It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irresponsible mentality

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Yesterday on the news, the headlining story showed public outrage over the deliberate running over of several pet ducks residing on the grounds of a trendy upscale car wash.

Although I was pleased with the out pour of concern for this sadistic act, I couldn't help but ponder the hypocrisy I saw behind it.

I found myself wondering if these same angry citizens ever ordered duck at their favorite Chinese restaurant? If they think the slaughter of their food is any less brutal then that of their "car wash cousins," they're only kidding themselves.

Thanks to the USDA, poultry is exempt from the "humane slaughter act" which states animals must be rendered unconscious before killing. Because poultry farms slaughter several billion chickens annually, implementing this "kindness"is simply too costly.

You might be interested to know something else the USDA did recently. Remember when tomatoes were reclassified when they claimed ketchup to be a vegetable? Well, now they've done the same thing to rabbits. Reclassifed as poultry, they're no longer protected under this bill either. Do you suppose they're banking on the "Easter Bunny" myth to support this one?

I believe a mentality that abhors any form of cruelty to personal pets, then turns a blind eye to the exploitation of animals for their use, is supremely selfish as well as irresponsible.

I see this same theme of arrogance paralleled by the US governments recent declarations of war to punish 911 terrorists, then furthering their own power and resources from this "justified" slaughter.




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Well, the war thing is not so strange, considering a lot of Americans seem to think all Muslims are "vegetables".

I am certainly not a vegetarian, but I happily pay two to four times more for my meat to know the animals were treated decently.

That probably makes me a wimpy cry-baby liberal though. You see, if you are an upstanding conservative christian, "do unto others" only applies to people, uh American people, uh white American people, uh conservative white American people. And pets.

See, they DO care.

[edit on 14/8/05 by gekko]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Honestly?

I see more hypocrisy from these animal rights activists who drive home to their leather couches, wearing their leather jackets and suede boots....they're often the ones who take "natural" supplements which may have come from bovine or porcine sources, too (though to be fair, many simply wouldn't realise this to start with).

Thankfully I've never met an American who refers to Muslims as "vegetables".

(Though I'm apparently a tulip-walkin', cry-baby liberal too, by all accounts. Irony being that even though I live in this fair nation, I don't vote and therefore have no party affiliation whatsoever)



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Tinkleflower,

Further to your point, many vegetarians who spend their lives lecturing meat eaters use beauty, medicinal and hygeine products which have been tested on animals, despite the fact that animal testing causes far more suffering to animals than farming.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The animial rights groups serve a purpose in hopefully protecting the general welfare of animals. However, many of those activist do not seem to practice what they preach as Tinkleflower has said. Mankind kills animals for food and has since we begin. Yes it would be wonderful if animals used for food could be killed in the most humane fashion as possible and that I would like to see as well. I am more concerned about the animals being abused and killed simply to determine if the right shade of blue eyeshadow looks good. That is just plain pathetic that animals have to be abused for humans vanity. To use animals to survive or to possible find cures to save lives is one thing, to kill them so you can look good is another.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I guess it's the innocence of any animal that has the groups so upset. However, I'd hasten to point out that the uproar should be over abortions but sadly, it has become socially acceptable.
We are so quick to point at the speck in others eyes and yet have a beam in our own. Animal rights has a movement but I wonder how many of these same activists devote as much time to a fetus's rights?

There are fare more abortions than pet ducks and yet the media looks the other way. This is the hypocrisy.

Lord, forgive us for we know not what we do. We never have.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
Animal rights has a movement but I wonder how many of these same activists devote as much time to a fetus's rights?

There are fare more abortions than pet ducks and yet the media looks the other way



....
....

Have you somehow missed the constant media barrage of pro- and anti-abortion editorials, reports, etc during the past 20 or so years? The endless TV debates?

Perhaps more to the point though, exactly how do you know what a person might or might not be campaigning for?

Or have you just assumed that animal rights activists just don't have any other ideals?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There are vegetarians and there are vegans. Vegetarians don't eat meat for a variety of reasons including religious, medical and ethical.

A true vegan doesn't eat any animal protein at all including eggs and diary, does not wear fur, leather, wool or even silk. They use only products certified cruelty free and never attend entertainment's exploiting animals.

That's quite a lot to aspire to.

I myself am merely the former. Although I never eat meat anymore, I still eat some products containing eggs, such as mayonnaise, and haven't been able to given up cheese yet, I am working toward it but it's only been eight months since I converted.

I agree that using beauty products tested on animals would be a serious offense. Although I use only cruelty free personal products, I suspect I still have some household products that aren't.

I must confess to possessing many leather goods from my pre-veggie days. Even though I will never buy leather again, I haven't had the resources or inclination to replace all my shoes, coats and purses. I suspect, as my old belongings are replaced, I will gradually stop wearing the offensive ones. Also, I have never worn wool and haven't worn fur since the seventies.

These days, I no longer attend entertainment's exploiting animals. Rodeos have always seemed barbaric to me same as bull and any animal fights are. Circuses and other wildlife shows no longer hold any joy for me but I do miss the horse races.

As you can see becoming a vegan is a serious and complicated matter. And unless you're raised as one, it can be a gradual process.

So please don't judge vegetarians for not being as fully committed as their morally superior vegan brothers. For any sacrifice for the good of animals, no matter how small, is to be commended. Even just to acknowledge that animals deserve better, is an important step. This is all I can ask of anybody. The rest is up to you.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
...the uproar should be over abortions but sadly, it has become socially acceptable.


Ah, the view of the right-wingers, the pro lifers. The people who bomb abortion clinics. The people who think welfare should be discontinued, because everyone should take care of themselves. The people who support death sentence...


Originally posted by keybored
We are so quick to point at the speck in others eyes and yet have a beam in our own.


Ditto.


Edit: I totally agree on cosmetics, fur and sports involving cruelty to animals.

[edit on 14/8/05 by gekko]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I am not right left or centered since I obviously feel totally alien to all your ideals. I don't condone killing, I try to love all, I try to abide by Christs teachings and God's commandments. Killing is wrong and is etched in stone. How much simpler for a morality to deny the stone exists.

Further, cruelty to animals is the issue here and yet a fetus crawls up as high into the womb as it can get in order to get away from that ... what would you call it, humane interruption of life?

I don't bomb clinics, my stance is on the higher moral ground and not two wrongs making a right or in other words, doing the wrong thing for the right reason. Its all wrong.

My thinking is that we are all here and should help each other, not look the other way. Black, white, yellow, and all shades in between, ALL of us.

The past 50 years is more apt as to how long abortion has been going on... and thats just a guess. Had we taken a firm stance and not just let it be, how many innocent lives would have been spared. Had we the moral conduct befitting a civilized society how many wars would have taken place, how many multi-trillions of dollars that could have been put to humanitarian, technological, sociological issues, how much love there would have been instead of perpetual hate?

But again, the morals of a world that cares little for life is evidenced by the number of senseless deaths occurring each and every day.

And to think I deleted my first post so many times while in the draft stage so as not to offend anyone and I still get maligned? I stated a fact and I guess the fact that none of you even saw abortion as the hypocrisy here was too much for our delicate egoes to handle. Stop wearing leather, stop eating meat, it pales in comparison.


Yeah, call me naive



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Keybored, it wasn't meant as a personal attack, but reading it again I see how it could be seen that way. I have a big problem with some of the so-called "pro-lifers" but none with you.

Sorry.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I apologize too. I am into so many threads and none of them are exactly feel good inspirations. Reality sucks and I'm going to time out for a bit and give my wife a chance (she just joined ATS lol)

Peace



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
When ducks fly into buildings they dont explode. Thats whay its wrong to kill them and reasonable to kill terrorists. Geez...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
Further, cruelty to animals is the issue here and yet a fetus crawls up as high into the womb as it can get in order to get away from that ... what would you call it, humane interruption of life?


Yes, cruelty to animals was the issue here. It had nothing to do with abortion; but more to the point, you're stating an opinion as a fact, and that's perhaps why people have reacted. Your opinions aren't facts when it comes down to law and/or morality; neither are mine, and neither are those of anyone else.



My thinking is that we are all here and should help each other, not look the other way. Black, white, yellow, and all shades in between, ALL of us.


Yes, I couldn't agree more. But doesn't that also mean we shouldn't be enforcing our personal beliefs on others simply because their ideas aren't matching ours. It shouldn't be helping others "as long as they agree with my ideals".



The past 50 years is more apt as to how long abortion has been going on... and thats just a guess. Had we taken a firm stance and not just let it be, how many innocent lives would have been spared.


Not everyone agrees with you. Abortion has been going on for millenia in various guises; some methods more dangerous than others. I'm not sure of your point there?

As far as innocent lives go....your opinion isn't going to be accepted as a fact, because there's so much dissention concerning the questions of when life is actually considered life, etc etc. That's another reason why people aren't perhaps as vocally anti-abortion on this thread....but largely because the thread itself has nothing to do with abortion.



Had we the moral conduct befitting a civilized society how many wars would have taken place, how many multi-trillions of dollars that could have been put to humanitarian, technological, sociological issues, how much love there would have been instead of perpetual hate?


The question is, why is your moral ideal better or more appropriate than that of someone else? There's no logical reason to say that no abortion (to use your own example) would mean there'd be more love and less hate in the world. We all need more love in the world - but I'm just not seeing how this ties in to your abortion argument.



But again, the morals of a world that cares little for life is evidenced by the number of senseless deaths occurring each and every day.


I agree - but in my opinion it's nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with a general increase in selfishness and disregard for the rights of other humans.


I stated a fact and I guess the fact that none of you even saw abortion as the hypocrisy here was too much for our delicate egoes to handle.


Because you're comparing apples to oranges. Animal abuse is nothing like the abortion debate; the two aren't even closely linked. If you wished to start another abortion debate, you'd probably be better advised to actually start your own thread, you know?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko

I am certainly not a vegetarian, but I happily pay two to four times more for my meat to know the animals were treated decently.



I am with you on this, gekko. I much prefer my chicken dinner to come from scratchers, my pork from pigs who root around in the outdoors, my beef from ranchers who let them run wild on the ranges. It all tastes better and at least these creatures had a life before we slaughtered them.

I also prefer my venison from the bush rather than a farm and my fish from the end of my line rather than from an enclosure.

I guess that makes us radical tree huggers, eh?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacquio999
When ducks fly into buildings they dont explode. Thats whay its wrong to kill them and reasonable to kill terrorists. Geez...


How many terrorists have the US killed this year, and how many Iraqi children? Besides, I usually don't have roasted terrorist for dinner.

Seriously, I can't see the problem. Why is it not possible to treat humans AND animals with respect?

[edit on 14/8/05 by gekko]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
Although I was pleased with the out pour of concern for this sadistic act, I couldn't help but ponder the hypocrisy I saw behind it.

I found myself wondering if these same angry citizens ever ordered duck at their favorite Chinese restaurant? If they think the slaughter of their food is any less brutal then that of their "car wash cousins," they're only kidding themselves.



Originally posted by dollmonster
I still eat some products containing eggs, such as mayonnaise, and haven't been able to given up cheese yet,
I suspect I still have some household products that aren't.
I must confess to possessing many leather goods from my pre-veggie days.
haven't worn fur since the seventies.

So please don't judge vegetarians for not being as fully committed


But it's ok to judge people who haven't stopped eating meat, though, right?


I find this almost entertaining. You point out the hypocracy of the irresponsible mentality of the meat-eaters who are kidding themselves, then you go on to 'admit' your failings and yes, hypocracy in using the products you use.

This is just a suggestion, if you're going to make a post whose purpose is to demean people you judge as hypocrits and morally inferior to you, you probably want to make sure your house isn't made of glass because the stones you're throwing might just ricochet and come back at you.

There's no reason for you tocontinue to use leather and animal-cruel house products, but it's certainly your choice. And you're choosing to. Own up. You're not a victim of your previously purchased leather goods.

Tell me. Do the vegans put you down and call you a hypocrit because you haven't 'arrived' yet? Because if they did, you'd get sick of it real quick. Trust me.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
"Benevolent" Heretic:

I made no claims to be "holier than thou." Only more enlightened (seeing truth) regarding animal rights.

My acknowledgment that I too am far from the vegan I aspire to me, by no means condones my shortcomings.

I meant only to point out the double standard of our cultural brain washing.
(Because whether we call them our pets or call them our dinner, doesn't change the fact that they are all ducks.)

All animals are created equal just as people are. I was hoping people might think for themselves for a change and realize this.
.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Forgive me, but I'm completely ill from the insinuation that the position of veganism is utmost high, with vegetarians next on the ladder and meat-eaters wallowing in the mud below. I'd wager I am as 'enlightened' about animal rights as the next person, perhaps even you. I work with animals have owned a retired greyhound and I also have spent a good many years as a vegetarian, but I refuse to agree that because I would cringe at a duck being hit by a car, and I eat meat, that I am brainwashed, selfish, arrogant or have an 'irresponsible mentality'.

I just think your first post assumes a lot about non-vegetarians that may not be true at all and is certainly not true in my case.

What I find interesting is that in my experience, it's only the vegetarians who put forth this model. I have yet to meet a vegan who puts down meat-eaters. The ones I have known have been very understanding and open about other's life choices. Perhaps that's a good next step for you to consider in attaining your ultimate goal of veganism. Maybe you should just let go of the idea that meat-eaters are beneath you somehow.

And maybe you should look up benevolent. It doesn't mean to be nice, sweet or mouse-like as many think it does. You have no way of knowing whether I'm benevolent or not.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Entry Word: benevolent

Synonyms: GENEROUS 1, big, chivalrous, considerate, greathearted, lofty, magnanimous
Related Words: beneficent; charitable; humane; compassionate, tenderhearted
hummm?

Why so touchy? No one is saying meat eaters are bad people or not as morale as anybody else, or being vegan automatically makes you good. But you have to admit, those one who live unselfishly for the benefit of a higher purpose, certainly have a head start.

Although there are many roads to spiritual evolvement besides animal rights, on this particular path I do believe vegans are "utmost on the ladder" with meat- eaters "wallowing below." Sorry B. H.

And you're right, I have no way of knowing what you're really like, nor you me. So maybe you and I can simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join