Ryan Blum: noirworld: Ryan Blum: If you are a vegan who refuses to wear fur or…
Ryan Blum: If you are a vegan who refuses to wear fur or leather but does wear clothes made in sweatshops, you are a fucking…
I do not understand your statement “Those that have no good reason for exploiting animals, like many of us in the West, should not be exploiting animals.”
Meat, leather, eggs, milk, and so forth are all good reasons, especially if you’re hungry and/or need those items to make a living. We have established it’s OK for humans to use/control animals. You are setting arbitrary limits on who can do it. If it’s ethical for humans in African then the ethical question has been answered. I do not understand your point. All animals are used for good reason.
Your statement “What you just said means is that vegans are financially driven to be vegan. This is not the case, as you well know……It is an ethical stance” is off the mark from my comments. I said veganism is a product of wealth. If you have enough money to buy a tractor and don’t need animals to survive, you can do without them. Most people are not in that situation. A large portion of the world’s population are so poor they would die without animals. I said this in my first post and you agreed.
You also said it was acceptable (only developed nations need worry about veganism). These are all financial arguments with no ties to ethics. The ability to avoid using animals is a result of money. If you were starving in Africa there would be no discussion of ethics. You’d be happy to eat whatever you could and so it is everywhere. We cannot begrudge human survival.
But we are not in that situation (thank goodness). We have the ability to eat whatever we please. You are saying if wealth gives you the option to avoid animals, we are ethically obligated to do it. You propose roll-your-own ethics where using/controlling animals is acceptable for some situations (like controlling vermin or poor people) but not others. Ethics are made-up according to the whims of the rule maker (in this case the vegans).
I think you can see the problem with that argument. Veganism hinges on the idea using animals is unacceptable when you’ve clearly pointed out it is not unacceptable.
What’s left is a personal conviction residing only in the vegan. If there are ethics involved it is unique to the person at hand. There can be no universal ethics because there are no universal right or wrongs concerning the use of animals.
Vegans use ethics to justify the condemnation of non-vegans when they are really talking about personal opinions. Opinions are not facts. One opinion is no more valid than the next. There is no high ground here to look down on others.
“Meat, leather, eggs, milk, and so forth are all good reasons, especially if you’re hungry and/or need those items to make a living”
Listen, I’ve always been a big believer in the logic of
- if somebody makes a buck doing something, then it automatically makes it ok.
- if there is a demand for a given product, then it automatically makes it ok
I’ll never get why people have such problems with dog fighting. Don’t they know how many people make a really nice living doing that. Everytime, the police stops a dogfighting ring, that’s a lot of people who go unemployed. But seriously, do these vegans (and maybe a couple of meat-eaters) care about these people going unemployed? Nope. Of course not.
Also, if somebody is hungry and lives in a world where people are starving to death, but can afford to grow crops to feed animals and then feed those animals to people instead of just feeding crops to people directly, then that’s exactly the way it should be.
I mean, who the hell would want to help hungry people by feeding less food to farm animals that wouldn’t exist in the first place if people didn’t demand them. I think we all know that the goal to get rid of hungry people is to purposely add more animals to the equation.
“We have established it’s OK for humans to use/control animals”
I mean, seriously vegans……. people do it. It’s become a societal norm. What are you trying to do, here? Don’t you know when the majority of people believe in something, it’s your obligation to just accept it as moral? Can’t you look back at the long history of this species and see when the majority of people said it’s ok to do something, it was always the ethical thing to do. Some people may regard this logic as social conditioning, but I can assure you that these are people who just want to show off their vocabulary.
“I said veganism is a product of wealth”
Oh, I remember when I used to work in the meat and fish department in my local supermarket. The throves of homeless people who would come in to my department because they could only survive on live lobster, pork tenderloin, ribeye steaks, fresh caught shrimp. Just thinking about it breaks my heart to see that kind of poverty. Meanwhile, the upper class vegans spending their trust fund money on things like rice, beans, lentils, bread, canned fruits and vegetables. It’s such a sick world.
“A large portion of the world’s population are so poor they would die without animals.”
This is true. In fact, some people are so poor they don’t even have computers and an internet connection. Crazy, but true.
“If you were starving in Africa there would be no discussion of ethics. You’d be happy to eat whatever you could and so it is everywhere. We cannot begrudge human survival”
I hope you vegans can remember this the next time somebody tries to eat you, and you get all snippy about it. I’ll have you know that there are people in other contexts in the world who commit cannibalism on a daily basis, because they don’t have any other option for food. If it’s ok under their context, then it’s ok under any context. By the way…..if you vegans weren’t so uneducated, you’d know that people have barbecues here because there are starving people in Africa. They are completely correlated. Boy, could I tell you stories about the customers that I used to have, that would go on and on about the worries about starving people in Africa, as they bought a filet mignon.
“You propose roll-your-own ethics where using/controlling animals is acceptable for some situations (like controlling vermin or poor people) but not others. Ethics are made-up according to the whims of the rule maker (in this case the vegans)”
Boy, I’m with you on this one. I really can’t stand people who insist at looking at context. These are the kind of people who will tell you its not ok to hit a random person walking down the street in the face, because you’d be the one initiating the conflict, but they’ll say it’s perfectly ok to hit somebody back in self-defense or if somebody breaks into your house. What the hell kind of logic is that? It’s like they are picking and choosing which one is ok based on……I don’t know what. Punching somebody is ok or not…….irregardless of the context or intent of the situation. Pick a side. We don’t need more subtlety in this world.
“What’s left is a personal conviction residing only in the vegan. If there are ethics involved it is unique to the person at hand. There can be no universal ethics because there are no universal right or wrongs concerning the use of animals”
I’m glad you stressed the point again that when the majority do something, that’s your cue, vegans to shut up about it. None of this bullshit independent thought. That’s what gets this species into trouble. No looking at a concept and seeing if its cruel and unnecessary.
You see, I know that if we were living in the 1700s it would be ok to treat women like property because it was universally accepted. It wouldn’t have to be explained to me. Society has told me so, therefore that’s that. Come to think of it, I don’t get how this changed. It would mean that some time along the way, some preachy feminists who were in the minority and can’t stand freedom, decided to speak up about women’s rights to change the world, and not just accept the status quo. But that would mean…….oh forget it…..I’m over-thinking this.
“Vegans use ethics to justify the condemnation of non-vegans when they are really talking about personal opinions. Opinions are not facts. One opinion is no more valid than the next. There is no high ground here to look down on others.”
You know….I think that’s the reason why vegans become vegans. It’s just merely to piss people off. I’m sure there is no other reasoning behind it. They are so antagonistic.
Opinions are just opinions. Nobody is more right than anybody else. Like people who think that women should be third-class citizens. I mean are they right or are they wrong? Who knows? It’s an opinion and being that there are two sides to every stance, it automatically means both opinions are just inherently deserving of the same respect, because that’s just how opinions work.