ANIMAL ACTIVISTS EATING MEAT

is it hypocrytical to stand up against fur/leather , testing, and animals used in entertainment ans still eat meat?

It really depends, in my opinion you are only as much of an “animal activist” as YOU want to go, not how others dictate. If you are against "fur/leather , testing, and animals used in entertainment " and still have no qualms about eating the meat, go right ahead. I assume this concern comes from the over critical folks at PETA2? If so, don’t worry about it, they are so insecure about their beliefs even supporters who question one (ONE!) thing regardless of the rest of the position, the posts are removed and the user banned.

sigh so much for them being openminded… :wink:

I think it depends on a person’s justification. If you have a good explanation for why fur and leather are bad, yet eating meat is ok, then no you aren’t a hypocrite (even if you’re wrong). On the other hand, if what it boils down to is “I don’t really give a crap about fur or leather, so I’ll be against it to stroke my conscience, but I’ll still eat meat because I don’t want to actually want to inconvenience myself with my beliefs” then yeah, that’s being a hypocrite.
On you know which one you are, I suppose.

Clothing: not neccessary

Testing: neccessary

Eating: neccessary

Entertaining: not neccessary

i know…well, i always beleived that activism was unnecessary cruelty to animals-i mean, testing is unnatural and unnecessary…so is fur and so are circuses…blahblahblah…but meat has been eaten by humans since they were put on earth, and animals eat each other also-it was meant to be…but there are websites that say that humans werent meant to be carnivores-or omnivores for that matter…but i dont understand then why we have incisors? does anybody know anything about this?

i meant to say
i always beleived that activism was used to stop unnecessary cruelty to animals

pure- ummm…they actually have synthetic alternatives and it isnt natural for animals to use each other like that…also, what about those used to test makeup on??? and what about dissection? havent we dissected all the animals we could have possibly torn open in order to make accurate models?

But no artifical alternative is good enough as mice or monkeys. If we do many things cruel to animals, why aren’t we doing things cruel to plants? The fact is that we are. So how do you know that plants couldn’t feel pain?

??? Okay, let’s give unicor the benefit of the doubt and assume that he a) doesn’t know that there are many types of testing (e.g., for cosmetics and similar products) previously done on animals that TRULY no longer need to be done (and this is proven b/c certain companies DO use alternative testing methods), yet still are, b) was referring to only certain types of testing (e.g., for medical treatment), and/or c) was simply stoned when he wrote that non-sensical response…

Well psyque (still trying hard not to call you psycho), since medical experimentation is by far the most significant one, I assumed that most people would know what I was talking about.

There is only misunderstandingness in my responses, but no nonsensialness. IF you find something that’s nonsensial, then it means that you failed to understand my point. As simple as that.

Try to come up with a more relavent post to the thread subject next time.

Unicor, let’s face facts: Your response, “But no artifical alternative is good enough as mice or monkeys,” immediately followed:

Thus, of course EVERYONE would infer that you were referring to such things. Medical testing was not mentioned in that thread.

There there…it’s okay…it’s okay…

… So I misunderstood, so my English isn’t my native language, so I’m a little drunk right now… What do you want from a foolish and ignorant student, Mr La Professor De Canada?

Anyway, what about make up test, what about dissection? Who cares! You would actually make a cow up and put it on an ad trying to show how great your stuff works with skin? So what about make up test through animals? It’s totally action through boredom, do I even need to mention in the first place?

My point: we shouldn’t have a problem with eating and medically testing animals, but we should feel guity to play with them, play as in use in unessesary conditions. See that now?

lol! That’s a comic strip waiting to happen (okay, it’s probably already been done): kid wonders why people are so riled up over testing make-up by trying it on an animal…I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and presuming you were kidding…either way, you did get a smile out of me…

Getting smiles out of proffessors’ faces is what very student dream about day in day out. Knowing the above fact is what every proffessor ever smile for day in day out…

ooooooooooooook…
[where’s the smiley for “can someone please tell me what he means?” :confused: ]

PS

I DO know what he means…despite the way he said it…I think…

We are being the hijackers of embracetrees’ original thread… don’t mind us embracetrees, let the subject rant on, if I haven’t finished it already… :slight_smile:

UN-BE-LEIVABLE
…ok, so i went to the peta2 site that questionair was tlking about, and today, this person posted and said he hated peta and that he loved animal rights but peta is too judgemental and all that good stuff…anyways, before i got to reply, the post mysteriously disappeared :astonished:

Explain to me how clothing is not necessary yet testing is.

And plants can’t feel pain because they don’t have a nervous system. They are not sentient.