我第壹次打開的"動物解放彼得歌手",我在餐廳在壹個人的手掌,試圖享受壹個煮熱樂野牛排而聞名遐邇。
If this sounds like a good recipe for cognitive dissonance (if not indigestion), that was sort of the idea.
如果這聽起來像個好處方為認知失調(如果不是消化不良),那是種這個想法。
Preposterous as it might seem, to supporters of animal rights, what I was doing was tantamount to reading ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' on a plantation in the Deep South in 1852.
荒謬的,因為它可能看起來,動物權利的支持者,我所做的壹切並不表明閱讀”湯姆叔叔的小屋”在種植園的南方腹地1852年。
Singer and the swelling ranks of his followers ask us to imagine a future in which people will look back on my meal, and this steakhouse, as relics of an equally backward age.
歌手和腫脹的行列,他的追隨者們問我們憧憬將來人們會回過頭來看看我的飯,而這牛排餐廳,壹個同樣落後遺址的年齡。
Eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, killing animals for sport: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view ''speciesism'' -- a neologism I had encountered before only in jokes -- as a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism.
吃動物的肉,戴著動物,用動物做試驗,殺死動物做體育運動:所有這些實踐,那麽堅決正常,對我們來說,將被視為他們的barbarities,而且我們將會如何看待“speciesism”——我曾遇到過的新詞語只在笑話——作為壹種歧視是理虧的種族主義或反猶太主義。