Buehrle vs. Vick

[knightni]

I agree with ScottyDo. This discussion really shows the level of intelligence and rationality on Soxtalk.

Who says?

 

Ya poo-poo head...

[Soxbadger]

Shack's argument is a fun one when I some times am on the other side of this fence. Thats how I know about the carrots screaming, I usually have to defend against vegans/vegetarians.

 

I was always good at arguing, I just some times get paid to do it.

[iamshack]

Shack's argument is a fun one when I some times am on the other side of this fence. Thats how I know about the carrots screaming, I usually have to defend against vegans/vegetarians.

 

I was always good at arguing, I just some times get paid to do it.

I think the closest one can get to a general rule of thumb is just to be responsible stewards of the planet. Use our intelligence and knowledge gained through experience to make the most reasonable decisions possible for the good of our own species and the good of the planet. Anything more than that and things get really messy.

[Soxbadger]

I can agree with the above. Only problem is that I think if you ask 100 people, youll get 100 different answers of what is okay or good. Which is why I try to stay away from this one.

[hogan873]

This has been a great thread to read and be involved with. I doubt anyone expected over 225 responses, nor the fact that it stayed in Pale Hose Talk the entire time. For the most part, I think there was some great discussions and only a few inflammatory jabs. I can say that no one is going to make me stop eating meat or keep me from going hunting every couple of years. And I'm not going to make any vegans decide it's okay to chow down on a hamburger tonight. One thing I can admit to is that BigSqwert at least doesn't seem hypocritical...and maybe that's true with many vegans. I have met people that claim to be vegans or strict vegetarians, only to have them admit that they occasionally "cheat" with some bacon or some eggs.

 

Mark Buehrle spoke his mind, and I can admire his dedication to the cause he and his wife work towards. Being a public figure (and a hunter), maybe he shouldn't have said he wished Vick got hurt. But how many people have thought the same thing?

[BigSqwert]

Yeah, I understand that, and I can understand how others would dial-in on that distinction as some sort of line to try and avoid crossing. But I just don't think that line is really relevant for the very large judgment you are making.

 

In the grand scheme of what is the ecosystem and the natural order of things on this planet, I have a hard time identifying the ability to communicate pain or fear in a way in whch we can recognize as the key distinction for what is morally right or wrong. As KHP has pointed out, other organisms react or change the course of their behavior based on how we interact with them, but they do so in a manner which is less evident or recognizable to humans. So what you're ultimately saying seems even more hypocritical to me than what many others are saying, in that your viewpoint depends simply on your perception of their suffering, rather than on whether suffering is actually occuring. So if you can perceive it, it somehow holds more weight and value to you, however, if you are ignorant of it, it is morally acceptable to overlook that suffering.

 

One more critical point here. The reactions of sentient beings are those evolved into their genetics as a tool for survival. They developed the instinct to flee or let out cries of suffering as a tool to help them evade death. The reason those reactions manifest themselves in a manner in which we can recognize is to accomplish their purpose. Behaviors and instincts don't evolve if they are ultimately ineffective or accomplish nothing. In fact, they do precisely the opposite. So the very reason we can recognize the pain and the desire to flee expressed by sentient beings is the very reason for their presence. On the other hand, plant life has evolved to react in ways that are more relevant to their ability to survive, whether that be moving in and out of sunlight, or secreting a substance which attracts insects to fertilize them, etc. These actions, while not necessarily recognized by humans, are just as important to that organism's survival. It just so happens that that organism's survival does not so much depend on it's ability to interact with humans or other predators, but instead, some other source of danger or necessary life-giving source.

 

 

Let me put this as succinctly as possible. I choose to not intentionally harm anything in the animal kingdom. Period.

 

I need to sustain my own survival so I have to consume plant life. We know for a fact that animals, whether they be dogs, bats or kangaroos, feel pain. This is indisputable even though you seem to imply that we're just somehow guessing this to be true. We need to nourish ourselves to survive. Consuming animals is not a requirement to achieve this.

 

Animals are sentient. Plants are not.

 

So what this entire notion of the suffering of sentient beings is based entirely upon our ability to recognize an organism's survival instincts, and the emotions those instincts evoke in us as humans and our ability to feel compassion and empathy. I think such a distinction is short-sighted and incorrectly arrived at. It's based on an even more hypocritical belief that the only survival instincts worth feeling emotion or compassion for are those which we can readily recognize and relate to. That those survival instincts somehow carry more weight and value because we can identify with their suffering more, since it is believed to be similar to our own. I just see that as an incredibly flawed premise.

 

This entire paragraph seems to be a complete contradiction to everyone's argument that what Vick did was wrong. So the dog might not actually feel pain? Then why is everyone in an uproar? Why are there animal cruelty laws?

Edited February 11, 2011 by BigSqwert

[iamshack]

Let me put this as succinctly as possible. I choose to not intentionally harm anything in the animal kingdom. Period.

 

I need to sustain my own survival so I have to consume plant life. We know for a fact that animals, whether they be dogs, bats or kangaroos, feel pain. This is indisputable even though you seem to imply that we're just somehow guessing this to be true. We need to nourish ourselves to survive. Consuming animals is not a requirement to achieve this.

 

Animals are sentient. Plants are not.

 

 

 

This entire paragraph seems to be a complete contradiction to everyone's argument that what Vick did was wrong. So the dog might not actually feel pain? Then why is everyone in an uproar? Why are there animal cruelty laws?

Oh come on, Sqwert...you simply can't make some quick and dirty distinction like that. Simply living in human society is intentionally harming things in the animal kingdom. You're using the internet right now, which has caused all kinds of animal life to lose it's habitat and migrate elsewhere, most likely to a less desirable one. You consume all kinds of products that intentionally cause harm to all kinds of things in the animal kingdom which are not a necessity for your survival, but instead are a mere convenience or luxury for your enjoyment. You simply cannot divorce yourself from this reality by drawing some line in the sand and saying this is the point where I become less culpable for the destruction of other species than you are, because you eat meat and I do not. It's nice to think that, because it allows you some peace of mind and lessens the burden on your conscience, but it's a false reality based on a nonsensical premise.

 

Are you suggesting that you need to use the internet to survive? That the use of your cell phone is imperative? That you need to live in a climate controlled living space to survive? All those things, both indirectly and directly, cause devastation to other species in varying degrees. I know it's an impossible line to draw and an unfair position to place someone in, but it's what a vegan does every time he makes a value judgment of someone who does consume meat.

 

Why is pain some ultimate distinction? When you look at what pain is, it is simply a mechanism by which to inform the organism that the behavior engaged in is not favorable to it's chances of survival. Why is that some eligible criteria by which to attach some moralistic judgment to? Plants have the same exact survival mechanisms, they just happen to be different than ours. So because you can understand the mechanism of an animal because it is more similar to your own somehow makes it more worthy of consideration?

[iamshack]

This entire paragraph seems to be a complete contradiction to everyone's argument that what Vick did was wrong. So the dog might not actually feel pain? Then why is everyone in an uproar? Why are there animal cruelty laws?

I'm not saying the dog did not feel pain. What I'm saying is that I don't subscribe to making value judgments based on that distinction alone. I think it's entirely over-simplistic.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Oh come on, Sqwert...you simply can't make some quick and dirty distinction like that. Simply living in human society is intentionally harming things in the animal kingdom. You're using the internet right now, which has caused all kinds of animal life to lose it's habitat and migrate elsewhere, most likely to a less desirable one. You consume all kinds of products that intentionally cause harm to all kinds of things in the animal kingdom which are not a necessity for your survival, but instead are a mere convenience or luxury for your enjoyment. You simply cannot divorce yourself from this reality by drawing some line in the sand and saying this is the point where I become less culpable for the destruction of other species than you are, because you eat meat and I do not. It's nice to think that, because it allows you some peace of mind and lessens the burden on your conscience, but it's a false reality based on a nonsensical premise.

 

Are you suggesting that you need to use the internet to survive? That the use of your cell phone is imperative? That you need to live in a climate controlled living space to survive? All those things, both indirectly and directly, cause devastation to other species in varying degrees. I know it's an impossible line to draw and an unfair position to place someone in, but it's what a vegan does every time he makes a value judgment of someone who does consume meat.

 

Why is pain some ultimate distinction? When you look at what pain is, it is simply a mechanism by which to inform the organism that the behavior engaged in is not favorable to it's chances of survival. Why is that some eligible criteria by which to attach some moralistic judgment to? Plants have the same exact survival mechanisms, they just happen to be different than ours. So because you can understand the mechanism of an animal because it is more similar to your own somehow makes it more worthy of consideration?

I've said this before and I'll say it again: iamshack = iamawesome

 

[iamshack]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: iamshack = iamawesome

KHP, you've made the best arguments I have ever seen you make on this forum in this thread. Everything was very well thought out and articulated.

 

And Sqwert, don't get me wrong...I have never hunted a mammal and do not believe I could do so unless faced with no other option by which to sustain myself. I am an animal lover, especially a dog lover, and could not fathom doing what Vick did to one dog, let alone several dogs. In fact, I probably feel more sympathy and have my emotions aroused more so in the defense of dogs than any of my fellow human beings that I have no relaton or deep friendship with. As you know I just bought a puppy and I can pretty much guarantee you that pup will receive more of my time, devotion, and caring than just about any human being I interact with will.

 

But I just see the world we live in as so incredibly complex as to make drawing lines in the sand by which value judgments of others possible to be an entirely fruitless exerise. It's absolutely futile in my opinion. You can stop eating meat, but what if I continue to eat meat but refuse to use any device which derives it's power from a fossil fuel source? Does that make us equal? Does that make you more morally pure than me or me more morally pure than you?

 

The consequences of the mere decision to live in an industrialized culture are so far-reaching and vast as to make a determination or moral judgment moot in all but the most extreme cases, which Vick's certainly is.

[Soxbadger]

Im not going to fight another person's battles, but Im pretty sure the distinction that was being made was "intentionally". Hurting animals via using the internet, or just being a human (undoubtedly the creation of the hospital where you were born hurt some animal) is not intentional, those would be more like incidental and consequential damages. People can only be responsible for so much, some people choose not to directly buy a product that was made from a killed animal.

 

A lot is out of human control. The point is he tries to minimize animal death as much as possible. You cant attack the position just because its impossible to live and not hurt animals at all. Im sure many vegans if possible would try and live without harming any animals, it just isnt possible.

 

We all draw a line in the sand some where, and at the end of the day all that matters is if in our own mind we are on the right side.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Soxbadger

[iamshack]

Im not going to fight another person's battles, but Im pretty sure the distinction that was being made was "intentionally". Hurting animals via using the internet, or just being a human (undoubtedly the creation of the hospital where you were born hurt some animal) is not intentional, those would be more like incidental and consequential damages. People can only be responsible for so much, some people choose not to directly buy a product that was made from a killed animal.

 

A lot is out of human control. The point is he tries to minimize animal death as much as possible. You cant attack the position just because its impossible to live and not hurt animals at all. Im sure many vegans if possible would try and live without harming any animals, it just isnt possible.

 

We all draw a line in the sand some where, and at the end of the day all that matters is if in our own mind we are on the right side.

It's not a question of intent, because he intentionally uses all kinds of devices which utilize fossil fuels and harm the ecosystem in a similar fashion to how it is harmed by our industrialized food production methods. It's a question perhaps of directness. But even still, there is not much of a distinction, IMO.

 

You are seriously going to argue with me that using the internet is being more human at it's core than eating meat?

 

There is a directness achieved by saying "I do not eat animals and therefore do not participate in their slaughter."

 

But I participate in the mistreatment of animals on farm factories in no direct manner. I do not, simply by eating meat, determine the course of action taken by some hog farm in Georgia. No more do I cause that behavior does Sqwert cause the the behavior of a utility starting a new coal plant in Idaho which displaces some local bird population of its habitat and cause overall pollution to the surrounding ecosystem for miles by turning his thermostat to 68 in the summer.

 

You are an attorney, you know we can stretch the causal connections to all kinds of lengths if need be, but at the end of the day, there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied, other than in the most extreme of cases, again, which Vick's clearly is.

Edited February 11, 2011 by iamshack

[Milkman delivers]

Im not going to fight another person's battles, but Im pretty sure the distinction that was being made was "intentionally". Hurting animals via using the internet, or just being a human (undoubtedly the creation of the hospital where you were born hurt some animal) is not intentional, those would be more like incidental and consequential damages. People can only be responsible for so much, some people choose not to directly buy a product that was made from a killed animal.

 

A lot is out of human control. The point is he tries to minimize animal death as much as possible. You cant attack the position just because its impossible to live and not hurt animals at all. Im sure many vegans if possible would try and live without harming any animals, it just isnt possible.

 

We all draw a line in the sand some where, and at the end of the day all that matters is if in our own mind we are on the right side.

 

That's one of the problems. A lot of vegetarians and vegans love to tell you how wrong you are for eating meat, and how they are on a higher moral level.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah I am going to argue about the directness. Using fossil fuels which indirectly harms animals is different than buying a product that is directly related to the death of animals. Youre kind of putting me in a bind here because Im not actually arguing my own position, I actually eat meat so I dont really care that much. My rationale is that when I buy something at the store, the animal was already dead. There was nothing I could really do to stop that animal from being killed. Yes I understand that if I stop eating meat I may impact the demand for meat therefore ultimately stopping the killing of animals for food.

 

But inevitably I wont be able to do it, so I do my best to not harm animals directly, and by directly I mean with my own 2 hands. Over the summer I went fishing (first time in a while) and I actually felt uncomfortable about catching and killing/eating the fish, so I convinced my friends to throw it back. The irony was that for dinner I had chicken and steak.

 

I cant attempt to try and answer this question, because I dont have an answer. I know that if we look at this scientifically humans shouldnt care about torture, death or anything. We are a predator, we do what we want. Killer whales torture seals, its a fact. But we arent looking at this scientifically we are looking at it humanly (not humanely). And the definition of humanly depends on who we are as species at that very moment. For the greater part of human history what Vick did would not have even been an issue. But today many humans dont agree with animal torture. Perhaps future generations will not eat meat. As a species we have gone far beyond the natural order of things.

 

And I understand because generally for this argument I have been on the other side of the fence.

 

I just happened to get ambushed into a position in this thread where I was forced to take on some positions to show that killing an animal for sport isnt that far from torture in some peoples minds.

 

A lot of vegetarians and vegans love to tell you how wrong you are for eating meat, and how they are on a higher moral level.

 

And that is why I generally am on the other side of this fence. Whenever a person takes a holier than thou attitude, Im going to do everything in my power to show them for the hypocrites they are.

 

I kind of felt that way when people started lecturing me on how hunting was perfectly okay and acting like me merely questioning whether Mark should have said anything, was an affront to all hunters in the world. When people act like that, I have a tendency to feel the need to point out that no one is holier than thou and that everyone can be made into a hypocrite.

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I had a nice long post just about ready to send and then I accidentally hit the back button and it disappeared.

 

I think the main thing - and this is just my opinion - is that people think the way they do because they are removed from nature. I think because of this people get confused. They confuse themselves by taking some of the natural instincts and impulses that bother them and attempting to resolve or explain their presences by applying human "logic," which is only based upon what they know, and that isn't much of anything when it comes to the workings of nature since they've always lived apart from it. And I think also that man, capable of building structures and transportation systems etc., is too egotistical and too confident in his own future and projected future abilities to ever give nature her due - at least not until he uses that opposable thumb + rationality combination to make a big enough error to force himself back into the stone age. I think that man sees himself as equal to or above nature most of the time and therefore doesn't need to bow down to nature and accept her for what she is. I think man views nature as being wrong/imperfect, and that such "negatives" as death and pain are only obstacles he will eventually conquer, and I think he'd often rather suffer than be right, and would rather cling to his own logic or perfect world scenario than accept a seemingly dismal reality that leaves him merely a link in a chain.

 

I just think that man is the ultimate opportunist and he is great at adapting to change from a standpoint of pure survival. I personally believe there are far too many people on this planet, and we are far too destructive as a species. Eventually something has to give, here, elsewhere, or everywhere, and that when the proverbial s*** hits the fan, people aren't going to be so confused anymore. They'll know what hunger is, why death is so important, what constitutes torture and so forth, the importance of wildlife habitat, etc. because they'll be faced with life according to nature, not idealistic life according to man.

 

And this is just my opinion and I admit I don't know s*** either, because I haven't been raised to love and respect nature either. I just kind of feel it's necessary, and I don't in any way look at death or pain as unnatural or unnecessary or avoidable in any way. It's just there. We're not right, we're wrong, and the more wrong we think nature is, the lesser our chances of survival.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

My issue with the meat vs. no meat thing is that I can't see any reason for it being anything other than a nutritional matter. It should be left to which diet is best for the human body. We are omnivores, is it possible to be anything else without experiencing severe deficiencies? That's simply up to us to figure out and it shouldn't be such an emotionally charged issue.

 

Where death and pain come in - we just have to accept this. Unless we can grow our own steaks or broccoli florets in lab conditions without causing anyone or anything pain or death, this is just a pipedream. And besides, knowing what we know about humanity, and about corporate greed and power, do you really want to see a world where there's nothing left on earth to harvest, and you have no option but to rely on corporations and their expensive equipment for your food?

 

I think if you can accept death and pain as part of life, and if you treat your environment with respect, you can preserve nature and preserve life in it. Man will always have his own goals, and that's fine. But if we can figure out a non-destructive yet healthy way of living where we impact the environment as little as possible and only live within our means, then that is the ideal I think. But again, not happening. Too many people think they deserve kids, or actually "own" land, etc.

[Soxbadger]

If you want to get philosophical, most humans have no concept of time at all. There is some crazy thing that if you took the history of Earth and converted into 365 days, human existence would be limited until the final hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic...and_periods.svg). Its almost unimaginable to comprehend what the year 3000 would look like (if compared to human progression from 0-2000), let alone what the year 1million would look like.

 

And that is still such a small scale compared to the universe. Some stars in the sky that we see today, have been gone for millions of years.

 

But I dont think there is anything right or wrong about nature, things just are.

 

The real truth is we all make up fake rationalities and rules that govern our lives that dont really mean anything at the end of the day.

[iamshack]

If you want to get philosophical, most humans have no concept of time at all. There is some crazy thing that if you took the history of Earth and converted into 365 days, human existence would be limited until the final hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic...and_periods.svg). Its almost unimaginable to comprehend what the year 3000 would look like (if compared to human progression from 0-2000), let alone what the year 1million would look like.

 

And that is still such a small scale compared to the universe. Some stars in the sky that we see today, have been gone for millions of years.

 

But I dont think there is anything right or wrong about nature, things just are.

 

The real truth is we all make up fake rationalities and rules that govern our lives that dont really mean anything at the end of the day.

Well that's for certain. And I don't mean for Sqwert to think I don't respect him for his position, because I think it's admirable. But on the other hand, I don't think it's right to be preachy about it either.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

You can also look at humanity on earth and the tiny little segment of time we've lived in agricultural society and it's almost equally as stunning. I think the nature of the argument is philosophical because it deals with life and death, and those are primarily philosophical issues.

 

I don't think anything bad about vegans or people who don't want to hurt or kill animals for any reason at all. I also - as I've said - don't even like to refer to those people as hypocrites. I think the way they think is a product of the conditions under which they have been raised, and you don't call someone a hypocrite for living/thinking the only way he/she knows how.

 

My problem lies entirely with the logic used and the lines drawn. I think - for example - that it is natural to love and revere animals, and to wish that they come to no harm. I think this is instinctual, and I'd point to the behavior of indigenous peoples (our living ancestors) again to back that up. But I think the real instinct is more likely to be that we don't want to see *unnatural* or *unnecessary* harm come to an animal, and the difference (which we have problem rationalizing) is a product of the way we live only, and not the product of the life we've been living as a species historically.

 

Now that I think of it, the best argument for pro-veganism might be that we are evolving into a new species entirely, and that these beliefs are natural. But that's whacky (and I just thought of it now BTW) and I'd still need to see good evidence that the human body can live and grow that way. Humans have altered their compositions in the past based on major dietary shifts, so maybe that's possible.

 

But mentally maybe I should stop before I end up in the Batcave.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Well that's for certain. And I don't mean for Sqwert to think I don't respect him for his position, because I think it's admirable. But on the other hand, I don't think it's right to be preachy about it either.

Agree.

 

Although it's hard not to be preachy one way or the other. I'm preachy about it because I'm 100% totally pro-gun rights, pro-conservation, anti-corporate, etc. and kind of fascinated in a way by some of those things which we fear. So this kind of debate really gets my brain-penis going. But yeah, Sqwert's position, even if I disagree with it, is far less likely to lead to a blacktopped South America than the views of Joe Blow Destructo "I cry when I watch the Terminator movies because they're just so beautiful!" would.

[Texsox]

Well that's for certain. And I don't mean for Sqwert to think I don't respect him for his position, because I think it's admirable. But on the other hand, I don't think it's right to be preachy about it either.

We never want someone to be preachy about something we disagree with.

 

Doesn't matter who we are, who really wants to hear someone preaching about something we disagree with? The challenge in our society, with our freedoms, is to accept that we will hear things we disagree with, often times in a preachy manner, and have to live with it.

 

And if you really care about someone, and have a deeply held believe they were harming themselves, I would say you have a moral responsibility to be preachy, even if they did not want to hear it.

And anyone who disagrees there is no need to post that you disagree and get all preachy

 

[Texsox]

And btw, if I had to pick an extreme, a world where everyone needed to hunt animals for their meals or a world where no one killed a living animal or fish, I'd take the no kill world.

 

See poll in the 'buster . . .

[BigSqwert]

God I don't even know where to begin. I just find it astonishing that the lifestyle I lead is deemed by some as being hypocritical. Let me provide you a little more insight as to the way I view the world and the actions I take to minimize my negative impacts (and I’m not stating these to be some kind of show-off):

 

I do not participate in the direct, intentional killing on any animal for the purposes of my diet or clothing. There are literally billions of animals intentionally killed for these purposes each year in the U.S. alone. By doing this I also am not contributing to the enormous amounts of food, water, and land used to maintain this system of billions of animals. My paycheck does not contribute to the enormous amounts of animal waste product and methane gasses that pollute our air and land.

 

I make all attempts to walk, bike, or take public transportation whenever possible. My wife and I put less than 5K miles on our car each year.

 

We purchase an CSA share from a local organic farm to provide us with fruits and vegetables. We also proactively purchase as many local, organic, and fair trade products that we can.

 

We donate to multiple charities that range from wildlife preservation, animal rescue, and doctors without borders.

 

For someone to insinuate that my views and actions are nothing but hypocritical because the very impactful decisions I make don’t go far enough because I don’t live in a clay house under an apple tree and only subside on apples that fall from the tree and consume nothing else...well that’s preposterous.

 

These actions I take dramatically reduce my carbon footprint and minimize unnecessary suffering of animal life and shouldn’t be easily dismissed because an animal has been unintentionally run over by a tractor when my corn was picked. For someone to equate that run over animal with the factory farm system of intentional pain and suffering and ultimately death is absurd. These are not apples to apples and you're being disingenuous by stating that.

 

This whole argument reminds me of the early debates in the filibuster about climate change. The climate change deniers completely dismissed everything because Al Gore has a large house. That’s it. He has a big house so that means climate change doesn’t exist, no one should take steps to reduce their footprint, and the theory is automatically false because he is a 100% hypocrite. So I might as well eat tons of meat, purchase fur coats, kick dogs in the head (because they might not really feel pain anyway), and drive an H1 everyday to the corner post office instead of walking because I am nothing but a hypocrite right now because I eat fruits and vegetables (they might feel pain!) and use the Internet. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Unless I live in that clay hut under the apple tree then everything I’m doing is meaningless.

 

And I apologize if sharing my viewpoints come off as preachy to everyone. That is not my intention. I have not demanded that any one of you change anything in your lifestyle.

Edited February 11, 2011 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

God I don't even know where to begin. I just find it astonishing that the lifestyle I lead is deemed by some as being hypocritical. Let me provide you a little more insight as to the way I view the world and the actions I take to minimize my negative impacts (and I’m not stating these to be some kind of show-off):

 

I do not participate in the direct, intentional killing on any animal for the purposes of my diet or clothing. There are literally billions of animals intentionally killed for these purposes each year in the U.S. alone. By doing this I also am not contributing to the enormous amounts of food, water, and land used to maintain this system of billions of animals. My paycheck does not contribute to the enormous amounts of animal waste product and methane gasses that pollute our air and land.

 

I make all attempts to walk, bike, or take public transportation whenever possible. My wife and I put less than 5K miles on our car each year.

 

We purchase an CSA share from a local organic farm to provide us with fruits and vegetables. We also proactively purchase as many local, organic, and fair trade products that we can.

 

We donate to multiple charities that range from wildlife preservation, animal rescue, and doctors without borders.

 

For someone to insinuate that my views and actions are nothing but hypocritical because the very impactful decisions I make don’t go far enough because I don’t live in a clay house under an apple tree and only subside on apples that fall from the tree and consume nothing else...well that’s preposterous.

 

These actions I take dramatically reduce my carbon footprint and minimize unnecessary suffering of animal life and shouldn’t be easily dismissed because an animal has been unintentionally run over by a tractor when my corn was picked. For someone to equate that run over animal with the factory farm system of intentional pain and suffering and ultimately death is absurd. These are not apples to apples and you're being disingenuous by stating that.

 

This whole argument reminds me of the early debates in the filibuster about climate change. The climate change deniers completely dismissed everything because Al Gore has a large house. That’s it. He has a big house so that means climate change doesn’t exist, no one should take steps to reduce their footprint, and the theory is automatically false because he is a 100% hypocrite. So I might as well eat tons of meat, purchase fur coats, kick dogs in the head (because they might not really feel pain anyway), and drive an H1 everyday to the corner post office instead of walking because I am nothing but a hypocrite right now because I eat fruits and vegetables (they might feel pain!) and use the Internet. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Unless I live in that clay hut under the apple tree then everything I’m doing is meaningless.

 

And I apologize if sharing my viewpoints come off as preachy to everyone. That is not my intention. I have not demanded that any one of you change anything in your lifestyle.

 

 

 

 

I applaud your lifestyle choices, not criticize them. But I think you see why people took some offense at being equated with people who intentionally torture animals for pleasure now.

[BigSqwert]

I applaud your lifestyle choices, not criticize them. But I think you see why people took some offense at being equated with people who intentionally torture animals for pleasure now.

 

I apologize to those that I offended in anyway.