Quote:
Originally Posted by steel
Hypocrisy occurs when activists like yourself who are against all forms of killing animals of any shape or form are inconsistent in their targeting their subjects. You have even admitted there is a discrepancy in negative attention directed toward Japanese fishermen & whaler versus Scandinavian counterparts. I suspect the reason lies somewhere in the area of thinly-disguised racial contempt by the activist leaders.
Here's a rough analogy to play with. Let's say, we agree that we are in basic principle "against crime" (very much like 'killing all animals is "bad"'). However, the plan of attack is to preemptively search the property of black people (like targeting the dolphin drive in Taiji) while whites, Asians and Hispanics are left alone (like numerous examples of animal killing around us in the farms, slaughterhouses, Tsukiji fish market, supermarket and restaurants). 'Nothing personal or racist', it's claimed. 'Are you against crime too?' 'Why are you objecting to our crime prevention? Yeah, we'll get to those others eventually. We can't do everything at once. Maybe it's cause they are not so bad as blacks. Meanwhile we've got to start somewhere... right?'
Or, another one using the India & Africa analogy you provided. For activists like yourself whom you claim are against killing all sorts of animals - domesticated or wild - going way out of your way to actively protest the dolphin drives in Taiji Japan while all around you is evidence of other 'animal salughter' including supermarkets filled to the brim with fish, poultry, beef, pork and lamb ... is like an Indian activist in one of India's poorest villages ignoring the abject poverty around him to corral scarce resources to 'feed the poor' in faraway Africa. While it sounds ridiculous, developing nations have been known to do this in order to claim their country is not poor or as impoverished as the rest of the world thinks.
For the benefit of people who do not share the belief that killing all animals is wrong (like myself and many others on the board), activists need to convince using additional appeals to reason or emotion.
For example, a very logical argument would be "don't kill X because there are only 157 of them left in the world; they're an endangered species." At while that applied to certain kinds of whales (which most logical people would support), they do not unfortunately apply to Minke whales or dolphins.
Claiming they are 'intelligent' or sentient creatures does work with many people. Some even subscribe to the alien life form theory which I think is wacko. However, when you start providing examples of other highly intelligent creatures such as pigs... while a fraction may defect to Charlotte's Web, for most non-Jews and non-Muslims, bacon and ham are tasty tasty treats of nature!
That the animal in question is 'cute' also gets some supporters. However, that is also something that is highly subjective. 'Bambi' as I have indicated is 'cute' but it's also a cartoon character for kids - and legions of hunters and hungry gourmands would disagree that venison deserves to be banned from the dining room.
So, if you are talking to a reasonably logical omnivore, it's difficult to identify a convincing argument why they should get involved to interfere, protest or sabotage Japanese fishermen and their dolphin drives. "Because they are cute and intelligent" are not arguments that hold water.
And, if you then resort to .. "well, killing all living creatures is morally wrong" ... well that is unlikely to travel far with them. Most reasonable people don't object to killing animals for food, clothing, consumer goods and even for sport (eg hunting and fishing). And, while trying to convince them of the error of their ways, it is probably not a good idea to appear like a hypocrite while wearing clothing made of wool, leather or fur (you'd be surprised how many so-called vegan activists are guilty of this) .
|
lol.. you've addressed nothing I've said and your attempts at analogies are not analogous at all.
Activists do appeal to reason. People like you can only counter by rationalizing the act (via comparison with other reprehensible but more mainstream acts) rather than directly addressing the ethical dilemma. Not once in your entire post is that even addressed. I mean you dismiss it but you don't address it.
Furthermore your all or nothing approach to activism is flawed because then nothing would get done.
I bet if slavery were still legal today you'd dismiss any sort of activism to get rid of it because we wouldn't be solving all race problems at once.
