In another forum, a friend of mine, DavidC, responded to this posters question about Cruelty Free...
To me he adresses some poignant issues, with regard to cruelty, so I wanted to get your opinions on what he wrote....:
Some of this may even be applicable when we talk about farm animals and field animals:

The poster asked:

"Are you saying that if we cannot live an entirely cruelty-free lifestyle we might as well not bother supporting animal rights? In that case there's no point in campaigning to end human suffering either because we all unavoidably use things that are produced involving human suffering. "


DavidC
responded with:

Trying to live a "cruelty-free" life in a cruel world is a sisyphean labor but you are welcome to pursue it if you wish. One crosses the line, however when one insists on forcing me to live your fantasy as well and that is the goal of animal rights. Cruelty is just a subjective label for a dispassionate, unstoppable, and necessary rhythm of nature when applied to the universe at large. Human cruelty is somewhat less subjective, given definition by society, and as such applies only to acts imposed by one on another in order to produce suffering for the sole purpose of reveling in that other's discomfort. Eating meat, using animals for their wool or milk, keeping and breeding pets, even those with disfigurements, and other uses of animals for human benefit may fit within the universal definition but not the human one, no matter how the petidiots cry otherwise. Who would not live upon the air and the dew and not tread on so much as an ant if he could? All but the sadistic or uncaring, whose numbers are few. A realistic person, however, realizes that we do live in a cruel world and that there is no way to advance one's self or society without engaging in cruel acts. You who believe that you can indeed divorce yourselves from the natural world are swimming in self delusion. We can no more do so than we can ourselves avoid being the victims of cruelty. We all fall to the knife many times before that unkindest cut of all and no number of selfless denials will matter a jot to the sparrow that falls prey to the hawk or the hare dying slowly and miserably from disease, starvation, or an overload of parasites.

So persist in your folly if you wish, as long as you do not bring it to my door because, if you do, I will, as some poet once spoke, rip off your head and **** down your throat. Metaphorically speaking, of course, though if push came to shove... "

The only energy I'll give to this statement A realistic person, however, realizes that we do live in a cruel world and that there is no way to advance one's self or society without engaging in cruel acts or any of these other comments obviously spewed out of this person's a-hole is it's all nonsensical b-s. He needs to get a clue...*sheesh*

edited to add-this DavidC is your friend??? You may want to reconsider....

Wow. Nice friend.

A realistic person, however, realizes that we do live in a cruel world and that there is no way to advance one's self or society without engaging in cruel acts

Is this a false statement?

I think that when he says:

Human cruelty is somewhat less subjective, given definition by society, and as such applies only to acts imposed by one on another in order to produce suffering for the sole purpose of reveling in that other's discomfort.

that this can be applied to both human and non-human, alike.
I interpret this as meaning *gratuitous* suffering, or cruelty, which he obviously does not support, IMHO. for either.
It is because of our humaness and ability to recognize *gratuitous* cruelty, that we are different from the lions, tigers, etc, that are unable to distinguish between that which is cruel and that, which isn't.

IOW, we have the ability to show compassion, wheras, the animals in the wild, don't.

"You who believe that you can indeed divorce yourselves from the natural world are swimming in self delusion."--Hmmm...I'll take on this statement, since I don't believe myself as a vegan, at ALL divorced from the natural world. On the contrary, I believe myself to be more a part of the natural world than I ever was before becoming vegan. I never knew or cared before where my food came from. I never cared how it was produced, how that effected our world or our ecosystems. I don't consider myself dilluded. I do understand that my very existence causes pain to something/someone.

Believing something has to die in order for me to eat (like the field animals you so often refer to), and being concerned about how those animals live while they are alive are seperate issues I think. I don't care about those animals for purely altruistic purposes...I also care about them for my own health. The production line, the drugs they are injected with, the fact that they are given growth hormones. Etc... I choose not to participate in a system that promotes something I am opposed to for a variety of reasons.

I know you eat fish Cat...and I know fish is 'healthy'. But I also know that while pregnant and living in Northern Michigan I was not able to consume fish because that kind of meat in that part of the country (great lakes), is so poluted that it CAN cause birth deffects...to the extent that it is on the list of things to NOT consume while pregnant.

To me living a compassionate life...means doing what you can do. It's not attempting to care about things you can't control...or feeling for EVERYTHING that has to die for food to get to your table. That much caring would take more time than I have. And you're right, there is a certain amount of suffering which is simply inevitable...I might say that about my own life as well as any other being's. But what I can do, as someone who is concerned about the way in which food is produced, is to not take part in a system I find both unethical and unhealthy (for us and for the animals involved). I could eat free range I suppose. But in the end I enjoy my way of life...and I consider it in the end, a way of living that I can live with.

Okay, have at it. ;)

B

You who believe that you can indeed divorce yourselves from the natural world are swimming in self delusion."--Hmmm...I'll take on this statement, since I don't believe myself as a vegan, at ALL divorced from the natural world. On the contrary, I believe myself to be more a part of the natural world than I ever was before becoming vegan. I never knew or cared before where my food came from. I never cared how it was produced, how that effected our world or our ecosystems. I don't consider myself dilluded. I do understand that my very existence causes pain to something/someone.


I think that what he meant, by divorcing yourself from the natural world, meant, the natural world with regards, that the natural world, animals in the wild, humans, etc, IS a cruel place to be, but unavoidable, IMHO.
And I could NOT agree with you more, when you say, that before you became vegan, you could not care where your food came from. I was the same!!
And yet, I have also listened to a friend who raises cattle, and in one of his posts, he said the same:
"I thank God my kids ARE aware of where their food comes from, how these animals are raised, how they are cared for, etc..."
he does not subscribe to the methods you describe, about hormones, etc...and actually refutes alot of those claims.
IOW, it is NOT commonplace, and because it is about profit, AKA feeding their own families, it is in their best interest to raise healthy, happy, livestock..

I agree with your decision not to eat fish, given where you were at the time, and being pregnant...just as we are told to avoid alcohol, it is wise to error on the side of safety, and I would never argue with that....since I have NEVER become sick after eating fish in Calif, I can only surmise, that for me, it has not been a dangerous endeavor

But what I can do, as someone who is concerned about the way in which food is produced, is to not take part in a system I find both unethical and unhealthy (for us and for the animals involved).

And the only contradiction that I see, is that if you buy your veggies from a market (and dont grow your own) as I do, you DO take part in a system, that is unethical, if you value the field animals, as much as you value the farm animals.

...no number of selfless denials will matter a jot to the sparrow that falls prey to the hawk or the hare dying slowly and miserably from disease, starvation, or an overload of parasites.


Though it does provide a measure of plausible deniability for one's self.

Though it does provide a measure of plausible deniability for one's self.

How so???

For instance, in another post you said:

It would seem, however, that some would be interested in finding out which veggies cause the least harm.
I have only heard of just a few people ever willing to explore this question.

If remaining purposefully ignorant (plausible deniability) doesn't work, then there's also the old 'intent' clause to fall back on, as in "it doesn't count 'cause it wasn't intentional". A variation on plausible deniability.

So are you saying *ignorance is bliss* is equal to plausible deniability?

Originally posted by Red
For instance, in another post you said:



If remaining purposefully ignorant (plausible deniability) doesn't work, then there's also the old 'intent' clause to fall back on, as in "it doesn't count 'cause it wasn't intentional". A variation on plausible deniability.

lmao, you guys are a regular comedy show. :D

seriously, do you get together before hand to come up with this and just make it seem like spur of the moment?

seriously, do you get together before hand to come up with this and just make it seem like spur of the moment?



__________________



Guess that means YOU have nothing, viable, to contribute to the conversation?
except LOL
and LMAO..
why did you delete ONE of your earlier posts, that addressed this thread, majake????????:confused:

If you don't want to participate fine. Please don't ruin their good time.

If you don't want to participate fine. Please don't ruin their good time.


Hey he isn't ruining it, he is adding credibility to it...LOL

cat, cause i dont want to argue with you, you even make Red answer the same question more than once.

sorry Michael, no more heckling from the jury.

So are you saying *ignorance is bliss* is equal to plausible deniability?

Not really. More in the Nixonian sense - a way to isolate yourself from knowledge, and thus responsibility. I don't know if this is a path to bliss.

cat, cause i dont want to argue with you, you even make Red answer the same question more than once.


Well majake it's fine that you dont want to *argue* with me...
I'll take that as *conceding*....
but I will always make an attempt to clarify ones positon, before I comment on it?
Especially if I cannot make sense of it, AKA, obscure?
GET it?

I vote for the 5 minute rule. Can't keep up... ;)

Not really. More in the Nixonian sense - a way to isolate yourself from knowledge, and thus responsibility. I don't know if this is a path to bliss.[QUOTE]

How is the author isolating himself from knowledge, or common sensiblilites about how cruel nature is?

take it however you wish.

majake
why did you delete an earlier post of yours?

Uhhh, I see the problem. I wasn't disagreeing with the author. Just adding some sarcastic wordplay - 'selfless denials...-->...plausible deniability'.

rotflmao@cat..see?? thats twice, i answered your question, i took it away cause i didnt want to argue with you, i rethunk what i was getting myself into after i posted it.
and cause i know you will ask again...

im tired of repeating myself in arguement with you so i deleted my post...

and...

i knew i was going away in a few days i knew that i would have to repeat everything i said more than once and i just dont have the time for that...

and...

there is a 10000 character limit and i didnt want you to get confused again. ;) :D

there is a 10000 character limit and i didnt want you to get confused again.

[QUOTE]

LOL that was the only thing that made sense...and I will admit that I needed to clean my glasses...and it WAS funny!!!!!!!
LOL
cheers!!!!!!