mięsożerstwo Consent does not necessarily imply acceptance of the scandalous conditions in which they are transported across Europe Polish horses, or fattening, and industrial sites where the pigs spend their entire effect on metal grates. You can refuse the foie gras , ask yourself the trouble and go to town farmer who keeps animals in decent conditions. You can kill him, had not asking unnecessary suffering. (Pp. 1986-1987)

This strategy may work, but in my opinion, contrary to appearances, is much easier to just go vegetarian. It is easier to dochowywać their principles when they pass unnoticed in the eating habits than to constantly renew investigation into the origin of this here piece of meat, eggs, this here, this milk.
This question I hope Michael Olszewski worry, when it reaches the Kalisz with the promotion in the spring of the forthcoming book, which addresses the issues outlined in this article. I expect much from herself, after her book, finally, promised by the author about it and discuss it.

Resume. The two texts does not make sense, some interesting, at least two very important. And the mere fact of a decision by the release of a number of animal "sign" sensational. Well, the topic is pursued by more and more boldly and more widely, what stirs hope for real change of paradigm and overcome prejudices widely accepted genre, which to this day considerably manages the sphere of their terms and conditions of interspecific relationships. Sure, not a week and not next year. But since even the "sign" ...