Sunday, August 26, 2007
peta sent me a self righteous email
im subscriber to the peta newsletter and i was sent an email on friday from ingrid newkirk about how 300.000 people helped and made a difference in the michael vick case. in case you are actually all living under a rock, unfortunatley we did not have any such an effect whatsoever. the actions were going to take place whether we protested by the millions or not. vicks plea, which admitted nothing about actually cruelty to animals, was not a result of peta's efforts, and i don't see how anyone could think that. furthermore his sponsors did not drop him from endorsements because we said it was wrong or even because violence against living beings is immoral, rather because they feared that they would lose profit from negative advertisment. The sad truth is that if a large majority of america were supporters of dog fighting and animal cruelty, nike wouldn't have flinched. don't pat yourselves on the back and don't encourage people who have no idea as to extent of this problem in our country and the small extent of petas effect on it to be complacent. tell them that they haven't done anything and that they need to get off their asses and actually do something to stop the immoral and immature behavior that all too many people on our planet participate in. and please, don't put yourselves into the market, commercializing the vick issue and profiting off of it is in essence MAKING MONEY OFF OF DOG FIGHTING. think. you'll never make the impact you would actually have made if you resign yourself to it not being possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've been wondering since this whole vick thing came up, do you still eat meat?
Yes, I'm a human, we are carnivores. and it's easily defensible. for one, the human body pretty much needs meat as a nutrient, some of the proteins and things like that cannot be found in many other (or as tasty, i must admit) places. secondly, the killing of animals for my food is just a simplified form of man being the top of the food chain in the wild;certainly i would rather not have the questionable convention of raising living beings only for the purpose of killing them, but as i understand it some kinds of meat are essential for the body to run at an optimal rate. and unfortunately i can't change what the human body runs well off of, because undoubtedly abusing life - bringing it into being and then destroying it - is an inherently immoral act whether it sustains our lives or not. i guess an all encompassing morality would include a 'kill only what you need for survival' clause, and the native americans probably had it right in the way they treated the fruits of their hunt; whereas we kill far more than we need for people who don't need it and probably throw away the majority of the animal.
if i had it my way id probably own a farm and whatever was necessary to keep myself alive, and only that. its not cruelty if its necessary for are own lives - and even that is questionable, but not right now - but what we do today and the way we go about it is, but sadly i see no way to get myself around it. especially in a commerical place like san francisco where itd be hard to find a farm that agrees with this or something like that...
Post a Comment