BenJepheneT
Light Up Gold - Parquet Courts
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2019
- Messages
- 5,344
- Points
- 233
Remember how Zootopia try to play on the fear of carnivorous animals and make it seem like Disney is actually signing off a genuine philosophical story about actual physical differences between animals before introducing magical dingleberries and that its all a comically elaborate plan to lead to a herbivorous ethnostate, making it seem like "all animals are equal all along"?
That actually got me thinking; how does speciecism work if every furry on the planet broke a wishbone and actually turned everyone into an anthropomorphic animal? Would there be some iron fisted rule by the dominant species on the food chain, or giant fucking tensions like the Middle East? Maybe that iron fisted rule would be made by herbivores using weaponry and tyranny?
and btw I'm talking under the context that the carnivores have a good supply of meat from non anthropomorphic animals. just try to bear with me that there's actual animals along with fucken furries in this hypothetical universe. (There'll probably be hippies trying to protect their feral counterpart) I'm speaking this more on the term of mental behaviour and physical difference between the two.
I'm kite-high on glue as I'm typing this so please correct me if I'm wrong: would there be "speciecist" animals claiming that carnivores are inherently violent/herbivores deserve to be ruled over because they be fucken WEAK? I think there would be those sort of people. My question would most probably lie on the reactions garnered from that thought. What would people think of their opinions? Would people work harder to reach a status quo or, as we humans always end up, fuck up big time because of the extremists on both sides working their best to not compromise? Would people agree? Would people ACTUALLY work towards their cause?
How about omnivores? They'll probably be a sore subject to bring up. Or would be totally be irrelevant to the equation, since they could simply choose to eat leaves. What if their biology demands it? Is there any animal that requires both leaves and meat? Probably. Like I said my head's a condensed representation of an empty Alaskan Walmart rn. I ain't thinking straight. Maybe they'll be the core of the issue; maybe not.
Beastars tried to play on the subject matter but the way Itagaki portrayed the Black Market and casual herbivorous snacking along with general public ease on the status quo just made it seem somewhat surreal. Would it be exactly as what Itagaki portrayed? I don't know, but it seems unlikely from my perspective. (On another note god Itagaki shit the bed with the latest chapters holy shit)
Anyway, all in all, I'm just curious. There'll probably be "herbivores only" signs plastered in stores, or extremist groups working for Meat Jesus to create a mass exodus of dead weight herbivores in their path to enlightenment. Hell, they'll probably have specific carriages for carnivorous animals in the trains, or that herbivores have to sit in the back of the bus.
What do you guys think?
That actually got me thinking; how does speciecism work if every furry on the planet broke a wishbone and actually turned everyone into an anthropomorphic animal? Would there be some iron fisted rule by the dominant species on the food chain, or giant fucking tensions like the Middle East? Maybe that iron fisted rule would be made by herbivores using weaponry and tyranny?
and btw I'm talking under the context that the carnivores have a good supply of meat from non anthropomorphic animals. just try to bear with me that there's actual animals along with fucken furries in this hypothetical universe. (There'll probably be hippies trying to protect their feral counterpart) I'm speaking this more on the term of mental behaviour and physical difference between the two.
I'm kite-high on glue as I'm typing this so please correct me if I'm wrong: would there be "speciecist" animals claiming that carnivores are inherently violent/herbivores deserve to be ruled over because they be fucken WEAK? I think there would be those sort of people. My question would most probably lie on the reactions garnered from that thought. What would people think of their opinions? Would people work harder to reach a status quo or, as we humans always end up, fuck up big time because of the extremists on both sides working their best to not compromise? Would people agree? Would people ACTUALLY work towards their cause?
How about omnivores? They'll probably be a sore subject to bring up. Or would be totally be irrelevant to the equation, since they could simply choose to eat leaves. What if their biology demands it? Is there any animal that requires both leaves and meat? Probably. Like I said my head's a condensed representation of an empty Alaskan Walmart rn. I ain't thinking straight. Maybe they'll be the core of the issue; maybe not.
Beastars tried to play on the subject matter but the way Itagaki portrayed the Black Market and casual herbivorous snacking along with general public ease on the status quo just made it seem somewhat surreal. Would it be exactly as what Itagaki portrayed? I don't know, but it seems unlikely from my perspective. (On another note god Itagaki shit the bed with the latest chapters holy shit)
Anyway, all in all, I'm just curious. There'll probably be "herbivores only" signs plastered in stores, or extremist groups working for Meat Jesus to create a mass exodus of dead weight herbivores in their path to enlightenment. Hell, they'll probably have specific carriages for carnivorous animals in the trains, or that herbivores have to sit in the back of the bus.
What do you guys think?