Quote:
Quote by: StrongHeartsWin  Environmentalists are specialized in being able to handle the global warming problem. I wouldn`t expect an environmentalist to fight the animal rights debate battle, so why should animal rightists interested in vegetarianism be expected to fight the environmental debate issues? Likewise, why should those interested in providing care and assistance through aid to those starving in Africa be chided into providing care and aid to those in the U.S.? Just because one cares to specialize in a certain area does not meantheir arguments for those areas are discounted because they did not try to cover all points related to that issue in all areas, does it?
I would suggest that trying to do everything for all parties will eventually end up resulting in being able to do nothing for all parties. Specialization let`s recourses to support those with particular skills and passions that can best be harnessed by focusing on specific interests. Wouldn`t you agree to that?
I have neve said that one issue involving suffering or threatening health through environmental damage is more important than another. They are just different and each needing to be addressed by as many people who are attracted to the call for help in alleviating those problems.
If a person is deeply interested in the plight of animals and his/hers passion causes them to act on the issue strongly and productively, wouldn`t it be a drag on them (i.e. recourses) to expect them to do work in another field that does not ignite passion within them? Surely, telling someone who cares about animal abuse in circuses to work on alcholism problems in the instead will result in less productivity on that issue if the person is not deeply passionate about that. Let passions lead people to their interests of work without telling them they are working on less important issues from another`s subjective view or areas of interest they deem to be at least or more important. |
Absolutely, I would agree that specialization allows one to focus energy and resources on a particular issue, and in the case of internet debate -- where there is no particular impetus to argue for something other than one's own opinions and conscience -- there is no reason whatsoever for one to argue an issue divergent from what one cares about. But I feel that you have been doing just that: you argue for animal rights, by arguing that people should become vegetarians for their health. I recognize that you have been responding to the questions and objections raised by your opponents, and that they, in the inimitable manner of us all on these forums, have been breaking your whole argument down into bits that they can chew on. However, I have seen at least three threads in different forums, with wholly different orientations -- bow-hunting, vegetarianism, and this one on factory farming -- in which you have argued for animal rights; this does not seem to me to be specialized. One is primarily concerned with sport, the second with health, and the third with economics and the inhumanity of modern "production," so to speak. Of course, all of them are related to animals and animal rights, but in very different ways; thus it seems that you are trying to argue on every possible front, all at once, and are spreading your own resources thin, as you say. Hence my question.
Quote:
Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It is hard to say which reaches most, "health, morals, or environmental." I will not guess. Before when I have debated the issue of either of those, I have always found it funny that when I focus on one, a reply will come forth saying I would reach more people if I focused on the other. And that includes focusing on "health" to have another poster say that "morals" would be a stronger message for themselves for they find it rude to target such a personal thing as food which could be an assault on their culture.
Either way, CoffeeSaint, you can appreciate the "catch22" situation of debate on those 3 issues concerning vegetarianism, can`t you? No matter which I focus on I will be criticise for not focusing on the other or told in a suggestion I should focus on the other.
I choose to focus on all -- but all those cards are played over time. It just takes time to get to them. But, I will. In due time. In due time. |
But the point is that your interest lies in the rights of animals, not in the health of humans. When you argue for vegetarianism on health-related grounds, it rings hollow, because it is quite clear that your real interest is in the consumed, not the consumers. If you were arguing two separate interests in the two separate areas, that would be fine, but since the two are so closely related, you end up with your catch-22. You can't argue both ends of an argument when you are not objective: you can't argue both for the health of the humans, and for the health of the animals, against those who think those two are in conflict -- i.e., meat eaters. I have trouble arguing for strong penalties for certain crimes, for instance, because I have argued in the past for the rights of the accused; if I argue that the death penalty should not be used because no one, not even a criminal, deserves to die, I can't then argue that a rapist should suffer some horrible fate such as mutiliation and lifelong solitary confinement (I don't support that, just an example). It makes me seem a hypocrite: if I am so concerned with the life of a criminal, why am I arguing for harsher punishments? The correct answer, in this hypothetical situation, would be that I believe in human rights, both of the victim and of the criminal, and I could be arguing that harsh punishment of rapists could deter others, thus protecting the human rights of the victim, while my opposition to the death penalty protects the human rights of the criminal -- but it seems hypocritical, all the same. Thus it is with you, arguing both for the animal's right not to get eaten, and the health of humans who don't eat animals; this is, I think, why you get so much crap about the morality of eating plants. People are trying to catch you in a moral contradiction not because it's a natural counterargument, but because your arguments already seem somewhat contradictory.
BTW, I'm sorry these posts are coming at you in one giant lump; I have spent quite a bit of time making my replies on Wordpad, and am now just pasting my replies into your quoted posts. Sorry if there's too much to deal with in one go.