I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don't need to.
What you've amounted to saying is "if the world can't be 100% vegan, why try?"
Let's try this then-
Me: "respect women"
Misogynist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?"
Or this one's good-
Me: "don't be racist"
Racist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?"
If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you're saying, what do you think their response would be?
And similarly, what would MLK say to you?
No, before you call out my comparison, I'm not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I'm comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it's awfully similar.
In summation;
I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.
People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.
I do not care to even read the main body of your argument.
Animals will continue to be eaten, and because of your distracting efforts it will continue to be in the most painful and depressing ways. Because you don't support regulations.
I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don't need to.
What you've amounted to saying is "if the world can't be 100% vegan, why try?"
Let's try this then-
Me: "respect women"
Misogynist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?"
Or this one's good-
Me: "don't be racist"
Racist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?"
If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you're saying, what do you think their response would be?
And similarly, what would MLK say to you?
No, before you call out my comparison, I'm not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I'm comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it's awfully similar.
In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.
People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.
I do not care to even read the main body of your argument.
Animals will continue to be eaten, and because of your distracting efforts it will continue to be in the most painful and depressing ways. Because you don't support regulations.
It's OK. Your veiled attempt at good faith discussion is textbook, so was expected.
It's not my goal to make YOU individually vegan. Others can read and evaluate my reasoning, and by extension, the lack of yours.
You still don't support regulation.
And you still support animal abuse when you don't have to.
Take care, and try and lead a better life mate.
Hah, fuck off.
Go yell about Pokemon ethics.
Nothing of value to add?
Peace.