m.e.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,252
- Reaction score
- 0
Lissa wrote:
Here's what I think, though: while thereare many ways to work towards the goal, some are more effective thanothers. Using the example of third world countries that you gave, justwho do we give the money to? The government? Non-governmentalorganizations? Aid agencies? US or foreign? They all have their uses,and yet they all have their drawbacks. Just this morning NPR wasreporting on Oxfam's efforts in Indonesia towards assisting tsunamivictims. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, has beenmisappropriated. Lost. It didn't get to the people who neededit.
Money is not the solution. Reform is.
In case you're wondering how this tiesinto veganism, I assure you, I do have a point
I am an activist by nature (can you tell?), and I understand the appeal of a boycott. But lets be honest: aboycott is easy. Not easy in the sense that you give up something(meat, eggs, dairy, Wal-Mart ) for a cause, but easy to usbecause that's where our responsibility ends. We tell ourselves we'vedone our duty.
And yet the machine grinds on whether we participate or not.
Vegetarians are a blip on the radar screenof the factory farming industry. You wanna know what really scaresthem? New legislation. New laws about humane slaughter and cleanfacilities and restrictions on antibiotics usage. That's where you needto hit. That's where the energy should be focussed.
This is all, of course, just my humble opinion
Well, I see what Spring is saying, but Ialso think you have a good point, Lissa. Edmund Burke said all that isnecessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. And soyou're right, we shouldn't just throw in the towel because the task isdaunting.Spring wrote:
What I don't get about the statement of saving 1, 490, 745 animals aday because aren't they still being slaughtered? They're still is ahuge demand of meat and they mostly increase their stock with the highdemand (correct me if I'm wrong) but I wouldn't think that they woulddecrease their stock just for the reason of some people don't eat it ?So correct me if I'm sounding ignorant, but aren't the meat just beingeaten by someone else or being thrown away?
Wow!! If everybody had that attitude, we'd have a HUGEproblem in this world. So we shouldn't give foodandmoney to the dying people in third-world countries becausethe problem is too big??? That's absurd. Everybodyplays their part.
Here's what I think, though: while thereare many ways to work towards the goal, some are more effective thanothers. Using the example of third world countries that you gave, justwho do we give the money to? The government? Non-governmentalorganizations? Aid agencies? US or foreign? They all have their uses,and yet they all have their drawbacks. Just this morning NPR wasreporting on Oxfam's efforts in Indonesia towards assisting tsunamivictims. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, has beenmisappropriated. Lost. It didn't get to the people who neededit.
Money is not the solution. Reform is.
In case you're wondering how this tiesinto veganism, I assure you, I do have a point
I am an activist by nature (can you tell?), and I understand the appeal of a boycott. But lets be honest: aboycott is easy. Not easy in the sense that you give up something(meat, eggs, dairy, Wal-Mart ) for a cause, but easy to usbecause that's where our responsibility ends. We tell ourselves we'vedone our duty.
And yet the machine grinds on whether we participate or not.
Vegetarians are a blip on the radar screenof the factory farming industry. You wanna know what really scaresthem? New legislation. New laws about humane slaughter and cleanfacilities and restrictions on antibiotics usage. That's where you needto hit. That's where the energy should be focussed.
This is all, of course, just my humble opinion