The demonizing of Michael Vick and dog fighting: hypocrisy at its finest

  • Thread starter Thread starter moe darklight
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the moral implications of animal treatment in the context of food production and the hypocrisy surrounding it. Participants express outrage over practices like dog fighting and the torture of farm animals, questioning why society condemns one while accepting the other. There is a strong emphasis on the need for introspection, urging individuals to consider their own complicity in animal cruelty through dietary choices. The conversation highlights the contradiction of judging others for animal abuse while supporting industries that inflict similar suffering on livestock. Participants advocate for humane treatment of animals, suggesting that they deserve respect and a quality life before being used for food. The dialogue also touches on the broader human tendency to react emotionally rather than thoughtfully, suggesting that societal change requires deeper reflection on our actions and their consequences.
  • #31
LightbulbSun said:
[...]

o boy...

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/MyWebFilms/Drama/WizardScarCrowClose.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
devil-fire and moe.

You continually say how things should be natural and happy.
Why is it that we have canines and incisors?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Mk said:
devil-fire and moe.

You continually say how things should be natural.
Why is it that we have canines and incisors?

I'm not a vegetarian. I never said natural (everything is natural). I'm talking about our responsibility to treat others with compassion and respect, and about our inability for introspection and susceptibility to irrationality.— and Lighbulbsun has generously offered himself as an example.
 
  • #34
moe darklight said:
o boy...

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/MyWebFilms/Drama/WizardScarCrowClose.jpg
[/URL]

This is a sign of a man who has nothing to say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
moe darklight said:
I'm not a vegetarian. I never said natural (everything is natural). I'm talking about our responsibility to treat others with compassion and respect, and about our inability for introspection and susceptibility to irrationality.— and Lighbulbsun has generously offered himself as an example.

Right. Because if you wanted to make me an example you would at least reply to my last post. Oh wait, you didn't. So let me get this straight, you want us to accept Michael Vick and his petty dog fighting because we ourselves have people slaughter animals for us to eat?
 
  • #36
devil-fire said:
are you saying it is acceptable to torture animals because one way or another, we have to kill something to survive? and at the same time, objecting to dog fighting because it is unnecessary and ultimately inhumane? I'm trying to better understand your opinions on this

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:

  • You cannot juxtapose a process we use to create food and someone's sadistic hobby
  • Vegetarians need to get off their imaginary moral cloud because they too must eat a living thing
  • Complex problems are complex. You can't just scream mantras that have a positive tone behind them and then say 'Look Here! See how simple that was?!'
 
  • #37
LightbulbSun said:
This is a sign of a man who has nothing to say.

actually it's a visual pun which could take two meanings— one being an attack on your argumentation skills, and the second a blatant ad-hominem attack on your person (since you already got the ball rolling on those)... I usually wouldn't've, but I'm in a bit of an impish mood lately and decided to go for it.

as for having anything to say. It's true: I had nothing more to say. I've already said enough and I couldn't possibly answer your previous posts without repeating myself... which would be pointless seeing as you obviously don't bother to read other people's posts anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
moe darklight said:
actually it's a visual pun which could take two meanings— one being an attack on your argumentation skills, and the second a blatant ad-hominem attack on your person (since you already got the ball rolling on those)... I usually wouldn't've, but I'm in a bit of an impish mood lately and decided to go for it.

I obviously knew what the picture meant. I was just saying that since that was all you posted that you had nothing to refute, and therefore nothing to add. Why is that?

as for having anything to say. It's true: I had nothing more to say. I've already said enough and I couldn't possibly answer your previous posts without repeating myself... which would be pointless seeing as you obviously don't bother to read other people's posts anyway.

This discussion is obviously pointless since you don't bother to accurately interpret my posts.
 
  • #39
LightbulbSun said:
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:

  • You cannot juxtapose a process we use to create food and someone's sadistic hobby


  • i think that in several cases, the process used to create food is unnecessarily impartial in regards to the well being of the animal before it is slaughtered. i think that it is a cost saver to cut the tail off of a big and pull its teeth out well before it is about to be killed.

    i object stuff like this for the same reason i object to dog fighting, because i think it is unnecessarily and inhumane. I'm not saying it is unnecessary to eat meat, I'm just saying it is unnecessary to do things like pull an animal's teeth out and cut its tail off without anesthetic.
 

Similar threads

Why Does Viewing Animal Cruelty Invoke Deep Emotional Responses?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K