"People are more violently opposed to fur than to leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs."
-Alexei Sayle-
"I think it’s really hard to be a vegan solely for health reasons or solely for ethical reasons, because eventually, all the pro-vegan arguments smoosh together into one giant ball of virtuous delusion. That was my experience, at least."
-Denise Minger-
This is something I stumbled upon while scrolling on my Facebook page today, and is a perfect example of unreason applied on everyday life issues.
You are probably familiar, at least to a certain degree, with PeTA and the animal rights activism. And most of you probably agree with me when I say that the most ethical thing to do when it comes to animals is not to abuse them in any way within any reasonable possibility.
But sometimes this activism skyrocket to incredibly high levels of crazyness and fanaticism among certain people who, appearantly, can't figure out when they are being manipulated by a lobby with little interest in campaigning against this or that abuse, which uses it to sugar-coat the real interest behind it, which is, of course, always the same: money.
Yes because most of the times you will hear people talking about this or that "evil lobby", and for some reason, they always tend to be on one side of the spectrum rather than the other, when it comes to popular culture. You rarely hear about any Animal Rights Lobby, because they are always depicted as those who are trying to save the environment, animals, so they must be doing the most ethical thing, for sure. At the same time you will rarely see any hunter depicted as the one who is actually doing something for balancing the ecosystem by means of selective hunting and population regulation.
How can we solve this problem?
Fighting those farmers who are killing animals for food, and boycotting anybody who's eating meat, and pushing for adopting a Vegan diet worldwide.....so there will be even less food for both humans, and carnivorous animals, making the overpopulation problem even more critical due to the lack of resources to feed our pets.
So, let me get this straight, if the farmer kills an animal for creating edible resources for both humans and carnivore animals, he's a murderer, if it's the PeTA doing the killing, it's for the well being of animals and for fighting the overpopulation.
I think that the best definition for this shit, given the context, can only be the following:
BARKING MAD.
-Alexei Sayle-
"I think it’s really hard to be a vegan solely for health reasons or solely for ethical reasons, because eventually, all the pro-vegan arguments smoosh together into one giant ball of virtuous delusion. That was my experience, at least."
-Denise Minger-
This is something I stumbled upon while scrolling on my Facebook page today, and is a perfect example of unreason applied on everyday life issues.
You are probably familiar, at least to a certain degree, with PeTA and the animal rights activism. And most of you probably agree with me when I say that the most ethical thing to do when it comes to animals is not to abuse them in any way within any reasonable possibility.
But sometimes this activism skyrocket to incredibly high levels of crazyness and fanaticism among certain people who, appearantly, can't figure out when they are being manipulated by a lobby with little interest in campaigning against this or that abuse, which uses it to sugar-coat the real interest behind it, which is, of course, always the same: money.
Yes because most of the times you will hear people talking about this or that "evil lobby", and for some reason, they always tend to be on one side of the spectrum rather than the other, when it comes to popular culture. You rarely hear about any Animal Rights Lobby, because they are always depicted as those who are trying to save the environment, animals, so they must be doing the most ethical thing, for sure. At the same time you will rarely see any hunter depicted as the one who is actually doing something for balancing the ecosystem by means of selective hunting and population regulation.
But then you read the title on a video which says: PeTA kills 90% of sheltered animals, and you want to know more.
Ok, the journalist asked her questions and the PeTA spokesman answered to them, now, let's just go through his reasoning to see if it makes sense.
Apparently, there is a huge problem in the world with animal overpopulation (doesn't really specify if it's just for pets or whatever), so we (PeTA at least) need to euthanize a lot of animals.
How can we solve this problem?
Fighting those farmers who are killing animals for food, and boycotting anybody who's eating meat, and pushing for adopting a Vegan diet worldwide.....so there will be even less food for both humans, and carnivorous animals, making the overpopulation problem even more critical due to the lack of resources to feed our pets.
So, let me get this straight, if the farmer kills an animal for creating edible resources for both humans and carnivore animals, he's a murderer, if it's the PeTA doing the killing, it's for the well being of animals and for fighting the overpopulation.
I think that the best definition for this shit, given the context, can only be the following:
BARKING MAD.
No comments:
Post a Comment