| |
BGonline.org Forums
on soapbox
Posted By: happyjuggler0 In Response To: on soapbox (Caryl Stephanson)
Date: Wednesday, 29 August 2007, at 3:54 p.m.
Hey sis :),
I fully understand why people are opposed to dog fighting. I'm not actually in favor of it, my arguments about other seemingly bad behaviour notwithstanding.
My problem is that I do enjoy eating veal, as well as foie gras, although I rarely eat the latter for cost reasons, as well as the notion that it is basically a heart attack snack. I also don't bother paying more for free range animals.
I guess I am just sick of people getting on a soapbox about morality in such a case as Michael Vick taking pleasure and profit from dogfighting while at the same time "we" take pleasure from similar circumstances and buy from those who profit at those animals expense. Just because Fluffy or Fido is cute and loveable doesn't make cruelty to them more onerous than cruelty to less visually appealing animals. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Again, I am not indicting people for things that I myself am not also doing, I'm an "animal sinner" too (noting I wouldn't go to a dogfight but would to a bull fight, at least once anyway). Perhaps I am talking myself into becoming a free range livestock eating, pork and veal and foie gras boycotting individual. However I am far from there yet, enjoying such stuff too much to give up, at least for now. I also really don't give a hoot for animal rights as such, although I can't condone torture for viewing pleasure (my bullfighting potential voyeurism notwithstanding), but I can for eating pleasure. Hmmmm.
Perhaps the real issue is intent? If the intent is cruelty for cruelty's sake, then it ought to be opposed? But if it is a "mere" byproduct of other pleasure, then cruelty is ok? I can't quite get there, so I guess I'll continue my cognitive dissonance.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.