NBC passes on Thanksgiving commercial.
- Thread starter Flipmo
- Start date
That's 0 answers to 2 questions.
Close minded indeed.
You thanked Gotti's post but even he doesn't agree with what he's saying (nobody is a nihilist). He said that there is no right or wrong so I could come over and rape you while I kill your dog. It'd be a bad experience for you but with that state of mind you wouldn't blame me afterwards. It's just my life choice.
Just recently you were telling off a woman that had her face smashed in because you suspected she may be doing it as a PR stunt but the notion that a group of people thinks you're wrong for aiding in the ritualized slaughter (and often torture) of living beings for the sake of a luxury is odd to you? You are wrong, within your own moral spectrum. You don't agree with killing for pleasure, you don't agree with animals being tortured and growing up in horrible surroundings. The only difference is you don't really care. At least S O F I is reasonable enough to just say it, he doesn't care.
People always give arguments but they rarely actually follow through.
"I eat meat because of the nutrients" but do these people find out what nutrients they need, how much and adopt a diet complimentary to that? Nope.
"Well I don't agree with the torture but I don't have a problem with killing animals for a luxury" but do these people make sure their meat comes from a humane place? Nope.
Close minded indeed.
You thanked Gotti's post but even he doesn't agree with what he's saying (nobody is a nihilist). He said that there is no right or wrong so I could come over and rape you while I kill your dog. It'd be a bad experience for you but with that state of mind you wouldn't blame me afterwards. It's just my life choice.
Just recently you were telling off a woman that had her face smashed in because you suspected she may be doing it as a PR stunt but the notion that a group of people thinks you're wrong for aiding in the ritualized slaughter (and often torture) of living beings for the sake of a luxury is odd to you? You are wrong, within your own moral spectrum. You don't agree with killing for pleasure, you don't agree with animals being tortured and growing up in horrible surroundings. The only difference is you don't really care. At least S O F I is reasonable enough to just say it, he doesn't care.
People always give arguments but they rarely actually follow through.
"I eat meat because of the nutrients" but do these people find out what nutrients they need, how much and adopt a diet complimentary to that? Nope.
"Well I don't agree with the torture but I don't have a problem with killing animals for a luxury" but do these people make sure their meat comes from a humane place? Nope.
You didn't finish your post, you didn't say why you can't take those "unnatural sources". Also what vital vitamins would you lack? Do you even know? There's only 1 that you'd lack as a vegetarian and 2 as a vegan.
"If it wasn't for those unnatural sources, you'd be fucked."
If I didn't have fingers I couldn't type this, but luckily reality is reality. They are there, that's the whole point. If they weren't then eating meat wouldn't be wrong. But of course then people would still overeat and it'd be a luxury again.
You eat meat because your parents gave it to you, you enjoy the taste and don't want to give it up.
"If it wasn't for those unnatural sources, you'd be fucked."
If I didn't have fingers I couldn't type this, but luckily reality is reality. They are there, that's the whole point. If they weren't then eating meat wouldn't be wrong. But of course then people would still overeat and it'd be a luxury again.
You eat meat because your parents gave it to you, you enjoy the taste and don't want to give it up.
I probably helped side-track this a bit so:
The thread was about aggressive commercials. Considering they're doing it to prevent torture I don't see how anyone can place their annoyance above that. Can anyone think of a commercial that would be effective but wouldn't rub people the wrong way? Is not rubbing people the wrong way more important than the torture of animals? Is this an issue that should be handled but outside of your reality? An issue that shouldn't be handled at all?
If PETA does take a gentle approach and finds people are not responsive would it be okay if they became more aggressive then?
If you entered a society where torturing animals was legal and seen as justified would you repeat what you've said in this thread? Would you find it acceptable and leave it up to personal choices?
The animal abuse is illegal but the government isn't doing a thing about it. The consumers can stop it but they're not doing a thing about it. Do you just accept something unethical and illegal because people are complacent?
Is this issue something you ever think about or bother with when you can't tell a vegetarian/vegan they're wrong?
EDIT: When holding this discussion are you willing to change your mind on certain things if you can't refute a point or if all of your arguments have been discredited?
The thread was about aggressive commercials. Considering they're doing it to prevent torture I don't see how anyone can place their annoyance above that. Can anyone think of a commercial that would be effective but wouldn't rub people the wrong way? Is not rubbing people the wrong way more important than the torture of animals? Is this an issue that should be handled but outside of your reality? An issue that shouldn't be handled at all?
If PETA does take a gentle approach and finds people are not responsive would it be okay if they became more aggressive then?
If you entered a society where torturing animals was legal and seen as justified would you repeat what you've said in this thread? Would you find it acceptable and leave it up to personal choices?
The animal abuse is illegal but the government isn't doing a thing about it. The consumers can stop it but they're not doing a thing about it. Do you just accept something unethical and illegal because people are complacent?
Is this issue something you ever think about or bother with when you can't tell a vegetarian/vegan they're wrong?
EDIT: When holding this discussion are you willing to change your mind on certain things if you can't refute a point or if all of your arguments have been discredited?
Am I the only one that wants to eat her even more? :nuts:
lol j/k
Seriously, It's a fucking commercial. It does nothing.
Some people might feel bad for seeing kids that are starving, animals that are being put to death or whatever.
But it lasts for that split second (or duration of the commercial) then people continue on w/ their lives.
I know it's not a commercial, but no one here is still affected by crazy youtube videos like "2 girls one cup" or that crazy one where that guy breaks a glass in his ass or some shit.
h:...
Fuck Commercials
They only matter in Superbowls.
Before all the meat vs. vegan threads started i didnt really think that much about it. I mean, of course had i thought about it before, but on here it was the first time i saw all the arguments getting on the table to see and decide what point of view is the right or wrong one. In the end i realised, like SOFI said it in his post, that i do realise that its wrong, however i cant care enough about it.
To me on the other hand it somehow doesn't work. The arguments do not convince me and this discussion only made me stray further away from vegetarians as a "social group". It's somewhat like with ecologists. I on the other hand really support them and I'm well aware of the problems they fight with but these people are crazy. I've never met an ecologist with IQ higher than a brick wall (they often join to feel smarter though).
There seem to be different issues with vegetarians though.
These Peta ads and vegetarian arguments are annoying and it's not because I see any point to them - that's because they want to make me feel disgusted. They are not even civilized in my opinion - making a little girl say some shit about slaying animals and mixing it with some tradition - it could've been made in a way more subtle yet convincing way. I'm aware that a common American is not aware of the problem so you have to strike him so he'd understand but it's not a way to reach fully civilized, cultured people.
Also, that sense of overwhelming superiority that I see coming from vegetarians is annoying.
I don't eat much meat lately simply because there are things I like more but if I want to eat a chicken at times I do it. And at that time I only think about what my organism wants from me and I trust it. However the chickens I eat are usually from a trusted farm (grandpa's) and their lives are happy. They have full freedom and safety till they die, not much earlier than they would die naturally or ill anyway.
Then again while eating meat I was never thinking that I'm eating something that was once alive. It's food like anything else I eat. I simply can't separate "meat" and "not meat" in my mind while choosing what I will eat. I don't think about it, that's what I think most people who eat meat since they were little do.
I think about what I want and if it's good for me. Sure it might seem selfish for some but I can't develop a feeling of guilt at that point.
Maybe that's sort of like Sebastian and Sofi.
Maybe some day that will change though. Right now it just doesn't work for me.
The only positive thing these threads gave me is the sense of doing something good while I sit and think that I haven't had meat for xx days and sometimes while others eat meat I'm repeating arguments that I've heard here just in case.
However till this day I don't know any vegetarians apart from this board.
There seem to be different issues with vegetarians though.
These Peta ads and vegetarian arguments are annoying and it's not because I see any point to them - that's because they want to make me feel disgusted. They are not even civilized in my opinion - making a little girl say some shit about slaying animals and mixing it with some tradition - it could've been made in a way more subtle yet convincing way. I'm aware that a common American is not aware of the problem so you have to strike him so he'd understand but it's not a way to reach fully civilized, cultured people.
Also, that sense of overwhelming superiority that I see coming from vegetarians is annoying.
I don't eat much meat lately simply because there are things I like more but if I want to eat a chicken at times I do it. And at that time I only think about what my organism wants from me and I trust it. However the chickens I eat are usually from a trusted farm (grandpa's) and their lives are happy. They have full freedom and safety till they die, not much earlier than they would die naturally or ill anyway.
Then again while eating meat I was never thinking that I'm eating something that was once alive. It's food like anything else I eat. I simply can't separate "meat" and "not meat" in my mind while choosing what I will eat. I don't think about it, that's what I think most people who eat meat since they were little do.
I think about what I want and if it's good for me. Sure it might seem selfish for some but I can't develop a feeling of guilt at that point.
Maybe that's sort of like Sebastian and Sofi.
Maybe some day that will change though. Right now it just doesn't work for me.
The only positive thing these threads gave me is the sense of doing something good while I sit and think that I haven't had meat for xx days and sometimes while others eat meat I'm repeating arguments that I've heard here just in case.
However till this day I don't know any vegetarians apart from this board.
I actually don't drink them for the protein and I never said that I did.
If I did, I'd drink them regularly as part of my diet.
I actually drink them just as meal replacements, when I either can't be bothered to make anything, or I'm counting calories (only 200 in them!). So it's infrequently, whenever I happen to feel like having one.
If I did, I'd drink them regularly as part of my diet.
I actually drink them just as meal replacements, when I either can't be bothered to make anything, or I'm counting calories (only 200 in them!). So it's infrequently, whenever I happen to feel like having one.
Could it have been done more subtly? Of course. Would it have the same effect? I doubt it.
Shock tactics are effective. I'll never criticize PETA for bringing the uglies out of the closet. That is what needs to be done to at least make people aware of what's going on.
Apart from the shocking generalization you just made, it's the common man that needs to be "educated" on this. Not the "civilized people". Or both.
This is true and it's a shame. The superior attitude causes many people to backlash in reactionism.
I think a "more subtle" advertisement for example educating people who are not aware of it would be much better and wouldn't put other people against PETA.
To me it was disgusting what they did there. Apart from that let's start with the fact that a little girl shouldn't even say that. It's not kids that should care about eating meat, it's their parents who give them food. Kids watch that too and they shouldn't be thinking about such negative things at that age. What about potential mental disturbances this type of advertisement causes?
And what's next? Describing or even raping a girl live to show that it's bad?
That's plain wrong and shocking advertisements should be banned.
I bet more people think after watching that advertisement "oh, it's that evil company making a little girl talk about murder during a prayer" than "oh, they promote treating animals well".
A good advertisement should make people want to do something good and that advertisement was far from it. I wouldn't ever allow it in any public media, even if it was about cases I support.
I didn't mean to offend Americans. It's just that the commercial was meant for Americans on their American tradition.
On a side note there is a stereotype that common Americans are a bit more ignorant and rather not on the smart side.
I always thought that there's some truth to most stereotypes.
Regardless of that: since I think most people are aware of how some animals are treated that ad was only made to reach the less educated mass. Other people would totally accept and support educating others who are not aware though if it was made in a more positive way.
To me it was disgusting what they did there. Apart from that let's start with the fact that a little girl shouldn't even say that. It's not kids that should care about eating meat, it's their parents who give them food. Kids watch that too and they shouldn't be thinking about such negative things at that age. What about potential mental disturbances this type of advertisement causes?
And what's next? Describing or even raping a girl live to show that it's bad?
That's plain wrong and shocking advertisements should be banned.
I bet more people think after watching that advertisement "oh, it's that evil company making a little girl talk about murder during a prayer" than "oh, they promote treating animals well".
A good advertisement should make people want to do something good and that advertisement was far from it. I wouldn't ever allow it in any public media, even if it was about cases I support.
I didn't mean to offend Americans. It's just that the commercial was meant for Americans on their American tradition.
On a side note there is a stereotype that common Americans are a bit more ignorant and rather not on the smart side.
I always thought that there's some truth to most stereotypes.
Regardless of that: since I think most people are aware of how some animals are treated that ad was only made to reach the less educated mass. Other people would totally accept and support educating others who are not aware though if it was made in a more positive way.
There were no images in that ad. I don't think young children will get traumatized based on one ad-story.
Now if PETA would flash images of tortured animals, warning free, into your living room then yes, you have a right to be pissed off. But they didn't.
I sincerely hope I don't have to explain why the "rape a girl" argument is inherently flawed in it's logic.
Now if PETA would flash images of tortured animals, warning free, into your living room then yes, you have a right to be pissed off. But they didn't.
I sincerely hope I don't have to explain why the "rape a girl" argument is inherently flawed in it's logic.
Do you have a problem with children being used to promote meat?
What about showing dying children on TV? Do these cause potential mental disturbances? Should the news be illegal for kids? I'm asking because I find it highly exaggerated that you'd say such a thing about the PETA commercial. It's not like they showed a video clip or pictures, it was fairly mild.
I think their objective is no longer just to make people aware but to get people to act. You're aware but that didn't change anything. Awareness itself is not enough. Do you honestly think that they can show a non-confrontational commercial that would achieve that goal? If so, can you try to describe it? Remember that's it's a commercial that's meant to spark action. An infomercial "countless turkeys are abused every year.. etc." with sad sounding music and a woman talking that's obviously older than 50 won't get the job done.
Do you place the "shock" a person might have of seeing this very tame commercial above animals being tortured? If PETA was hijacking school buses and telling, in detail, how animals are killed to a bunch of 10 year olds, you'd have a point. I think it's rather disgusting that you'd feed your child meat from animals that may have been tortured when the child doesn't need it and isn't old/mature enough to make the decision. But that girl, who's probably eating the meat herself, can't do this commercial? Plenty of kids make the connection on their own and become a vegetarian. Kids are not that fragile.
Is there a problem with them making you feel disgusted? What the commercial described is disgusting. And if you contribute you're disgusting by extension. That's not a shot at you, that's just the way it is. I'm disgusting for some of my spending habits. It's just a fact I accept so I can try to change. In reality you're not really disgusting because there are factors beyond your control that can make you disgusting. It's just another way to see you're wrong. Put the blaming game aside and see if you're "disgusting" like PETA claims. If you are, deal with that on your own terms but don't brush it aside.
You say you don't care. You're completely apathetic to the issue. If they succeed in making you feel disgusted, without you getting defensive, those feelings might turn into compassion and a proper perception of responsibility. It's what's necessary most of the time.
Also, do you also get angry at images of dying children that are obviously meant to make you feel bad? Any commercials that attempts to use your feelings to manipulate you into supporting their evil ways?
I'll write a long ass post later.
What about showing dying children on TV? Do these cause potential mental disturbances? Should the news be illegal for kids? I'm asking because I find it highly exaggerated that you'd say such a thing about the PETA commercial. It's not like they showed a video clip or pictures, it was fairly mild.
I think their objective is no longer just to make people aware but to get people to act. You're aware but that didn't change anything. Awareness itself is not enough. Do you honestly think that they can show a non-confrontational commercial that would achieve that goal? If so, can you try to describe it? Remember that's it's a commercial that's meant to spark action. An infomercial "countless turkeys are abused every year.. etc." with sad sounding music and a woman talking that's obviously older than 50 won't get the job done.
Do you place the "shock" a person might have of seeing this very tame commercial above animals being tortured? If PETA was hijacking school buses and telling, in detail, how animals are killed to a bunch of 10 year olds, you'd have a point. I think it's rather disgusting that you'd feed your child meat from animals that may have been tortured when the child doesn't need it and isn't old/mature enough to make the decision. But that girl, who's probably eating the meat herself, can't do this commercial? Plenty of kids make the connection on their own and become a vegetarian. Kids are not that fragile.
Is there a problem with them making you feel disgusted? What the commercial described is disgusting. And if you contribute you're disgusting by extension. That's not a shot at you, that's just the way it is. I'm disgusting for some of my spending habits. It's just a fact I accept so I can try to change. In reality you're not really disgusting because there are factors beyond your control that can make you disgusting. It's just another way to see you're wrong. Put the blaming game aside and see if you're "disgusting" like PETA claims. If you are, deal with that on your own terms but don't brush it aside.
You say you don't care. You're completely apathetic to the issue. If they succeed in making you feel disgusted, without you getting defensive, those feelings might turn into compassion and a proper perception of responsibility. It's what's necessary most of the time.
Also, do you also get angry at images of dying children that are obviously meant to make you feel bad? Any commercials that attempts to use your feelings to manipulate you into supporting their evil ways?
I'll write a long ass post later.
I think at least some of them would be traumatized. That's something they would remember for years.
"rape a girl" argument was just an overexagerration of the point I was making though. If a little girl described the process briefly in an advertisement that would be hardcore.
Or the way a person dies if he doesn't use seat belts. Or the way you die from cancer if you smoke.
It's sort of similar plus they want you to feel guilty.
"rape a girl" argument was just an overexagerration of the point I was making though. If a little girl described the process briefly in an advertisement that would be hardcore.
Or the way a person dies if he doesn't use seat belts. Or the way you die from cancer if you smoke.
It's sort of similar plus they want you to feel guilty.
But rape is not a socially accepted phenomenon like the bio-industry is. That's a big difference.
No child except an oversensitive autist would get traumatized by that PETA commercial.
Have you ever heard an average 8yr old kid talk these days? Unless you're meeting kids from Bible group, they know more than you think. They know more bad words than you think (the boys do anyway). They're not going to break out in tears because of a girl on tv SPEAKING (not even in very graphic detail) about turkey abuse.
No child except an oversensitive autist would get traumatized by that PETA commercial.
Have you ever heard an average 8yr old kid talk these days? Unless you're meeting kids from Bible group, they know more than you think. They know more bad words than you think (the boys do anyway). They're not going to break out in tears because of a girl on tv SPEAKING (not even in very graphic detail) about turkey abuse.
But girls are sensitive. I'm sure my cousin would cry 
Yeah I'm against children in most advertisements but a child talking about any negative thing like murder in any case is an unacceptable thing.
Do you think that a disgusting advertisement like that would "spark" people to do what they want? Personally the only result of that ad that would apply to me and probably most people I know would be thinking that PETA is a terrible organization.
I think they're trying to achieve something that is probably impossible with an ad. Okay, most TV advertisements really suck lately but you often see ads that make you positively surprised, so much that you remember them for years - they are pretty rare examples of good advertisement.
The problem with PETA and vegetarians for that matter is that they don't seem to understand that a group they are trying to reach is not an evil mass that doesn't think.
That you have to punch them in the face and kill their daughters to change their lifestyles.
Really, do you know one person that would change his lifestyle because of a shocking advertisement like this?
A better advertisement would educate people on advantages and things that they would get with a Vegetarian diet, eating ecological food etc.
Then the only way to make people treat animals better and eat green would be by some sort of law restrictions combined with positive education.
Not at all but if one doesn't change another why add the extra negative factor?
Yes but the source of that problem is not where you think it is. I'm well aware that these particular farms are terrible for animals, I agree that they should not exist, the law should not allow them to exist, there should be strict regulations etc. etc. I usually don't eat food from farms like these since I know where my meat comes from. If I eat in KFC here they tell me that their chickens come from local farms and I know that local farms are not bad which makes me feel better and prefer KFC over McDonalds or other companies where I don't know where their meat comes from (that is a great example of making a good advertisement btw.). I would be annoyed if I found out that the food I bought suffered as described before but I wouldn't feel guilty. I would be pissed that some people did that and they should be put to jail for doing it. I'm sure you'll start by saying that I'm the reason why they're doing that but that's not true. I'm the reason why they do produce meat for me but the reason why they do it that way is because they are allowed to and it's the most "economic" way. They are the problem in this case and the law that allows them to do so. If less people ate meat they would still do it.
There's a way to "produce" food from animals in a way more civilized way which is okay to me and I totally support banning everyone who treats animals like shit.
Same with ecology - you can drive your car that doesn't use a lot of resources and it's okay but if you accomplish the same goal by driving a 3.0 diesel then that's wrong and I think it shouldn't be legal. I wouldn't tell people to stop driving their cars. Then if I bought a car and wouldn't know what kind of engine it has, then it would turn out that it's not "eco-friendly" I would be pissed on its manufacturers and say that it shouldn't be legal. I would be somehow contributing to the problem but I wouldn't be guilty, I wouldn't be happy about what happened either. The problem would be elsewhere - why was that company even allowed to do such things?
However back to these ads - if you were bombarded by advertisements like "if you smoke you will die painfully", "if you eat meat you slay animals in a drastic way", "if you drunk-drive you'll go to hell" etc. etc. that might have a point but is not a good way of accomplishing things. I just find it bad, not civilized even though performing these things is terrible.
Even if I didn't smoke I wouldn't feel comfortable while watching that kind of TV ad.
Yeah I'm against children in most advertisements but a child talking about any negative thing like murder in any case is an unacceptable thing.
Do you think that a disgusting advertisement like that would "spark" people to do what they want? Personally the only result of that ad that would apply to me and probably most people I know would be thinking that PETA is a terrible organization.
I think they're trying to achieve something that is probably impossible with an ad. Okay, most TV advertisements really suck lately but you often see ads that make you positively surprised, so much that you remember them for years - they are pretty rare examples of good advertisement.
The problem with PETA and vegetarians for that matter is that they don't seem to understand that a group they are trying to reach is not an evil mass that doesn't think.
That you have to punch them in the face and kill their daughters to change their lifestyles.
Really, do you know one person that would change his lifestyle because of a shocking advertisement like this?
A better advertisement would educate people on advantages and things that they would get with a Vegetarian diet, eating ecological food etc.
Then the only way to make people treat animals better and eat green would be by some sort of law restrictions combined with positive education.
Not at all but if one doesn't change another why add the extra negative factor?
Yes but the source of that problem is not where you think it is. I'm well aware that these particular farms are terrible for animals, I agree that they should not exist, the law should not allow them to exist, there should be strict regulations etc. etc. I usually don't eat food from farms like these since I know where my meat comes from. If I eat in KFC here they tell me that their chickens come from local farms and I know that local farms are not bad which makes me feel better and prefer KFC over McDonalds or other companies where I don't know where their meat comes from (that is a great example of making a good advertisement btw.). I would be annoyed if I found out that the food I bought suffered as described before but I wouldn't feel guilty. I would be pissed that some people did that and they should be put to jail for doing it. I'm sure you'll start by saying that I'm the reason why they're doing that but that's not true. I'm the reason why they do produce meat for me but the reason why they do it that way is because they are allowed to and it's the most "economic" way. They are the problem in this case and the law that allows them to do so. If less people ate meat they would still do it.
There's a way to "produce" food from animals in a way more civilized way which is okay to me and I totally support banning everyone who treats animals like shit.
Same with ecology - you can drive your car that doesn't use a lot of resources and it's okay but if you accomplish the same goal by driving a 3.0 diesel then that's wrong and I think it shouldn't be legal. I wouldn't tell people to stop driving their cars. Then if I bought a car and wouldn't know what kind of engine it has, then it would turn out that it's not "eco-friendly" I would be pissed on its manufacturers and say that it shouldn't be legal. I would be somehow contributing to the problem but I wouldn't be guilty, I wouldn't be happy about what happened either. The problem would be elsewhere - why was that company even allowed to do such things?
However back to these ads - if you were bombarded by advertisements like "if you smoke you will die painfully", "if you eat meat you slay animals in a drastic way", "if you drunk-drive you'll go to hell" etc. etc. that might have a point but is not a good way of accomplishing things. I just find it bad, not civilized even though performing these things is terrible.
Even if I didn't smoke I wouldn't feel comfortable while watching that kind of TV ad.
I'd like to add that there are very popular medication advertisements here.
They literally describe symptoms of an illness accompanied by very graphic grey scenes of people suffering from them and then with a happy voice they come up with "xxx will help you!".
That's the reason I HATE that way of advertising things. Suddenly a huge amount of people suffers from these symptoms..
They literally describe symptoms of an illness accompanied by very graphic grey scenes of people suffering from them and then with a happy voice they come up with "xxx will help you!".
That's the reason I HATE that way of advertising things. Suddenly a huge amount of people suffers from these symptoms..
I think it would spark this discussion. Also the images/videos that sparked something in me were by PETA (and others). So it does spark people.
That's a different discussion and one I agree with.
An even better way is to change peoples' perspective. It's happened in the abolishment of slavery, female rights and gay rights. The type of perspective change that helps with passing laws. I think that's what PETA is after. You're describing what would work for you but you don't have the same goal. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. It goes beyond the meat industry. How does a vegetarian diet fix puppy mills? Fur trade? Bloodsports? The abuse in the circus? Zoos? A change in perspective changes everything.
What you're saying sounds nice but it's just a way to "put things into perspective" and remove yourself from the situation. What you're not factoring into your analysis is human behavior. You're not paying an angel to handle the meat industry for you, you're paying a human being, a stranger. You're paying someone you don't know to breed, raise and kill animals behind closed doors. You know the track record of humans and animals, especially in every kind of industry. What the fuck do you think will happen? If you think you're just paying to produce meat you're naive. You don't hand a stranger 20 bucks and ask them to pick you up a coffee. You can and you aren't paying them to take the money and never return but common sense will always hold you responsible. You may not be the "reason" but once you know and you continue to reap the benefits from this exploitation you're responsible for that action.
It's the same with people who advertise for puppies with ads. If you give a stranger one of those puppies and it ends up being used as target practise, you're responsible.
There's still the issue of animals being killed for a luxury but you do eat organic meat, which I don't take lightly. But how do you know what KFC employees tell you is true? They're not going to tell you if their meat comes from a disgusting place. But they don't need to lie. It's like the picture I posted of those chickens earlier in the thread. If you'd ask an employee at that facility they could truthfully tell you that they're "free-range" but that doesn't mean they're not living a shitty life. You've visited your relative's farm but did you visit the others? It's not enough to be pissed when you find out. It's a misconception that "local farms" aren't bad. But your local farms might be good. Do you know if they are?
When dealing with human beings in this society it's not possible to have a civilized animal industry when the consumers are so far removed from the process. Especially if you can't hold a person personally responsible (try telling a person who's causing a stray cat problem that they need to get their pet sterilized. Those civilized and cultured people will tell you to go fuck yourself. They're animals and who are you to tell me what to do?). Just partaking isn't the only thing, it's the amount you buy. The organic industry isn't all its cracked up to be either but it can be good. However if mass amounts of people switch to that industry they'll put pressure on it and the living conditions of animals will drop. What happens to products and product production when demand outways the supply?
An animal-friendly industry is not achievable. Stopping world hunger is not achievable. You can deal with possible scenarios but there are just some things that require you to be realistic. If the government banned meat, what do you think the peoples' reactions would be? You think it'll be like yours (which is commendable)? What if they shut down all mass-production farms and meat prices would sky-rocket? Meat supply was somewhat scarce? If they produced enough meat to feed everyone a certain amount do you think people would divide the meat honestly? You have to force change, no matter how pretty your words can be. A non-violent protest still requires you to actually take a stand. It requires you to get in someone's way. The mass is not now, nor has it ever been, a guideline for behavior.
That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Since when has hoping and waiting for the government been a realistic solution? It's really just giving into complacency and "common decency" rules (not bothering people is so incredibly important) while giving the problem a place in your head where you can phase it out. And what happens to the problem?
It just seems that your main concern is being "proper". A problem should only be solved if it doesn't step on peoples' toes.
That's a different discussion and one I agree with.
An even better way is to change peoples' perspective. It's happened in the abolishment of slavery, female rights and gay rights. The type of perspective change that helps with passing laws. I think that's what PETA is after. You're describing what would work for you but you don't have the same goal. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. It goes beyond the meat industry. How does a vegetarian diet fix puppy mills? Fur trade? Bloodsports? The abuse in the circus? Zoos? A change in perspective changes everything.
What you're saying sounds nice but it's just a way to "put things into perspective" and remove yourself from the situation. What you're not factoring into your analysis is human behavior. You're not paying an angel to handle the meat industry for you, you're paying a human being, a stranger. You're paying someone you don't know to breed, raise and kill animals behind closed doors. You know the track record of humans and animals, especially in every kind of industry. What the fuck do you think will happen? If you think you're just paying to produce meat you're naive. You don't hand a stranger 20 bucks and ask them to pick you up a coffee. You can and you aren't paying them to take the money and never return but common sense will always hold you responsible. You may not be the "reason" but once you know and you continue to reap the benefits from this exploitation you're responsible for that action.
It's the same with people who advertise for puppies with ads. If you give a stranger one of those puppies and it ends up being used as target practise, you're responsible.
There's still the issue of animals being killed for a luxury but you do eat organic meat, which I don't take lightly. But how do you know what KFC employees tell you is true? They're not going to tell you if their meat comes from a disgusting place. But they don't need to lie. It's like the picture I posted of those chickens earlier in the thread. If you'd ask an employee at that facility they could truthfully tell you that they're "free-range" but that doesn't mean they're not living a shitty life. You've visited your relative's farm but did you visit the others? It's not enough to be pissed when you find out. It's a misconception that "local farms" aren't bad. But your local farms might be good. Do you know if they are?
When dealing with human beings in this society it's not possible to have a civilized animal industry when the consumers are so far removed from the process. Especially if you can't hold a person personally responsible (try telling a person who's causing a stray cat problem that they need to get their pet sterilized. Those civilized and cultured people will tell you to go fuck yourself. They're animals and who are you to tell me what to do?). Just partaking isn't the only thing, it's the amount you buy. The organic industry isn't all its cracked up to be either but it can be good. However if mass amounts of people switch to that industry they'll put pressure on it and the living conditions of animals will drop. What happens to products and product production when demand outways the supply?
An animal-friendly industry is not achievable. Stopping world hunger is not achievable. You can deal with possible scenarios but there are just some things that require you to be realistic. If the government banned meat, what do you think the peoples' reactions would be? You think it'll be like yours (which is commendable)? What if they shut down all mass-production farms and meat prices would sky-rocket? Meat supply was somewhat scarce? If they produced enough meat to feed everyone a certain amount do you think people would divide the meat honestly? You have to force change, no matter how pretty your words can be. A non-violent protest still requires you to actually take a stand. It requires you to get in someone's way. The mass is not now, nor has it ever been, a guideline for behavior.
That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Since when has hoping and waiting for the government been a realistic solution? It's really just giving into complacency and "common decency" rules (not bothering people is so incredibly important) while giving the problem a place in your head where you can phase it out. And what happens to the problem?
It just seems that your main concern is being "proper". A problem should only be solved if it doesn't step on peoples' toes.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.