Re: incoherent rant, sorry.genkkiAugust 10 2006, 16:33:50 UTC
vegan isn't about how animals are all important and fuck people, veganism impacts way more than just what people eat. raising food animals includes the use of antibiotics that lead to super pathogens. there are dangerous food borne diseases, what about the fast food meat industry where kids eat tons of garbage that leads to fat problems and disease in the future. Slaughter house worker is the most dangerous job in the country, the most injuries and whatever, what about those worker's children? dairy queen isn't trying to support children, THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY. that is the definition of a corporation, an entity that makes money. tying themselves to a children's charity is a great image boost for a company. promotions like these are meant to reach targets of the population that don't usually come in to buy their shit. the idea is if you can get more people to come in and try the product, you'll have more return customers. the child spin on it is that people are so gullible that they'll have that arrogant 'i donated and helped a kid' feeling as a memory. so buying their product in the future will be associated with something good so they'll do it more often. why would you purposfully give your husband more cholesterol for his body to deal with. why not go in hand them the money and not take the saturated fat/sugar mess they hand you? if they actually cared about the charity, couldn't they have used the advertising money to donate to the charity as well as having giving all their proceeds from that day to charity? why is it just one day and not an on going thing. "a cow will never be more important than a child." ?? if the meat or dairy industry had to cease so that one kid could live, that kid would definitly die.
Re: incoherent rant, sorry.auxoriousrexAugust 10 2006, 16:39:37 UTC
"why would you purposfully give your husband more cholesterol for his body to deal with" That's way outta line. Don't even fucking suggest that I don't take care of my husband or that I would put him in harmsway. Its an ice cream, it's not a bucket of fried chicken. Its not like he eats them very often, and even if he did that has no bearing on the topic at hand.
Re: incoherent rant, sorry.ryansmithxvxAugust 10 2006, 18:01:12 UTC
as an objective outsider, i think the other person's comment was out of line. however, i don't think there is a line which can be drawn between doing something vegans perceive as wrong 'not frequent enough to really count' and 'all the time.' it's either wrong whenever it happens, once or a million times, or never wrong. unless there is some extenuating circumstance, such as absolute and dire need, that is a rule i believe must be held.
Re: incoherent rant, sorry.vgnwtchAugust 10 2006, 18:24:24 UTC
I'm not sure the line about cholesterol was wise, but I'm also reading the response as very defensive indeed.
I thought the point about using the advertising money as a donation instead was very salient, and it was the point I tried to make: I'd love to see big companies like this simply do the donating instead of cynically using it as a marketing ploy. I'd be happy to see the odd ad of theirs saying, "This year, we donated X amount to this charity", and I like to see products which say, "A portion of the profits from this product go to X good cause", but "come and buy our stuff on this day, and we'll donate some of it to a charity" skeeves me out.
The points about the human dimension of the adverse impact of factory farming are well made - slaughter house workers and farm workers are very vulnerable groups, as are the people living around heavily industrialised farms. Justice tends to spill out and work for everyone.
Re: incoherent rant, sorry.ryansmithxvxAugust 10 2006, 18:41:06 UTC
i find that the idea of justice must necessarily be holistic. i find it inconceivable that there could ever be true human justice without true justice toward other animals and toward the non-animal environment.
just wanted to add that as another thought to your last paragraph
Don't even fucking suggest that you're gonna buy a blizzardgenkkiAugust 10 2006, 18:46:52 UTC
you stated that "and I will be going to dairy queen today and buying my omni husband a blizzard."
no need to try to read between the lines. i wasn't "suggesting" anything. i was actually asking the question, why would you do that on purpose? and why would you tell people about it. if you're so inclined to donate money , then why make the point that your going to get your husband a treat? I made no suggestion of your ongoing treatment of anyone, and i didn't say anything about the long term effects of any amount of cholesterol consumption, i made a specific point. if you gave your husband a blizzard and he ate it, his body would have to process it. there's no reason to consume more cholesterol since humans make all they need. SMALL French Silk Pie Blizzard: 710 calories, 105% sat fat and 55mg of cholesterol. WHAT FOR?
lol, you're a tool.auxoriousrexAugust 10 2006, 19:10:41 UTC
What for? I don't push my vegan beliefs onto my husband. I don't think it's right. He isn't vegan. He enjoys dairy products. That's his choice. That's "what for". My husband's a soldier. His body has been conditioned to handle much more stress than an ice cream. Get real, a blizzard isn't going to affect him greatly.
Re: lol, you're a tool.ryansmithxvxAugust 10 2006, 19:27:14 UTC
i think the argument is that dairy erodes the body from within over time.
while i disagree with the other person's mode of argument, their points are very justified. it seems contradictory to believe against purchasing something for one's self but to voluntarily offer to take someone somewhere and buy that thing for them. one might make an argument for offering to pay if they're already buying it anyway, but to start the process on your own seems off.
additionally, physical training from the army and dairy consumption are totally unrelated forms of analogy or comparison.
re-reading your original comment later on put me off, as you implied that my ethics on veganism are embarassing to you. however, you didn't really explain why. all i'm left to conclude is that my decision to not participate in dairy queen's fundraiser for children is embarassing, though i count it as a mode of consistency in thinking that helping one by hurting another is never justifiable.
you seem very defensive on all points, whether in response to others or in your original comments. i'm wondering what that stems from and if there is an insecurity issue. i'm not a psychiatrist or licensed counselor by any means, but that's what i'm seeing here. i mean that in the nicest way possible. you just seem to be very defensive, even from the very start.
if they actually cared about the charity, couldn't they have used the advertising money to donate to the charity as well as having giving all their proceeds from that day to charity? why is it just one day and not an on going thing. "a cow will never be more important than a child." ?? if the meat or dairy industry had to cease so that one kid could live, that kid would definitly die.
Reply
That's way outta line. Don't even fucking suggest that I don't take care of my husband or that I would put him in harmsway. Its an ice cream, it's not a bucket of fried chicken. Its not like he eats them very often, and even if he did that has no bearing on the topic at hand.
Reply
Reply
I thought the point about using the advertising money as a donation instead was very salient, and it was the point I tried to make: I'd love to see big companies like this simply do the donating instead of cynically using it as a marketing ploy. I'd be happy to see the odd ad of theirs saying, "This year, we donated X amount to this charity", and I like to see products which say, "A portion of the profits from this product go to X good cause", but "come and buy our stuff on this day, and we'll donate some of it to a charity" skeeves me out.
The points about the human dimension of the adverse impact of factory farming are well made - slaughter house workers and farm workers are very vulnerable groups, as are the people living around heavily industrialised farms. Justice tends to spill out and work for everyone.
Reply
just wanted to add that as another thought to your last paragraph
Reply
Reply
no need to try to read between the lines. i wasn't "suggesting" anything. i was actually asking the question, why would you do that on purpose? and why would you tell people about it. if you're so inclined to donate money , then why make the point that your going to get your husband a treat?
I made no suggestion of your ongoing treatment of anyone, and i didn't say anything about the long term effects of any amount of cholesterol consumption, i made a specific point. if you gave your husband a blizzard and he ate it, his body would have to process it. there's no reason to consume more cholesterol since humans make all they need.
SMALL French Silk Pie Blizzard: 710 calories, 105% sat fat and 55mg of cholesterol. WHAT FOR?
Reply
holy crap!
Reply
I don't push my vegan beliefs onto my husband. I don't think it's right. He isn't vegan. He enjoys dairy products. That's his choice. That's "what for".
My husband's a soldier. His body has been conditioned to handle much more stress than an ice cream. Get real, a blizzard isn't going to affect him greatly.
Reply
while i disagree with the other person's mode of argument, their points are very justified. it seems contradictory to believe against purchasing something for one's self but to voluntarily offer to take someone somewhere and buy that thing for them. one might make an argument for offering to pay if they're already buying it anyway, but to start the process on your own seems off.
additionally, physical training from the army and dairy consumption are totally unrelated forms of analogy or comparison.
re-reading your original comment later on put me off, as you implied that my ethics on veganism are embarassing to you. however, you didn't really explain why. all i'm left to conclude is that my decision to not participate in dairy queen's fundraiser for children is embarassing, though i count it as a mode of consistency in thinking that helping one by hurting another is never justifiable.
you seem very defensive on all points, whether in response to others or in your original comments. i'm wondering what that stems from and if there is an insecurity issue. i'm not a psychiatrist or licensed counselor by any means, but that's what i'm seeing here. i mean that in the nicest way possible. you just seem to be very defensive, even from the very start.
Reply
Reply
but it's a nice thought! haha
Reply
Leave a comment