|
|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron Cyberax. Thank you very much! |
|
![[0769] The Sick, The Old, And The Mooing](/comics/2016-03-17-0769-the-sick-the-old-and-the-mooing.png "[0769] The Sick, The Old, And The Mooing")
[0769] The Sick, The Old, And The Mooing
└ posted on Thursday, 17 March 2016, by Novil
Click here to see the comments!
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
I guess that’s… nice of him? Kinda?
Steal from the rich, give to your friends so they don’t eat your young.
..I have a few friends like that Ruth, now that I think of it..
(by the way. this comic seems to not have a transcript)
…there’s a Fast Food joke to be made here. I just know it…
Stealing from the Richard, giving to the poor 😀
yay, Sid is back!
Good one Denny!! XD
I can see it now: “The Beginner’s Guide to Cooking Predators with your host Ruth the Squirrel”
Sorry to say, but I don’t feel much sympathy for Ruth given her lifestyle choice. Yay, good for her, turning the food chain upside down, it’s funny and all, but she certainly doesn’t have any moral high ground here.
The carnivores she and her friends hate so much don’t have a choice about killing if they want to live – they couldn’t survive on grains and salad even if they wanted to. Ruth on the other hand, CAN. But she consciously chooses a lifestyle that requires hunting and killing, which if anything makes her worse than the actual predators, regardless of her choice of prey.
So when she complains about the consequences of the predatory diet, well go cry me a river. If you don’t like chewy tasteless meat, Ruth, at least you can always go back to seeds and nuts.
It begins.
@ LupisLight:
Sounds like…. Oh right. Humans.
@ Onlyjinxamus:
Ha, touche. Especially since I’m admittedly a meat-lover myself. I won’t deny the inherent hypocrisy there, but my point still stands.
IIRC, Ruth is basically preying on predators as sort of a middle finger to them and the food chain. She proudly claims to prey on the top level of the food chain as if it makes her superior to them, And now she is finding out the hard way that being a predator isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be, both morally and diet-wise, I say tough. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the oven.
At any rate, I’m very interested to know what will become of Ruth and her new diet. Will she be able to keep it up? And will someone eventually point out her hypocrisy to her as well? I sure hope so. I’d love to see what she’d have to say about it, and just how firmly she really stands by her choices.
@ It begins:
No more xkcd for you! 😉
Not many wolf pups around anymore?
How do you spot a meat-eating squirrel?
It will tell you after less than five minutes.
“Is anyone here a doctor?”
(2 minutes silence)
“I’m a meat-eating squirrel!”
I need a better term tho…
@ LupisLight:
Doesn’t like 90% of the comedy inherent in the character stem from the fact that she’s NOT very sympathetic? Like, the entire arc about her getting conflicted about killing cracked me up because the ultimate solution was still psychopathic: “Yes! I’ll only kill and consume the old and sick! Oh, and wolf children.” And that’s just the start of why her entire moral crisis was ridiculous and, therefore, really really funny. It’s like watching Ted Bundy having a moral crisis and complain about how bad it is that he isn’t a [i]completely[/i] unscrupulous killer…just a mostly unscrupulous one.
@ Mark Antony:
Ah, point taken. Yes, I appreciate the comedy, and that she’s meant to be unsympathetic. But I guess Ruth as a character is more interesting to me than the comedy itself. Using a gun to kill the predators to protect yourself, yeah alright, you do what you can to survive, I can respect that, that much I’m sympathetic to. But if you aren’t the completely morally unscrupulous type, then the predator life is going to wear on you after a while. And Ruth clearly isn’t quite that type – she acts the part, but every now and then you see how she struggles with it. And it’s that struggle, and the eventual outcome, that I find I look forwards to seeing, more than the comedy itself.
@ Blitzkrieg1701:
Eating the old and sick?
She’s ronalds favorite customer.
Oh, look. It’s the shark-jumping squirrel!
Such a creepy face in panel 2. She’s probably had raccoon meat before, and is thinking of the taste at that very moment.
Um, Woo… cows are not top-of-the-food-chain predators, it therefore does not fit in Ruth’s diet.
Someone needs to introduce Ruth to Vindaloo.
Or, perhaps a nice 5 Alarm Chili…
@ LupisLight:
Ruth has no problem with a predator’s diet, it’s restricting herself to the old, and therefore tough and tasteless meat, that she l-o-v-e-s so much.
@ Old Brit:
But that IS the predator’s diet! You don’t eat the tastiest meat in the area – you eat whatever you are able to catch and kill, which is more likely to be the old and the sick, especially in the case of large game predators like wolves or lions.
Awwww :3
A Walt Disney nature movie made by Sergio Leone….
@ LupisLight:
I don’t think she’s morally in the wrong to kill those who kill her kind. I think anyone else would do the same. She’s defending her fellow prey animals.
Also, I *do* think the hypocrisy of your argument completely demolishes it. If you can’t handle doing something yourself, it is unfair to criticize on others for not doing it.
@ Xezlec:
“I don’t think she’s morally in the wrong to kill those who kill her kind. I think anyone else would do the same. She’s defending her fellow prey animals.”
Generalization. Not everyone would do the same. In general, society evolved to avoid individuals exacting revenge and to handle this better (i.e. handle this without two sides killing each other in a vicious cycle). And even if everyone did something, this would change it from morality wrong to morality right? If morality is based on society view, yes, ok. But if we are talking about ethics here, no. Also, you probably could defend others without killing and cannibalizing, I’m almost sure of it.
“Also, I *do* think the hypocrisy of your argument completely demolishes it. If you can’t handle doing something yourself, it is unfair to criticize on others for not doing it.”
An instance of the Hypocrisy Fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque, http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/11459/does-hypocrisy-invalidate-an-argument). Can, or cannot, be fair to criticise others when you can’t handle something on your own. This doesn’t change that they are wrong.
@ ArcaneDarkness:
I love a good debate/debater! 😀 Thanks!
@ Xezlec: I don’t think it is morally wrong to strike back at those who kill her kind. To be honest, I don’t see morals entering into it at all. It’s pragmatism, survival plain and simple. Nothing wrong with self defense. Maybe a waste of good meat if you don’t eat it afterwards, but then again I’m sure some scavenger in the area would take the free meal if you won’t.
I definitely feel for Ruth when she can’t bear to eat that mama lynx after seeing her cubs crying over her. Don’t blame her for having pangs of conscience. And I would quickly grow tired of chewy tasteless meat too. I know I seem a little harsh on her in my original posts, but all I’m trying to express is that self-defense aside, she has no need to be a predator. And if these kinds of things wear on you, Ruth, then maybe, just maybe, the predatory life isn’t for you after all. Though it will require swallowing your pride to admit it…
His stealingskills improved, I see 😛
But he could also steal from the shops, or would that be to dangerous?
@ LupisLight:
LupisLight wrote:
Oh and not to forgot the “poor” Zombies that can only eat Human but humans Do kill them nevertheless
So she doesn’t prepare the meat with spices or herbs?
She only dislikes old and sick meat and enjoys fresh young meat.
Hypocrisy in a field of discourse that involves a change in behavior does in fact invalidate the argument. If the proponent won’t change their own behavior, how can they expect anyone else to change their’s? There’s a reason people find hypocrisy distasteful. If the proponent really believed in their argument, they would change their own behavior before asking it of others, which discredits the argument. Furthermore, if the people that are the target of the proponent’s argument change their behavior and the proponent continues to be a hypocrite, then all you’ve done is create an underclass of those who can’t/won’t do it and a privileged class that can ignore the argument.
This is why people like AL Gore have their (potentially sound) advice ignored by the general populace… hypocrisy. In the end their hypocrisy results in nothing changing, so the argument is discredited, even if it’s a good idea.
My only issues with this strip (for the rest of you: the presence of bipedal raccoons and interspecies communication implies the MST3K rule (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)) is that old meat is considerably tastier than young, as I, an apex omnivore, can vouch for, and the toughness shouldn’t matter much to someone who has the equipment to chew through nutshells. Maybe Ruth took up carnivory because she has bad teeth…