I in no way meant that because you care about animal rights that meant you didn't care about human rights. I think some of the things animal rights activists fight for/against is harmful for humans (e.g. no animal testing), but I know it's not meant that way. I didn't say that you didn't care anywhere in my post, and I had no intention of implying it. The reason why all the examples I used were ones of humans is quite simple: those are the ones I
care about. As I've already said, the death of cows doesn't interest me. Same applies to lab rats, pigs, etcetera. So examples pertaining to humans are what I used.
And if you want to do what you can with yourself, and boycott practically everything under the sun, then good for you. You're obviously not boycotting everything that has problems (you do still pay taxes, I presume, and you're on a computer that was almost assuredly made under bad conditions), but you're doing what you can this side of an Amish lifestyle or prison.
I have nothing against vegetarians, vegans, etcetera. One of my sisters, who I love dearly, is one. Here's when it bothers me: when they go recruiting. By all means, inform me what's in gelatin. I like knowing things as much as the next person, and being rather hard to gross out it won't affect my appetite. But don't try to convince me to stop eating skittle because of gelatin, or, in this case, cheese because animals are tortured in the process. I like cheese, and I don't really care how many cows are pumped up with drugs then sucked dry by machines to get the cheese and milk to me. The recruiting
is what bothers me. And, to bring it to the original npr article, that's what the billboard is attempting to do.
I feel like there's something in that last paragraph I should object to (other than the religious references in it I couldn't possibly be less interested in) but I'm honestly not sure what your point is there.+zechariah young
Is someone who accused +Jessica Thayer
of supporting animal torture really going to lecture +Adam Woodard
on ad hominen attacks? Obviously it's a logical fallacy. That wasn't the point of Woodard's post though. Woodard, Thayer, and I have all made references to the tone you and Haworth have taken in this discussion. Calling her narcissistic wasn't Woodard's attempt to prove his point, just an expression of annoyance with her morally superior tone. And yours. Want to talk about ad hominen attacks, though, how do our respective ages have anything to do with this discussion? They don't. It wasn't an ad hominen attack on your part, though. But it can be read that way, the same as you read Woodard's comment that way.
Most of us believe humans are better than animals. I am far from an exception to that rule. Most people, nearly everyone in fact, also values their own life more than the life of some random person they don't know. I'm guilty of that too. My life is worth more to me than other humans', never mind animals.
The truth shall set you free, eh? Said a crazy guy who, admittedly, had a couple of good teachings, in the first century AD. The truth sets no one free. Knowing the truth doesn't make anyone better, and it doesn't always help anyone. It's just nice. And it doesn't have to be expressed with the tone you express it with. You can deny it all you want, but clearly your tone is one of moral superiority. Maybe you don't mean it that way. Doesn't matter. That's how it's heard.
If you really find it that agonizing to live in the US because of the suffering that simple fact causes, there's an easy solution. Move to southern Canada and live like an Amish person. That's cause as near no suffering of animals or humans as makes no difference. If you're not willing to do that, then I take your claims in that regard as what it is: talk, nothing else. It's easy to talk a good game about feeling horrible that what you do causes X, Y, and Z. I could do it too. Doesn't make it so, though.