Then you really have no business fighting for your position. I understand why people think it's OK that others can explain good reasons to the thing they object to, but that they can't, but if you can't justify what you believe in then you shouldn't believe in it. If you can't argue your case solidly, then you haven't thought about the justification for it nearly enough, and should not fight for that case until you can justify it.
The ban on seal hunting effects the sporran industry. The intuit should be allowed to hunt seals and wales as its a valuable food source. If they don't eat them where will their food come from and what is the environmental impact of that? This is not aimed at you Otis but its an annoyance I have with some vegetarians I know who wont eat meat because they don't want farm animals to be killed but eat soya products instead. So they wont eat a cow raised in the UK but will happily eat a product which has led to the destruction of huge amounts of rainforest with an enormous environmental impact.
Countries with 30-40% unemployment? Please give a source for that. I said IF the unemployment rises we would have further problems and I believe that. Imagine having 30-40% in the UK (not likely but still..) the country would be up in arms with anger and it's very likely that protests resulting in unrest are not a far flung possibility. Unemployment is one of the causes of this criminality, if you don't have other options and you were raised in a not-so-secure environment then of course you have a propensity to looting and trouble-making. Having a job or something to focus on tends to improve that situation vastly along with the rest of your quality of life. And thanks for insulting my signature, I know full well it's a misquote but seeing as I am not well known as a wine affecionado I took some liberties with it. That's why you don't see '... - Benjamin Franklin' at the end.
In ireland unemployment has been +14% for the last year and +12% the year before that and we havent had anything happen I dont see how you can blame unemployment when there are so many kids involved in the riots espically when unemployment isnt really that high. Just bring the schools back early from summer hols, job done lol
I didn't say it can explain everything but certainly for some of the criminals it is a factor. And thanks for those stats - I can see most of the countries in the high bracket have or had have very recently trouble and even wars. There is definitely a grain of truth in what I say..!
Except that it made absolutely no difference. Fox hunting was banned and yet it still goes on. You failed in your objective because you waste your time and effort on the wrong audience. Telling people that what they do to making a living or express their cultural identity is 'sick' is not talking with them; it is insulting them and calling them names. And although that may feel very satisfying to you, it is totally pointless and counterproductive. They just get defensive and argue the toss back with you, and in doing so actually entrench in their views and behaviour. You achieve the opposite of what you want. If you want to change their mind and practices, you have to get them to question themselves on what they do. You have to create cognitive dissonance. You have to challenge their values using their own values, not yours. Yours are meaningless to them. You then have to offer them viable alternatives for that behaviour that still meets their original needs.
Not necessarily, because all you see is a correlation, not a direction of relationship. Wars destroy infrastructure and are generally bad for business (except the arms trade) so it creates unemployment as much as it can be contributed to by it. And if you look at the rioters going through court, many of the suspects are employed. Don't lose the forest for the trees. People looted because they thought that they would be hidden in the crowd, because everybody else was doing it and because they thought they would not get caught. Kohlberg's stage of moral reasoning 1 to 4. It's why people fight on football pitches, why they brawl on Broad Street on Friday nights, why that lady put that cat in the bin. For most people, if they think nobody's watching and they can get away with it, anything is fair game.
I left school and got a job, left that when I chose too and then got another, the first one I applied for, so I'm not gonna lie, I think there are jobs, you've gotta set your sights a bit lower than you might like, the second was at a warehouse and they neve once asked for any details of previous experience or even qualifications...
Vegetation made in such areas are largely to feed animals to eat. you could feed loads and loads more people on the same area of vegetation if it was not going to the meat industry, and also the land the animals are kept can also be used to grow even more food from the ground, and again, you can get tuns more food from the same size farm if it focused on vegetation raver than meat. So i dont feel bad for using a tiny little farm to produce my vegan food, raver than the colossal land needed to keep meat products going. @specofdust Its not that i dont know about the things im defending, its im unless at getting my point across in general. communication is not a great skill of mine on internet forums or in the real world, im much better at hands on tasks.
The problem is, if you can't say your reasons for something, then you're unable to think your reasons for something. If you're unable to think your reasons for something, then you shouldn't believe in that thing. Honestly I'm inclined to believe that you're engaging heavily in emotivism. I'm not comparing you thusly, but a murderer will generally be much better at killing someone than justifying their killing - yet they can not resort to the defence of "well I'm not very good at explaining why that dude had to die, but someone else could probably be really convincing about it." If you can not make an argument which stands against rational attack, then you shouldn't be believing the things you are arguing for, let alone act upon those beliefs. Consider this: If I can defeat you in rational debate, what justification are you left with for believing the things that you believe, except emotional attachment? edit: In short, you feel you know about the things you are concerned about because you feel strongly about them and you have heard much. Yet if you can not defend your position you have not thought deeply enough, and so in fact do not know enough.
But every question iv answered.. what i ment was even in a simple decisions ill fail to find the words i want to use, ill stutter, and so on... ofc this isnt most of the time, just when im put on the spot, or just randomly. Main points against my self have been, its wrong to be a vegan, its wrong to be an activist about Animal Rights, Anti-fascistic, human Rights. People here have presumed that i go shouting in the streets at fur shops or nazi's and so on... i never said what i do or dont do in this hole thread. There are meany ways to be an activist, not just having a loud mouth This thread has gone from riot's, people on the dole, me justifying why I'm still on the dole, then explaining that I'm not sitting on my ass all day, people again dont like what i do. I get it, you all dont like me
Yes you've insinuated quite enough that we can gather you're a direct activist - so either you break other people's property or you threaten people who do something you don't like. Good for you. I don't know you in the slightest, so I wouldn't make judgements on your personality. My problem is quite simply that you confess to being an activist in the non-discursive manner. Going on what you've insinuated you do, it would appear that you are either a vandal or a terrorist (i.e. one who incites fear in order to advance their cause). At the same time you claim to be anti-fascist, and on the dole. You're inconsistent, and I don't think your ethics have a very firm grounding in anything but your emotions. Could you explain to me why it is acceptable do something other than tell people in a non-combatative, honest manner, about why fur is bad? So for instance, justify vandalism or threats against a fur shop, or fur farmer?
I dont brake the law in any manor, ill give you a small example of what i do.. One thing i do is a semi regular Free Vegan food store on the streets, i would normally do this out side mcD's or KFC [not always directly out side, but will be close].. i dont shout or preach at passer bys, but we do have information leaflets and food for them to try such as burgers, sosige rolls, pizza, cake, and so on and so on. Funny how if i dont shout as an activist im instantly a member of the ALF. Im not at home now, im pretty busy looking after 12 animals, but if you would allow me some time on the fur thing, i will.. be warned, i will use images and possible links to videos to aid me.
Do not use images or videos. I'm asking you to explain to me why it is acceptable to take action against members of the fur industry beyond just saying to people "fur is bad", not to make me feel bad. I want rational explanation, not pictures or videos of individual events happening
People who kill animals and make coats out of their skins make money out of it, and people who wear the coats think they look glamorous. The fur trade tries to advertise fur as ‘natural’ to hide the horrific and unnatural way that the animals are imprisoned on fur farms, or trapped in the wild, and then killed.. The most commonly-used trap is the barbaric steel-jawed leghold trap. When set by the trapper, the spring-loaded jaws are opened to their fullest extent and secured with a metal clip. When an animal steps on it, the clip is released and the device snaps shut with incredible force. The intention is to catch the animal’s leg, but they can also be caught across their back, neck or head. The trapped animal will be in agony, unable to escape, for hours or even days, until the trapper comes back to suffocate or beat them to death. Leghold traps do not discriminate. They catch any animal who treads on them. Trappers call these non-target animals ‘trash’. The contraptions are now banned in 88 countries, including the UK, and in several states across the USA. However, fur is still imported to the UK from animals who have been killed by leghold traps in other countries. Worldwide, more than 40 million animals are killed for their fur – 85% are bred and killed on fur farms and the rest are trapped in the wild. This figure does not include the thousands of millions of rabbits killed for the fur trade. The most commonly bred animals on fur farms are mink and fox, but the industry also breeds and kills polecats, raccoons and chinchillas. It is estimated that two million cats and dogs are also killed for their fur. There are 6,500 fur farms in the EU. Europe is responsible for 70% of global mink fur production, and 63% of fox fur production. The countries that farm the most animals for their fur are Denmark, China and Finland. On fur farms, animals are imprisoned in tiny wire-mesh cages for their entire lives until they are killed. For species such as mink and fox, these conditions are especially appalling, as they are wild animals and would naturally travel many miles each day. Being caged in huge sheds, where thousands of other animals are also imprisoned, drives them insane with anxiety and fear. Repetitive movements, such as head-bobbing and circling, are therefore common. Animals on fur farms are killed by electrocution (through the use of electrodes in the mouth and anus), gassing, lethal injection or neck breaking. These crude methods are employed to ensure that the pelts (the animals’ skins and fur) are not damaged. In poorer areas in the world, animals that are farmed or trapped for fur are also skinned alive and left to die of shock. Supporters of the fur industry often claim that trapping is a tool of wildlife management and conservation. This is untrue. Many species of wild cats such as ocelots, margays, lynx and Geoffrey’s cat are being driven to the verge of extinction by hunting and trapping. There are only 4,000 - 7,000 snow leopards left in the world. Sea otters were driven to the very edge of extinction and, despite protection, their numbers remain very low. The sea mink paid the ultimate price for having a beautiful fur coat – extinction. Fur farmers try to insist that the animals are looked after very well and that they do not suffer when they are killed. Yet undercover footage shows time and again that the animals are going insane from their confinement, endlessly weaving and pacing in their desperation to be free. When they are killed, it often takes a few attempts to break the animals’ necks, as they try to squirm their way out of their executioner’s grip; or, if they are electrocuted, the terror as the electrodes are shoved into their mouth and anus is clear. When they cry out and their bodies convulse, there can be no doubt that these animals are dying in agony. I wont post images as requested, and i feel that mods will only remove them anyway, but pictures do speak a thousand words.
Right, so you've explained that the conditions the animals are in, and the method of their death, are not very nice. Now explain what is morally wrong with that.
Nobody has said that it is wrong to be a vegan. What people have challenged is how you go about activism. What Specofdust is basically saying is: how you talk is how you think. This is a well-established psychological fact. Language development is key in developing reasoning, problem solving, understanding other people's minds and even in self-regulation. People who can't talk straight generally cannot think straight --and I don't refer to stuttering, but to vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Without language it is hard to think of abstract concepts such as ethics, justice or principles. So yes, it is very important that you are able to argue your position rationally in a few sentences. Else you are basically just believing in something because it feels right. That is religion, not ethics. They are not necessarily the same thing. Also, without sound rational understanding of your own viewpoint you are unable to understand someone else's, and effectively challenge them. You are not able to put yourself in their position, and without empathy there can be no effective communication or meeting of minds.
