unlovable

make-the-connection:

1) What exactly is wrong with vegetarians and vegans?
Is it the fact they remind you of something that you are trained not to think about?
That they are doing something about their meat addiction and you aren’t?
That being a vegetarian is still contradicting because animal products like eggs and dairy still enslave animals? True, the only way to to be completely void of inflicting harm on animals through diet is by being a vegan but that doesn’t downplay their efforts i.e. an environmentalist trying to save the world is still causing pollution but that does not negate their efforts.
2) Why would feeding vegetarians and vegans a steak make you feel better?
Is it to weird and abnormal to go against the status quo for something you believe in?
3) Are you against whaling, seal clubbing, the ivory trade, the rhino horn trade, tiger wine, fur, hunting, the dolphin cove slaughter, bear bile farms?
If you ARE then your logic proposes the following: An animal is only of significance when it is of value to somebody or some culture. Animals that are of value (e.g. cats, dogs, elephants, dolphins, whales etc) are entitled to compassion and humanity and the rest can be denied it. In which case the former examples should not give rise to any moral conflict because those countries simply do not attach any value to those animals, a part from economical value. It is simply a matter of cultural difference.
Otherwise, how do you reason your opinions? Operative word being just that.
Conclusion:When you defend your right to wear fur and leather, that is VANITY. When your palette defines your moral choices, that is GLUTTONY. When you express your divine right to dominion over other species, that is PRIDE. And when you get defensive when people remind you of the fact that your daily choices force billions upon billions of animals into enslavement, immense pain, a life void of any compassion and merciless slaughter, that is MORAL COWARDICE.

damn the end is intense and maybe way too heated. i think in the end an acceptance of personal choice in an individual’s food selection has to be maintained and promoted… i agree with what this says but unfortunately im just not sure people will be dissuaded from eating meat by being called immoral cowards…. show them facts, not just emotion. because as sad as it is, people don’t really care about morals they care about facts and they need visualizations… cue morrissey’s live singing meat is murder and the footage he plays on a huge screen behind him…. that footage is fucking outrageous and makes one feel very immoral. meat eaters will never converge completely. we need to focus our attention on more natural and ecologically sound agricultural practice reformation.

1) What exactly is wrong with vegetarians and vegans?

Is it the fact they remind you of something that you are trained not to think about?

That they are doing something about their meat addiction and you aren’t?

That being a vegetarian is still contradicting because animal products like eggs and dairy still enslave animals? True, the only way to to be completely void of inflicting harm on animals through diet is by being a vegan but that doesn’t downplay their efforts i.e. an environmentalist trying to save the world is still causing pollution but that does not negate their efforts.

2) Why would feeding vegetarians and vegans a steak make you feel better?

Is it to weird and abnormal to go against the status quo for something you believe in?

3) Are you against whaling, seal clubbing, the ivory trade, the rhino horn trade, tiger wine, fur, hunting, the dolphin cove slaughter, bear bile farms?

If you ARE then your logic proposes the following: An animal is only of significance when it is of value to somebody or some culture. Animals that are of value (e.g. cats, dogs, elephants, dolphins, whales etc) are entitled to compassion and humanity and the rest can be denied it. In which case the former examples should not give rise to any moral conflict because those countries simply do not attach any value to those animals, a part from economical value. It is simply a matter of cultural difference.

Otherwise, how do you reason your opinions? Operative word being just that.

Conclusion:

When you defend your right to wear fur and leather, that is VANITY. When your palette defines your moral choices, that is GLUTTONY. When you express your divine right to dominion over other species, that is PRIDE. And when you get defensive when people remind you of the fact that your daily choices force billions upon billions of animals into enslavement, immense pain, a life void of any compassion and merciless slaughter, that is MORAL COWARDICE.

damn the end is intense and maybe way too heated. i think in the end an acceptance of personal choice in an individual’s food selection has to be maintained and promoted… i agree with what this says but unfortunately im just not sure people will be dissuaded from eating meat by being called immoral cowards…. show them facts, not just emotion. because as sad as it is, people don’t really care about morals they care about facts and they need visualizations… cue morrissey’s live singing meat is murder and the footage he plays on a huge screen behind him…. that footage is fucking outrageous and makes one feel very immoral. meat eaters will never converge completely. we need to focus our attention on more natural and ecologically sound agricultural practice reformation.

126 notes
tagged as: me getting intense because of my major. agricultural practice papers have been written endlessly.
reblogged from liberationofallkinds
originally posted by make-the-connection