Something that has always bothered me, something I haven’t ever understood is during a court case when the prosecutor (or defendant) makes a statement that is clearly hurtful to the other side and the judge then asks the jury to disregard the information. Clearly, that’s impossible. And I know it’s a tactic used just so. But still, it bugs me. Why do I bring this up?
There are two articles in the New York Times Metro section today that I want to call some attention to. The first one is about a shoot and run. It took place in Brooklyn on Carroll Street. A Hasidic man was shot and killed through the window of his van while moving his car from one side of the street to the other to abide by the alternate side parking laws. Apparently, someone shot him and drove off. Now, the part that really got me was this line:
“The shooting of Mr. Klein, a Hasidic Orthodox Jew, immediately raised alarms in the neighborhood, which was convulsed by deadly racial unrest in 1991 after a Hasidic driver struck and killed a black boy. But police officials said that there was no indication that race had played any part in the shooting and that investigators had no description of the gunman.”
My question to the New York Times is why? 1991 was a long, long time ago. Why even print that? Why put the possibility in the reader’s mind that this could be about a hate crime? To me, this is just like that tactic used during a court cases. I see no good coming out of reporting some irrelevant 15-year-old crime. Can’t this just be an act of road rage?
The second article I want to talk about is one that could possibly invite some email hate crime onto myself.
I’m an animal lover. I have been since I was a child. People say they feel no pain, which they don’t know what they’re going through, that they’re only reason to exist is to feed our mouths. I do not believe any of this. That’s my prerogative.
I have mentioned before that I think I’d be happier if I didn’t feel this way. Some people believe in a God above, a deity, a higher power and that faith is recognized and usually accepted by everybody. When I say I care more about animals a lot of the time than I do many humans, I am often judged and/or outwardly scolded for saying such a thing.
People can care about their unborn babies, their idols, their bibles, and their unknowns. I wish to care about my animals. Someone has to, right? Someone has to keep the love distributed, right? There’s room for us all, right?
People can care about wearing their fur coats, eating another piece of veal (which they’ll shit out within 12 hours), dragging their dogs along the sidewalk because he’s walking too slowly. I’ll care about trying to stop them. If I can’t do that, I wish, at the very least for them to understand there is another side to all of this. Some of us don’t think it’s right, just like others don’t think it’s right to sin, abort babies, outlaw guns, use birth control, have pre-marital sex, whatever keeps their heart rate up. We all have our something.
Anyway, tangents aside, there’s an article about an unknown group of people who are threatening those working in labs (specifically one in New Jersey) that are testing on animals. (Here is the article.)
The NYT reports:
One federal counterterrorism official recently told Congress that animal rights groups posed the nation’s most serious domestic terrorism threat.
I am not sure what to say about that. While I do not believe in causing any one-person harm, there are times I find I sympathize with the animal rights people and get behind their cause. And I’m not sure how this could be considered terrorism and things like pro-life activists who threaten people every day are not. No, I do not wish to call in death threats to a scientists and their family. I will never do such a thing. I do, however, have repeated thoughts about pouring paint on a person wearing a fur coat. I do have this overwhelming desire to print out little cards that read: “YOU DISGUST ME” to those who wear fur or are in too much of a hurry and drag their dogs along the sidewalk. While it’s an individual’s choice to wear fur, they look like morons doing so. And I honestly judge them for it. Really.
I know this isn’t something wise to admit on the Internet, but I wish we were more kind to these creatures. If I really believed that we all loved humankind, if we stopped hurting our children, abusing the elderly, and shooting our neighbors over a parking spot, I could then get behind testing and killing countless animals to keep us alive longer.
Does this mean I’m going to go out and start bombing animal testing facilities? Not a chance in hell. But I might just donate some money to Peta. I might just print up those cards. I might just make more posts like this and welcome the possible onslaught of attacks.
There are people who don’t bomb abortion clinics but stand firmly behind the anti-abortion cause. I am one of those people when it comes to the animals.
There is HIGH racial tension between the black and hasidic communities in Brooklyn. 1991 was when there were full blown riots, but every tragedy since then has been marred with it , and there have been a bunch of smaller crimes since then. Rephrased better, 1991 was what set a long running feud in motion, and its still around today.
you’re stating the obvious. I know there’s a history. But this has nothing to do with it. was it merely a way for them to give us all a history lessen? I still don’t see the point on bringing it up for this.
Or, if they were going to bring it up, perhaps they could have written more about it? It could help incite incidents, I imagine. The power of suggestion is pretty strong.
Well I thought they were contextualizing the situation. Every time there’s a crime in that neighborhood, people wonder if its race related. If we were in a hollywood movie, it sounds like its either someone the guy pissed off ( business partner , or mistresses husband) or some random gang-initiation shooting. But it happened in a place that has a lot of racism.
BTW, I think pouring paint over a fur coat is one of the worst things you can do as a proponent for animal rights. All it does is piss the person off, ruin their coat, and create the need for them go out and get another one to replace it—which means killing more animals. I never understand why activists do that. It’s simple supply and demand. The stores always replace the bad stock, and most purchasers do as well.
BTW, i think Anti-Aborition and Animal Rights is an odd combination. Not in theory—that makes total sense. But in practice, most people don’t have that approach. I tried to resolve my own thoughts on it with stages-of-fetal-development. But I think its pretty amazing that you have a wholistic approach to ‘Life’.
Maybe Fox will act out a few hate crimes tonight? Give a how to, then start baiting some hasidic and black kids into a knife fight.
The problem that I see with the hole hate crime introduction is that they have NO IDEA who did the shooting at this time. SO, did they just assume that the person who shot the guy was black? Who’s racist now?
i agree michele, the media promotes a racist mindset in just the “possibility” of their being a crime of race. they should be ashamed of themselves and report news, not make up their own, i don’t care what side of the isle they’re on….it’s just plain irresponsible. conservatives use this tactic and liberals use this tactic and it annoys me to no end!
The thing is, now there are countless others spreading the possible rumor that the guy who did the shooting was black and had it out for the Jewish community. Just because the community thinks it’s racially motivated doesn’t give the NYT the right to perpetuate it.
I’m repeating myself. Oh well. But nothing good can come from what they wrote. Nothing.
I don’t know if it happened this time—but a few years ago after another incident in the area, the police worked into every single soundbite “We believe race was not a factor”. They had some sort of policy to stress and push that line, so that the communities wouldn’t start going crazy against each other – because the people there ALWAYS assume whomever did ‘it’ was black/hasidic.
Just bad blanket statements made around. I can see CERTAIN animal rights groups (like, I dunno, the ALF) could be considered a threat, or those loosely associated with them who break into testing labs and release captive animals into the wild/public, but not all. Like PETA – they’re nice people.
And I can see why anti-arbotion groups were not mentioned in the same breath because, to my knowledge, there are no organized groups (like the ALF, ELF, Branch Davidians, etc.) who have explicit plans to cause harm or have taken credit for past actions. Any clinic bombing seems to have been from one individual who the they have pursued and brought to justice (i.e. Eric Rudolph).
God my grammar’s terrible today. That last sentence read back like:
“It ain’t dat dere ain’t no dat group who cud gone on dun awd dose tings you dat dere muchined.”
Jon – at some point, people run out of $5000 chunks to drop on a coat.
I’m passionate about this. This is one topic that I become very enraged about. And like most things that people feel passionate about, they often use generalizations and (as you put it) employ bad blanket statments.
I, too, can see why some animal rights groups are considered a threat to certain people. I stated that I don’t agree with those people at all. I don’t agree with harm at all. I do agree with getting a message across if you can do so without hurting someone.
And Jonathan, I know what you’re saying about the paint thing. I had this conversation with Tobyjoe about how people will go out and buy another coat. I know this.
I won’t do that either. Instead, I kinda wisht that everyone who wanted a coat have to go and watch their animals be killed and skinned for it.
LEt’s see if they want one after that.
Anti-Abortion groups distribute detailed information about who works at abortion clinics and where they live, and promote harm. While environmental/animal groups are using ‘front’ groups for PR, the anti abortion ones seem to work more as a decentralized system by design – kind of like terror cells that don’t know about one another.
To me, thats probably more dangerous. I figured anti-abotion groups weren’t mentioned in the same breath simply because the US Government is fucking clueless when it comes to ‘homeland security’, and even worse with general threat assessments. But that’s just my personal opinion based on their track record in those areas over the past 10 years.
it’s odd to think that media mixes up the hate message more than anyone(even if unintentional). a KKK ralley in the backwoods of bumfuckdom spreads less hate than a unfounded news headline that can fly across the country/around the world in the blink of an eye.(i’m not promoting the KKK, and this is satement of numbers only, not fact, just a thought) i also find it facinating that when freedom of speech is used to promote so-called “good,” it doesn’t seem to matter that the reaction is off the cuff hate and the stirring of violence. it’s almost like the writers and editors just don’t think, they just have to produce for the deadline, fact-checking be damned….and luckily for them most people are gullible
Toby – Some people do run out. But others don’t. ‘Painters’ have no way of knowing if the person buying the coat saved up for 10years to get a fur like her grandma wore, or if she’s some rich woman who bought the coat with what amounts to pocketchange.
I wonder why the activists will target things like Fur coats, but you don’t see them attacking people at fast food restaurants.
Just to clarify: the first line should have read:
Bad blanket statements from the media all around.
I wasn’t inferring to yours, Mihow. & passion is good. The world needs passion, but peppered with a little understanding of the flipside. But when someone is wrong, they’re just wrong. (and I decree who is right and who is wrong. so there :)
forgive me, sir kerned john, I did exactly what I asked people NOT to do yesterday; took something as if it were directed at me.
To be honest, I really am sure I will take heat for the above post. Too often I hold back on certain passions and this time I said screw it.
Thanks for the clarificaiton, but I’m the one in the wrong with that assumption.
If you could, might you tell all the fur coat wearing asshats they look dumb and are in the wrong?
jonathan – I hear you on Homeland Security being clueless. That was my close second on reasoning to why animal rights is enemy #1. But I can also see it as thus:
pion reporting to superior-
pion: …and therefore pro-life groups serve as main threat to domestic terrorism.
superior: Great. Let’s raise the ole color chart to orange and send out the APB. Now which group we looking for?
pion: Well, that’s thing. It’s really not one but the actions of a loose network that makes it possible for the nutjobs to do the work. They’re in a sense empowering others to bomb & kill.
superior: But it’s not one group?
pion: No, not really. No.
superior: Hmmm. That won’t workout. Who’s #2?
superior: Yeah, #2. Who’s the next biggest threat after the pro-lifers?
pion: Um, that would be the animal right groups, like ALF, and…
superior: Great! We’ll go with that. Raise it to orange, send out an APB stating we’ve been hearing some chatter about a possible strike from the ALF, so everyone should arrest & impound any ALF members they come across.
pion: All righty. Will do. If that’s what you think is best.
superior: You betcha. Phew! That was a close one. Didn’t really want to piss off Rove, Robertson, and all those right wingers. You saw what Dick did to that lawyer fella down in texas…
I do already. I do the old snide shaking my head back & forth bit, letting them know I am displeased with them.
Jon, I think the paint on fur thing has always been symbolic. I still believe that if you do it enough, it will wear down even the richest woman. It isn’t just supply and demand. It’s aversion therapy mixed in. It’s still assault, but as a theoretical technique, I think it has merit in a number of ways.
I believe that people should become activists and literally fight for their beliefs as long as they are fully willing to accept consequences. The law is not absolute, and while I believe in it fully and abide by it wholly, the life someone leads is theirs, not that of their government. We have not reached a point where one man, one vote can be actualized as change in most cases, and some legally-ordained assaults (such as environmental pollution for profit) are not, by virtue of being rubber-stamped… good.
J o h n, that’s what I do! Sometimes I even say ‘Disgusting’ when I pass them. haha
I can’t help myself. It just comes out.
about the animals, it’s all about the face. if it’s got one, somebody’s gonna get emotional. cut the face off and soon you got people being able to separate themselves from the animal and article of clothing. look at all the leather shoes and purses and belts….none retain the face so we ignore where they come from. this is also why we don’t like our food to come with a face either….it just bothers people…i personally love to go to dinner and get a fish with the head still on it, but no way do i want my cow or chicken head plopped on the table…..boar or pig’s heads are fine… i think i’m poking holes in my theory with the food reference.i guess everybody has a line they won’t cross
greg, I get hungry at the aquarium. hahaha
oh and for fun, if you haven’t seen it….”the grizzly man” is an interesting paradox in it’s brilliance and stupidity in the question of man-nature-and man’s stewardship of nature(so he thinks) sorta off topic but maybe not too far.
I believe in activism too, but I think you draw a line when your actions invade other’s privacy. Im all for the protesting and the flyers, but I don’t think a physical assault (because thats what tossing paint on someone is), is acceptable. Similarly I can tolerate anti-abortion people who protest clinics, but I can’t tolerate those who try to make it illegal or bomb a clinic.
So, is it considered physical assult to kill, skin and make a coat out of an animal? Ask it how it feels about it keeping some bitch warm.
To quote a man from a favorite film of mine “THAT’S ASSULT, BROTHA!”
michele, i’m not sure if it’s assault, but i know it’s illegal without a permit. what most don’t understand is that (here in PA) every animal has a price tag on it(except coyotes i think). each animal is protected under state law and monitored by the state game and fish commission. the animal population is constantly monitored and from this information, they sell hunting licenses to keep the herds at safe levels. they don’t want too many because they starve because of lack of food etc. fishing licenses also fund the game commission. game commisiioners are allowed to break into your house without a warrant if the suspect you’re hurting or poaching animals. a suspected animal poacher has no civil rights(essencially, at least this is how it used to be) another thing that most people don’t realise is that with the price on every animal in the state also comes the responcibility on anidividual to report a dead animal. say for instance, i trophy buck gets hit by a car and some goofball decided he wants the rack(why? who knows) he has to pay for it. if he gets caught stealing the rack, he can be fined and possibly go to jail. the game commition doesn’t mess around.
why can’t i ever get any work done?
1) I think greg’s theory about animals and faces can be boiled down to one fact. Emoting. Most animals for the most part can show emotion in one way or another. A fish can’t smile, blink or scream. I personally know I wouldn’t fish if when I reeled a trout in, it was screaming bloody murder because there was a hook in it’s mouth. And then during the procedure of “cleaning” it, all it can do is pout. Shit even people who don’t eat meat will eat a fish.
2) Im pretty shocked at the self-righteousness tone on the last couple of posts. I just find it amazing that some of you feel the need to push your views regarding fur on others to the point where you are condescending and vandalizing others’ property. I don’t believe in wearing fur or anything but I also don’t believe in judging random strangers I pass on the street.
You can call it self-riteous if you want. I’m totally OK with that, zac. I refuse to accept the fact that anyone out there needs to skin and animal and wear its fur. It’s a status symbol here in the states. It’s wasteful, unncessary, and hurtful.
And, please, you don’t judge people on the street? You were quick to point out how unbelievably ugly that french woman who had a face transplant was the other day. Do you know her?
You judge just like the rest of us. We all do it. You’d be lying to claim otherwise.
We’re all guilty of it.
I don’t think any of us have advocated vandalizing anyone, zac. I didn’t mean for my comment to seem as though I wanted to do so. I said that I can see merit in it as a technique, though. I would never shut off my critical faculty because the subject at hand is an action in which I wouldn’t personally engage. Remaining critical and being able to look at things is important to me, personally.
I said that people should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and believe that wholly. I agree that, if you assault someone, you should be arrested and tried. I believe that the legal system is our own way of creating a hostile environment for people who go against our collective values as determined by local jurisdiction and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I believe that exercising that collective force is an act of aggression against those who transgress the aforementioned communal values. I believe that activists often practice a small-scale and unsanctioned version of that same function with their actions. If they break the larger law in doing so, they must answer, and the punishment should fit the crime (since, after all, we punish instead of rehabilitating). If their actions end up changing society, they may be revered later on, until someone else changes it. I advocate activism because it’s how people can attempt to change things with which they disagree. Advocating activism is not the same as advocating every action in every circumstance.
Also, I should repeat, I stated earlier that I am passionate about this. I might not make sense based on how much I care about it.
I’m OK with that, too. But I’m sick of trying so hard to appease people especially if I really care about something.
Plus, I’m carbless and probably losing a certain part of my mind. I feel like a tweaker lately.
I should probably avoid the Internet until I get my blood-sugar back to normal.
toby- well put and understood.
mihow- regarding the french woman I don’t remember exactly what I said about her, but I want to say my point was more that they were calling it a “sucessful” transplant. If I did indeed say she was unbelievably ugly I still wouldn’t walk up to her and hand her a card that says, “You’re Ugly”. And I agree that fur isn’t really necessary for clothes since caveman days, but is it any less brutal than the slave labor that makes any other type of clothing?
Zac – thanks for understanding. On your question to michele: why not fight to stop both?
If you saw my outdated clothing you’d think that’s exactly what I was doing. All kidding aside, in an ideal situation, neither would exist. However on my list of “things I give a shit about” it doesn’t rank very high. I believe that if someone feels strongly about something, its mostly because it hits home with them in one way or another. Being a cancer patient, things like stem cell research and medicare rank high on my list. Its a sad truth but people just don’t care about issues that they don’t percieve to affect them directly.
While I agree with what you just said, to a certain degree, I’m not sure how slave labor affects any of us. Similarly, I’m not sure how animals being skinned so Mrs. Richiemcpherson can keep warm affects me.
Maybe some people feel more compassion than others? And along with that people like yourself can understand the need for stem cell research because you empathize with the need to see it happen.
Perhaps there is both. Some people can feel compassion and sympathy for something and not necessarily empathize with it.
I’m a little worried about my mental state, folks. I have to admit. Something is weird with my head today.
In my belief system, those who wear fur or kill animals burn in a fiery hell.
And while I find it fun to judge every person on the street, I don’t think I have the right to carry out my judgement.
Sure , I think that person wearing fur or eating a hamburger deserves to be anally raped with a large pineapple then subjected to mob violence leaves them dead with each and every limb broken. But that doesn’t mean I think i – or anyone else – has the right to enact that judgement.
Didn’t the woman with the face transplant have the transplant because a dog bit off most of her face?
a cigarette smoking dog!
Jonathan, people should be able to eat what they want, imo. Eating is an absolute. You’ll die otherwise.
Wearing fur isn’t necessary. You’re a very angry man sometimes.
thanks for ruining pineapple for me forevah.
mmmmm, anal pineapple…
but aren’t there a bunch of things that aren’t necessary? this is a tough question…maybe even a postmodern question… hehehehehe
A couple of things:
If tensions really are high in Brooklyn, and if the Hasidic community’s reaction to Klein’s murder is angry or suspicious, then it’s not irresponsible to report that. It’s not like Andy Newman led the story with “RACE HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT IN BROOKLYN SHOOTING” Moreover, this does not seem to be his fabrication. He quotes Chanina Sperlin, an executive of the Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, as saying “People are very, very angry because it’s been very, very quiet.” And something had to provoke Letitia James’s comments calling for unity. So, I really wouldn’t read this as inflammatory. In fact, I thought the article seemed quite fair and focused not on heightening the racial tension but dispelling it. After all, there are plenty of comments from his friends, family, and associates who seem to be implying that there is no other reason BUT race for the shooting, but he doesn not reiterate their paranoia. If anything, I think he understates their concerns.
As for animal rights activists as a terror threat, I am not surprised by that assessment. I attended one animal rights rally and left in disgust. The posters and propaganda looked just like the anti-abortion materials I saw when I was defending clinics. As you point out, these people are passionate and in some cases irrational, and their rhetoric is designed to ignite passions, not appeal to reason. I would be surprised if there weren’t a radical fringe willing to go to extreme measures, just as there is a radical fringe in the anti abortion movement.
However, support for the radical fringe of the anti-abortion group has been significantly deflated since Kopp’s arrest and conviction for the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian. The more moderate anti-abortion lobby has sought to distance itself from them because nobody wants to jeopardize their funding by having their assets frozen for aiding terrorists.
So are the animal rights activists the #1 threat? quite possibly: after Oklahoma City we set about dismantling the right-wing militias, and after Slepian’s murder attention focused on the anti-abortionists. Does this make Mihow (or any other person who cares passionately about animal rights) a terrorist sympathizer? Absolutely not.
Finally, I was watching Nova last night about a Norwegian sailor who sailed over North America to the pacific (the Northwest Passage). He wintered a season with some native Inuit in northern Canada, and of course, they were all wearing fur. Some lab-coated guy explained why fur was ideal arctic clothing and that nothing we can make is as efficient, yada yada yada. I, of course, do not think this justifies wearing fur, but I have to concede that if ANYONE gets a pass for wearing it, it’s native people living in the arctic who hunt, kill, and skin the animals themselves. As a luxury item, of course, it’s disgusting.
There’s absolutely no difference between eating what you want vs wearing what you want. One can make just a compelling argument that wearing fur is necessary/unnecessary as one can do for eating meat.
I don’t believe any intelligent being has the right to take the life of another. We can control fire, farm land, and tell the difference between sentient and non sentient beings. I’d like to think thats for a reason, and I also like to think that there is no distinction between sentient beings. I fail to see the difference between a cow, a cat, or a human, and find any one more worthy to live than another.
Jonathan, I actually agree with you here. But it’s complicated. Let’s discuss it over some raw fish. :]
here’s a strange twist….my friend is a vegan but she is also a dog owner. her dog eats what she feeds it. so, for animals who are generally meat eaters, does that make it immoral for humans kill and to feed a dog meat? and is the dog food industry immoral because their clients eat meat? granted dogs are stupid and i love them for it, but we sure fall into a strange argument.
Everyone should eat and wear whatever they feel comfortable with. They should feel free to preach the virtues of going one way or the other. And everyone who listens should make the decision that is most fitting for them. And other people should criticize them for it if it’s upsetting…
For instance, on one hand, leather can seem ok because it’s a byproduct of the meat industry in most cases and a single cow hide can be used for many things (unlike fur, where foxes or mink are killed by the handful for a single item). On the other hand, buying leather supports the meat industry in a HUGE way, as hides fetch a lot of cash. It’s up to each person to decide where they feel comfortable with each purchase, and with each response to someone with whom they disagree. Complacency either way is certainly an option, but it seems neglectful to me. I guess I’d rather dip into that pre-abjection stage Kristeva described, the point before grabbing hold of the imaginary separation between man and animal, between culture and animalism. The outcome is certainly unpredictable, but it beats silence as an embodiment of a particular sort of lefty subjugation to a non-imperialist (don’t step on toes, live and let live) political ethos.
Greg – morality isn’t something worth discussing outside of confession, but the politically relevent question is whether the maker of the dog food is a polluter, supporter of the larger meat industry, and whether their testing practices and public-service work fit your particular values.
I guess, in the end, if people are more aware, we’re better off. That doesn’t mean anyone should give anything up that they enjoy but being conscious is a really important practice, I think. I dunno. I think it’d even out a bit more if people were just more aware.
That’s all I mean. Please know that. I don’t want anyone to stop doing anything. I don’t have that power nor does anyone else. But to understand what lies behind everything, for me, is really important.
I eat gobs and gobs of meat. I feed it to my children. Sometimes we talk about all the types of critters we’ve eaten (pigs, chickens, cows, lambs, turkeys, salmon, shrimp, etc. the carnage goes on). I don’t hide the fact that the food we eat comes from living animals, and I believe my kids should see that. If they elect to become vegetarian, more power to them. Of course, until they’re 13 or so, I’ll make meat for them because that’s what I eat. If, when they’re old enough to make a valid decision to not eat meat, and they refuse to eat it, I’ll serve them something else.
If faced with a choice between saving the life of either a child, a cat, or a cow, I would have no issue. Unlike Jonathan, I see a difference, and I rank them accordingly. I’d save the kid, feel sorry for the cat, and eat the cow. I made some kickass braised shortribs this sunday. They were so good, in fact, I got an angry call from my wife on Monday when she couldn’t find the leftovers for lunch (because I took them to the office).
I think it’s safe to say that most people would save the child.
I hope so, at least. Now, give me some thug who causes people harm? Cat, totally.
Now, I must go kick some ass. I hope things remain civil in here. ;]
michele, awareness is a big thing for me. in my field, there is this “green” design buzz that’s getting everybody all worked up. i believe in it but once again, mainstream is screwing it up as it does everything(not a topic for here) and how i see “green” is 180 degrees from the flock.
toby, gotcha, it’s hard to track things through is sorta what i’m getting at in an attempt to, not define morality, but step outside of myself and look at an intelectual situation/decision. as for the the dog food companies, they only put 23%(if you’re lucky) protein in their product, the rest….carbohydrates, essentially “filler.” to keep the cost down. it sure helps eddie pack on the pounds every winter too.
I don’t think its ok for pet owners to feed their pets other animals IF there is an alternative.
I think its all about the presenece of alternatives. Our intelligence and skills give us the ability to seek alternatives. As a society, we kill because we want to.
We simply don’t have to farm animals and slaughter them to survive , and we haven’t for decades.
Toby – Personally, I never thought leather was ok for that exact reason. Vegetarian dress shoes suck though. But I rationaled that if I buy leather dress shoes marked down enough on clearance that the company is not making a profit or minimizing losses, its ok. I’ll probably still go to hell for that though.
jonathan, you sure have stacked the deck against yourself, but hey, that’s your thing, that’s cool….