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

  • Thread starter moe darklight
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation highlights the issue of animal cruelty and the hypocrisy of society in supporting it. The speaker expresses concern over the treatment of animals in the meat industry and calls for more ethical practices. They also point out the irony of condemning animal abuse in certain situations while turning a blind eye to it in others. The speaker believes that society needs to reflect on its own actions and strive for a more compassionate and responsible approach towards animals.
  • #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?!'
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top