“If you can’t allow your partner to have latitude in what he or she eats, then maybe your problem isn’t about food”
Yes, exactly. My problem is not about the food - it's about the exploitation, abuse and murder of billions of animals, wasteful and wanton destruction of the environment, the repulsive economic agenda of the dairy and meat industries and the resistance to one of the biggest and most oppressive capitalist industries.
The "freedom of choice" and "respect for other people's opinions" arguments seem to be annoyingly frequent ones which I personally have had thrown at me for years. Whilst of course I agree that people should be allowed to live their lives however they see fit (hence I believe in de-criminalising all illegal drugs), I only support the assumption of personal liberty as far as it affects the individual.
For example, I like tattoos and piercings and if I choose to tattoo myself, the only life affected is mine. I didn't harm or hinder anyone else's life in the process. Choosing to eat meat, however, is not a personal choice for the other party involved - the animals have no choice at all to give up their lives.
A veal calf has no choice when it is removed from it's mother at only a few days old; a piglet has no choice when it is castrated and has it's tail and ears cut off; a cow has no choice when it is dismembered and butchered while conscious; a dolphin has no choice when it is crushed and drowned in a drag net; a male chick has no choice when it is ground up or suffocated because it was born the "wrong" sex.
So you can argue that it's a humans "personal choice" to eat meat, wear leather and fur, drink milk etc. But I can't support someone's choice to beat their wife. I can't support someone's choice to have slaves. I can't support someone's choice to commit rape. And I can't support someone's choice to eat meat because, just like in the previous cases, the victim has no choice at all.
I can't respect someone's right to cause harm and suffering to another sentient being. Whether it's human or non-human animal, unecessary suffering is still unecessary suffering.
Respect Life, Go Vegan!
-- Sarah
The "freedom of choice" and "respect for other people's opinions" arguments seem to be annoyingly frequent ones which I personally have had thrown at me for years. Whilst of course I agree that people should be allowed to live their lives however they see fit (hence I believe in de-criminalising all illegal drugs), I only support the assumption of personal liberty as far as it affects the individual.
For example, I like tattoos and piercings and if I choose to tattoo myself, the only life affected is mine. I didn't harm or hinder anyone else's life in the process. Choosing to eat meat, however, is not a personal choice for the other party involved - the animals have no choice at all to give up their lives.
A veal calf has no choice when it is removed from it's mother at only a few days old; a piglet has no choice when it is castrated and has it's tail and ears cut off; a cow has no choice when it is dismembered and butchered while conscious; a dolphin has no choice when it is crushed and drowned in a drag net; a male chick has no choice when it is ground up or suffocated because it was born the "wrong" sex.
So you can argue that it's a humans "personal choice" to eat meat, wear leather and fur, drink milk etc. But I can't support someone's choice to beat their wife. I can't support someone's choice to have slaves. I can't support someone's choice to commit rape. And I can't support someone's choice to eat meat because, just like in the previous cases, the victim has no choice at all.
I can't respect someone's right to cause harm and suffering to another sentient being. Whether it's human or non-human animal, unecessary suffering is still unecessary suffering.
Respect Life, Go Vegan!
-- Sarah
Posts
2 comments:
I'm new to your blog and I'm kind of dissapointed to have read some of what you said in this post.
Legalizing illegal drugs would only make it easier for dealers to target children. They would be allowed to use the same aggressive marketing tactics that junk food companies use to trap the minds of the innocent. They would have the same rights to operate business as legally operating businesses do.
Many of these drugs resort in street crime. And that isn't because of the illegality of it. It's because of the culture surrounding drugs. They are addictive, and unlike tattoos and piercings, they do greatly effect communities, as well as alter the personalities of people who use them. (for the worse)
People who crusade against the dangers of drug use are not trying to CONTROL people and prevent individuality. They see the negative effects of these substances and the dangers they bring to society. Making it legal would only give our cops reason to stop patrolling our streets as much as they do. Organized crime, for that reason, would likely be easier to manage without cops being able to legally stalk drug dealers.
And think about the people putting drugs on the streets. They are not the cream of society. They look beat up. They are violent. The last thing that makes sense is saying, "Go ahead and do it out in the open!" Suddenly, their potential customers increase exponentially, and now we've got more and more to worry about when it comes to our families and being parents.
As much as they shouldn't, people trust what the government turns a blind eye to. (The meat industry being evidence of that!) Now imagine a drug industry just like the tobacco and meat industry.
That would be a sick world.
@ TechnoChef
Most illegal drugs are less harmful and less addictive than alcohol and tobacco.
There is so much wrong and inaccurate information in your post. I can't even waste my time trying to correct all your erroneous statements.. ugh :(
Post a Comment