You talk about abstract „suffering“ instead of functioning injustice, and normalize the speech of „production“ of individuals, instead that of discussing faunacides, theriocides … as the causa.

You want to talk objectively about things unobjective, but don’t notice that your objectivity strictly refers to the frameworks of your opponents, and thereby misses to start of from the zero point, as a presupposition that would seek to relate things with a more reasonable prioritization: The yardstick of the presupposition would be the Animal Sapiens themselves.

What do you presuppose as objectivity with the opponents you face, that you mean you have to put your communicative intersections as “an objective level of dispute” again and again into that space of which you certainly know that this is about an enduring ethical catastrophe?

Group Messel

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert