Researchers Float Idea Of Using Ticks To Reduce Consumption Of Red Meat, Combat Climate Change

 

There have been countless examples of liberalism being a mental disorder. Here is another one:

Two researchers from Western Michigan University have written a paper titled “Beneficial Bloodsucking,” which was published by the journal Bioethics this past July. (No, it isn’t about vampires.) The paper argues that intentionally spreading alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a potentially life-threatening allergy to red meat, could be not only morally defensible, but perhaps even necessary, in order to reduce animal suffering and combat climate change. Here are the authors, Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth, in their own words:

“Because promoting tickborne AGS prevents something bad from happening, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, it follows that promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto (‘to that extent’) morally obligatory.”

Say what?!

Enlisting genetically engineered ticks to curb the consumption of hamburgers, steaks, and other red meats violates the hell out of everyone’s rights. It is a “bad” thing in and of itself. Ticks can carry Lyme disease, as well, which also can be deadly. Who do they think they are? They have no right to force others to give up red meat…or drive a Prius for that matter, whether it be via overt or covert acts.

As one might expect, there were numerous negative online comments, prompting Crutchfield to characterize the paper as “just a thought experiment and not an endorsement of spreading the allergy-causing ailment.”  A thought experiment?! The hell it was! The authors actually wrote that promoting tickborne AGS is “morally obligatory.”

Those in the “Earth would be better off if there were nobody here but me” crowd are enough to make the rest of us sick. Pointy-headed academic asshats who live in a lab and/or bubble have already caused far too much damage. These two really ticked me off. In fact, I’m seeing red (meat).