mark gil wrote on Sep 10, 2015, 19:29:
"But there is no reason to blur the facts of one is totally socially acceptable (meat eater) and one is totally unacceptable socially, animal cruelty. Most meat eaters want humane slaughtering conditions.
There is nothing wrong imo being a vegan, to those congrats you are ahead of your time. But we are fighting 1000's of years of conditioning. Perhaps in another 100 it will be that way. But to think this compares to something that is still socially a-ok, uh no."
not too long ago human slavery also used to be socially acceptable-does that make it morally justifable also? there is no humane way to kill someone who wants to live. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, how is it ethical to force others to do so-especially in the name of a momentary taste sensation?
the lady in this story is using the exact same justifications for her actions that people who choose to consume flesh, dairy and eggs use to try and justify theirs. in both cases the interests of the helpless, innocent victims are deemed less important that those commiting the violence in the name of pleasure and profit.
btw, choosing to be vegan is no more ahead of time than choosing not to do what the lady in the story was convicted of. harming and killing non-human animals for one's own personal gratification is the very LEAST one can do.
Slavery is still acceptable some places, but far from the point.
Today eating meat is socially acceptable, perhaps someday it won't be that isn't today. Animal Cruelty is out today.
I'm cool with both sides because I believe in a universal truth, people are different. I'm not going to parade that everyone should be one way or the other. It ain't happening.