Lmao right?

Yep, I think I have seen this film along w/ many others like this. The topic is extremely talked out to me. However, I do praise omission of meat in diets either temporarily or especially years/decades-long diets. When someone can give up beautiful shoes bc they are leather, for the less attractive vegetable shoe, it says a lot.

What the **** did I even just read.

Vegetable shoes I bought?:
Freerangers Shoes

or the conversation from last night?

I'm referring to the entire thread.

So, ok, my two cents. The thing is, I don't think you should just generalize and say that anyone who isn’t a vegetarian or vegan is actively contributing to animal torture. It’s not that simple, and as much as I wish you could, you can’t just tell people what to do with their lives and use scare tactics as justification. I think that the issue is more a matter of access to information and resources. Personally, my life philosophy does not allow me to eat meat and I am 99% vegan – I say 99% because it would be absolutely deluded and hypocritical of me to claim otherwise as I am typing this on a laptop and earlier today drank a Bloody Mary that I later learned was made with Guinness.

There is absolutely classism and abelism at play when you make such statements, OP, and no matter how right you are or how righteous your cause, you should try to acknowledge and understand that. Better yet, be productive and present the information in a way that does just that: presents the information. Don't bring morality into it on such a large scale until you can be sure your audience is - and is able to be - on the same page.

I don't know. This shouldn't be a combative topic.

EDIT: Further, I think that part of the human experience is the realization that existence in itself requires a tangible amount of suffering imposed on other existing beings. There is no escaping it, so the best you can do is educate your peers and do your best to reduce that amount of suffering that you impose personally as much as is possible.

I think Phantom did just that. He just was suggesting a film. It wasn't until debate began that people began taking sides and arguing. That's life. There's no perfect way of communication, however, I feel pretty confident in my words and my arguement.:)

You're right, this should not have been combative. But it is was and will be. As I said prior, my statements were concrete and didn't subject anyone for any other reason than maybe ignorance or lack of proper debate. Eat animals, do not eat animals. Either way, we're passionate aboutour lifestyle and the preservation of innocent life. How one wants to take that is strictly up to their perception and coping skills.

Jamata!

Except he added the PS bit to his initial post. That was likely to spark debate because of the implication of the tone in which it was posted. The post would not have been lacking without it, I'm just saying it was unnecessary.

The topic shouldn't be a combative one, generally. I'm not saying people shouldn't argue - arguing is important. I think saying "eat animals or don't eat animals" is a copout, the point I'm trying to make is simply that more aspects of dietary lifestyles need to be taken into consideration before things begin to get accusatory.

EDIT: Again, further, I think it's funny you bring up perception when everyone got all bent out of shape when Hermione called OP out - what she said was accurate. Perhaps it's just your perception of how she said it that made you feel defensive?

Psssh I don't buy that, knowing you...

He is a big teaser on any subject. Welcome to the world of kind living, Phantom and Honey. Subconsciously you had to have known demonstrating such passion is "asking for it" =P

At the end of the day (after all is said and done) my six pussies get Science Diet (the only cat food good enough for human consumption) as directed by their very talented and compassionate team of vets Mommy spends thousands on each year. I asked him if cats can be vegan and he said, "They get REALLY sick..."
If anyone doesn't believe that, they can take it up with my veterinarians, I will show you the link to their bios, you can read their years of devotion, study, and schooling for animal care, and contact them.

Peace

I don't feel that anything that has been said in this thread is "wrong" and just about everybody has made some really good points. Even dj saying he would torture animals - all that means is that he's willing to work in a slaughterhouse or other animal farming facility. Also, I don't think anybody's points of info are necessarily in opposition to each other. Rather, the collection of information and reasoning that has been posted here reflects reality.

For me the two points below are especially important.

I have been a vegetarian for over 20 years and was strictly vegan for some of those. It's tough for a person trying to be vegan to grapple with the notion that there is no way to live in modern society without using things that have animal parts in them. In the end, what's important is that people try their best to do right by their own morals and beliefs. That is, do as much as you can while realizing that you can't do it all, or ever completely fix what you see as a problem with the world. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation.

The way I see it, anybody who does anything at all for the sake of something they believe is right is doing the right thing, regardless of what they are not doing.

PS - It's definitely true that cats should not be vegetarian (dogs either in my opinion but they can at least survive it, unlike cats).

Couldn't have said it better Engine.

I try to live by my own flexible set of morals. I'm not perfect and I don't expect others to follow my rules or beat myself up over not meeting other peoples' expectations.

As for vegetarianism I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere with a wealth of dietary information and readily available alternatives so that I am free to choose not to consume products that I deem as harmful to animals. I try to avoid paying someone else to do something that I wouldn't be prepared to do myself.

well i eat animals and my only justification is that they taste good and I dont think I need any more than that really. I would like animals for consumption to be killed in more humane ways but that's not realistic and I am not someone who fools themselves into thinking I am doing anything to help out the cause. its not quite as extreme but living in society without any product from animals is similar to trying to live in the US without using any products made in some foreign sweatshop. its just so impractical and impossible. i applaud those who consciously make choices to avoid those things as much as possible but truthfully my life is built around convenience and i am not willing to invest the time and energy to actively seek out non-animal products for the different things in my life.

in response to the 'what makes your dog better than a cow or chicken?' I wonder how far you want to take that argument. What makes a bug less than a cow?? I am sure everyone has killed a bug. Do we constantly look down when walking to avoid trampling ants?? thats kinda extreme but the point i am trying to make is where do you wanna draw the line with this kinda stuff

I looked at Peta and they actually had an article about what to do with ants (i.e. don't kill them), it is a pretty extreme concept!

Oh you too? I feed my babies Science Diet as well. I get them the Oral Care kind to take care of their teeth. Yes, Crazy you do know me well so quickly better than some people that I've supposedly known me for years.

I wouldn't go so far as to torture the chickens or fish that I am going to later eat but I am aware that they are subject to harsh conditions because of all of these shock films that are out. I've already seen other films of the same nature but that's not going to stop me from consuming the diet that I'm currently on. It's not like if I stopped purchasing those products that they will automatically start treating those animals better before shipping them out to other consumers so what's the point?

Wow, so many assumptions and unnecessary ego-stroking in this thread.

Ok, I don't think a thread made where the OP wishes to share a documentary, maybe even present some information, some facts, for the purposes of education is a bad idea or anything that should be bashed. However it's been said already that it doesn't really seem that thats all this thread is about. Theres a difference between presenting information, information a person has the opportunity to take on board on not, and a deliberate attempt to guilt people into thinking the same way you do, and taking what could easily be seen as a moral highground in the process. Do this and people will respond aggressively, regardless of the topic.

This quote:

is why you are receiving a lot of aggressive feedback. Maybe the aggression is warranted, maybe it isn't, I couldn't really care less - but I can certainly see the reasons for it and I also think that because of the aggressive nature of the reaction you received, you overlooked a lot of the content. I consider a lot of it to be valid argument.

What exactly are you trying to say with the comment I highlighted? Is it the torture you are objecting to? Do you think it's important that this is reduced or better policed? Would you think any differently if animals are not being tortured, but still ended up being killed? Is it the killing of the animal you have issue with, or the conditions it is subjected to before it is killed?

Depending on your answers to those questions it seems that you are either:

Concerning yourself with the treatment of animals before they are slaughtered, and where animals are found to be particularly mistreated, kept in poor conditions, or subjected to cruelty and abuse, or

Objecting to the killing of animals for produce altogether, regardless of the conditions preceeding this.

If you are better described as the former, then do you really feel that all meat eaters also don't care about these issues? Judging by your comment, a meat eater is not removing themselves from this equation, therefore they are actively supporting the abuse of animals, and this really is not the case. You can't remove an individuals choice to eat meat, I'm afraid. By eating meat, you aren't supporting the inhumane treatment of the animal.

If you're the latter then you are presuming that all meat eaters dont care about the same issues you do, when in reality they may well do, but they choose to eat meat. And if you're condemning the act of eating meat altogether, regardless of the circumstances, then you really are making yourself oblivious to so many different factors, most of which seem to have already been mentioned here. And also, if this is what you are doing, and you are going to look down on meat eaters in general for their decision to be one, I feel you should prepare yourself for some opposition much stronger than what you have seen in this thread.

I'd liken it, in some ways, to preachers. A preacher can stand on my street corner, or on my local, busy shopping high street, and they can preach to passers by about God. Thats fine, they arent imposing on me and I can respect what they are doing. I can choose to listen to them and I can choose not to. Once they ring my doorbell, at my home, and try to judge me for the choices I have made with my own life - they will have the door closed in their face or worse, and honestly this would be their own decision to subject themselves to that by intruding into peoples lives and questioning decisions they have no right to question.

Ok, to clarify the "If you don't separate yourself from the equation you are actively supporting this kind of torture" statement, it's rather quite simple.

You are financially supporting the kind of acts featured in the film if you choose to buy animal products. It's very black and white, either you do or you don't. I never said it was bad, i never said it was good. Watch Earthlings and decide for yourself.

And just to make sure no one comes in and tries to put words in my mouth again, I am not saying I don't contribute as well.

thats such a loaded thing to say. i am sure you own foreign products from indonesia and china. are you a supporter of child labor? sweatshops?? by your logic, then yes.

lmao, right? ^

The way I look at it most of us actually are implicitly supporting animal abuse, child labor, and exploitation in general. Purchases do carry moral implications. If you buy heroin from Al Qaeda it's fair to say that you are supporting terrorism, even if all you wanted was some heroin.

However, if you're going to use that fact to try to guilt people when it comes to one type of purchase, using tactics like this:
then you have to realize the very same tactic can be applied to any number of other purchases. Since our culture is flooded with products that have iffy moral implications, what you get in response is a general tone of apathy.

Who's willing to stop buying electronics so they know they won't be implicitly supporting the exploitation of children? If not, then you're saying that having some gadget is more important than some African kid having all his limbs.

i agree with john in that we indirectly support morally questionable or flat out morally terrible things thru different avenues, whether its the tshirts we wear, things we eat, politicians we supports, etc etc etc. so it sounds stupid for someone like OP to implicate others when he surely supports moral atrocities as well.

my outlook is also that it would be literally impossible in western civ. to not indirectly support some kind of morally questionable things. like literally impossible because our market and system is flooded with it so badly. it helps to not think about it

If you read what the OP said, he acknowledged that it's not necessarily possible to act in 100% accordance with one's moral beliefs. And it would be more fair to the OP the recognize that he is talking about one specific atrocity, as he has mentioned and reminded us. It sounds stupid when you imply that people must either be perfectly moral or else just not give a **** and adjust their moral outlooks to what they can or cannot do (i.e. they should forgive all moral atrocities due to powerlessness to completely reverse them all).

I'm sure that it helps you to place your entire head firmly in the sand. Do whatever feels right, I guess.

For the record, I wasn't saying the OP needed to be morally perfect in order to raise an issue, or even that this issue isn't worth raising. Just pointing out that knowing those guilt tactics could be used for any number of other ordinary purchases makes them seem much less compelling to me.

Nope it's too late now, you're banned. We don't allow different opinions here!

:clap: well said, that's kind of what I was trying to say but I apparently didn't communicate it well, haha

Not to mention how classist it is to think that it's possible to live an entirely cruelty free life.