Essay talk:Why cockfighting is the acid test of multiculturalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  1. It's pretty straightforward to say that the specific nature of cock and dogfighting results in undue suffering. This is a triviality for you to dimiss: once I accept the notion of eating meat, some cruelty to animals is inevitable. But animal bloodsport frequently results in lives that are lonely, nasty, brutish, and short for the animals. This is distinct from farming practices that end up killing animals, as death is a part of life, and the life cycle of farm animals depends on that process. Removing needless cruelty and having some basic dignity isn't an extraordinary requirement.
  2. Natural attachment to other illegal activities: notably gambling. Regardless of whether or not you personally agree with a ban on gambling itself, the precedent for laws banning activities closely coupled with other illegal or dangerous activities is well established. Be it open container laws and drunk driving, loitering and petty crimes such as vandalism or theft, or improper bookkeeping and fraud. A separate and distinct argument needs to be made that the gambling that coincides with cock-fighting and similar activities is not against the public interest.
  3. The effect on people: cruelty to animals is associated with psychopathy, and it has not been firmly established that exposure doesn't promote psychopathic behavior. Though I understand that this may confuse cause and effect, it's not unreasonable to expect empathic desensitization.

On the whole, not amazing arguments, it's enough, for me, to deter arguments that there is an ethical obligation to legalize the practice. This claim isn't substantiated(as of yet). Ikanreed (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I will get around to addressing these arguments in the fullness of time. This may take a while to build. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your last paragraphs smell of appeal to tradition to me. The Offwo (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

When we're talking about multiculturalism and tolerance, other peoples' traditions are important. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but only for traditions that do not bear harm. There's nothing wrong with tolerating burqas, halal/kosher meats, native languages, and new opinions. Tolerance never need bring itself to the point of accepting harm. Fundamentalism Mormon style polygamy with its ejection of and abandonment young men, for example should not be accepted. Ikanreed (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Many controversial cultural traditions like cockfighting or FGM don't need to be as harmful as they typically are, though. Instead of adding spikes to the roosters' legs, you could instead have them wear protective gear and instead of letting them fight to the death, just let them fight a few timed laps with the winner determined by points scored. And for FGM, if the invasive procedures were actually performed in medically responsible situations and done at an age where the girls might actually be able to provide informed consent, it'd be a lot less problematic. (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hypothetically, yes. Ikanreed (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The point ultimately will be, not that cockfighting is harmless to chickens, but that we routinely do so many things that cause pain to chickens. So much so that singling out cockfighting for a ban is hypocritical, at least for someone who also claims to value the right of other cultures to exist unmolested. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
And we'll have to see if you can establish that. In absolutely neutral terms, I'd like to see an end to the most abusive farming practices in the name of equality rather than the legalization of cock fighting. Ikanreed (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree about ending abusive farming practices, though I think it's kinda odd to say that it's "in the name of equality". (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, smerdis presented us with a dilemma, the law is unfair to one group, and the implied solution is legalize a certain harmful behavior, even if we give him his moral dilemma, legal equality can also established in another way. Ikanreed (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this isn't any better of an argument than trying to legalize meth by pointing at the dangers of cigarettes. There may be a contradiction in how society handles things, but that does not mean that yours is the only solution.--TiaC (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Puritans hated bear-baiting[edit]

“The Puritans hated bear-baiting,Wikipedia's W.svg not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.” — Thomas Babington Macaulay

The "factory-farmed chicken and PETA" argument reminded me of that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now the core thesis of this essay is becoming apparent[edit]

It's become pretty clear that the main position advanced by this essay is the following: You can either accept all aspects of all cultures uncritically or you can reject multiculturalism. This is a false dilemma. It uses moral relativity as a bludgeon to attempt to make the almost comically extreme view that a society collectively making something illegal due to perceived harm is the same as a society making something illegal due to bigotry.

This core idea, be it about cock-fighting, child abuse, marital rape, or extremes like slavery, still ignores that multiculturalism is an idea that arises from ethical frameworks, not in spite of them. Those frameworks are not always the same as each other, but they tend to come from a few common core ideas such as

  • The harmlessness of ideas, and often the benefits of a diversity thereof
  • The value of the fundamental equality of all people
  • Often a Kantian kind of respect for the notion of dignity

Multiculturalism isn't itself the end in these frameworks, it's often intended as a means to achieve a deeper objective. Anything granted protection under the guises of multiculturalism needs to, in particular, pay attention to the notion of harmlessness. This essay, as of yet, doesn't focus adequately on that end. Ikanreed (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I probably do better by writing my essays by my usual method, which is to begin with undirected musings and only afterwards decide what the thesis is. But I think you do well to focus on the values that multiculturalism is meant to put into practice, and especially in focusing on liberty, equality, and dignity. This actually makes it easier, by helping to point out the specific ways in which "but it's mean to chickens!" is less of a big deal than those things. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Glad I could help, then. I always enjoy discussions that help clarify things. Ikanreed (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


So let's talk about cultural parallels.

Spanish Bullfighting. If we're to take the notion that western rejection of animal cruelty in the specific realm of cockfighting is a dismissal of different cultures, we could find that Bullfighting in Spain would be mostly unaffected, as it is a native sport.

that's not entirely true. Parts of Spain where it was once popular have banned the sport, in spite of being essentially a native sport, and incidence in general is way down. This reflects a possibility that mere disdain for foreign cultures isn't the only driving mechanism.

Many "brown" cultures also outright forbid animal fighting as well. That definitely includes Buddhism, and according to wikipedia, followers of Islam are also explicitly forbidden to engage in animal fights. This suggests that there may be a broader intercultural reason, be it legitimate or not, to condemn the behavior. Ikanreed (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It probably isn't all that interesting any more, especially in an age of mass media. I've heard mostly the same story, and that tourism is what keeps it alive. Still, the world would be a duller place without bullfighting, IMO. I am glad that it exists. If it's mean to cows, I don't care. I wish it would be possible to stage one here in the USA. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't you guys have something similar in America, except that the matador are clowns and you have a guy trying to sit on the bull while it's running around? Oh, and they don't kill the bull at the end. (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Eh... sorta. Rodeos tend to be, in particular, demonstrations of traditional ranching skills. Catching animals, riding animals, that sorta thing. Objecting to a rodeo without being vegetarian would be pretty hypocritical. Ikanreed (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legalize or illegalize?[edit]

The title and first line of the essay proposes legalising cockfighting, then the rest of the essay arguing against "making it a crime". So are you talking about legalising cockfighting in countries or jurisdictions where it isn't currently legal or about opposing bans on cockfighting in countries or jurisdictions where it is currently legal? They're not the same thing. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Eating cocks[edit]

From Larry Elterman's A Man's Guide to Life and Love in the Philippines: "Cock fighting is one of the national pastimes in the Philippines, and you will never convince Filipinos that it's a cruel sport. Actually, since the losing cock is almost always eaten, I myself don't really see the big deal. What's the difference if one cock kills another, or if you chop off their head at a farm? In the meantime, between fights, the fighting cocks are treated like kings, given the best food and care in the hopes of producing a winning cock. . . . To speed up the fights razor blades are strapped to the feet of the cocks. As a result the first cock to get in a good slash is usually the winner. The fights usually last between 30 seconds and two minutes. They rarely last more than three minutes."

There are probably crueler and more wasteful practices than cockfighting, at least as practiced in the Philippines. Landmartian (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this parody or do you believe each argument you've presented has merit? Forgive me if you've come clean on this talk page. I won't read it. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't exactly parody, and I actually do believe that cockfighting ought to be legal, and that the arguments against it are hypocritical and parochial. On the other hand, while I won't vote for laws against cockfighting, it isn't a cause I pursue zealously. (Pursuing any cause zealously is bad, m'kay?) Still, I don't like to see cultural minorities being persecuted, especially not in the name of newly made-up moral reforms.

On the other hand, you wouldn't be far from the mark in saying that part of the point is to cast light on a contradiction between various "progressive" pieties. Truth is, I despise "animal rights" and veganism. These causes strike me as prissy, sentimental, and authoritarian. And laws against cockfighting do in fact persecute cultural minorities in the name of animal rights. This is part of the problem in a nutshell. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
And your case for that hypocrisy remains unconvincing. It tries to use moral relativism a bludgeon, suggesting that because other cultures engage in a practice, it is beyond moral criticism. It simply doesn't hold up in a utilitarian legalistic framework, than many many people use. Ikanreed (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, to the extent that some degree of moral relativism is necessary for multiculturalism. I do think any multiculturalism worthy of the name has to make room for different ideas about the appropriate treatment of animals. This is one of the points on which cultures do differ.

I've also tried to address harm to the extent that I am able. Given the fate of almost every chicken bred by humans, I think that objections to the cruelty of cockfighting, as if it were uniquely cruel, ring false. Unless you're a vegan of some sort it's hypocritical. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 05:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and morality[edit]

Personally I don't see hypocrisy as a primarily moral concern, but as something people like to bring up when they're trying to tarnish another's honour. Sure, if people were to act perfectly moral it would require them to not act hypocritical anymore, but how realistic is that? Plenty people seem willing to direct the trolleyWikipedia's W.svg away from the higher amount of people, but what if a loved one is trapped on the less populated track? I'd say a consistently non-hypocritical application of morality is less likely than a consistent non-application of morality and the latter is certainly morally undesirable. It's interesting to think about what a consistent application of morality would actually require, though. For example, if animal suffering is to be considered objectively immoral, we don't just need to stop all humans from hurting animals, we'd also be required to intervene in the natural world, to stop predators from harming their prey etc. But then how would the predators survive? And if animals can't provide informed consent, shouldn't we not only stop humans from having sex with them, but non-human animals as well? Then how are they going to reproduce? Questions, questions. (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The charge of hypocrisy is usually made, as here, seeking to deflect moral dudgeon. Against the claim that cockfighting should be illegal because it is deliberately and needlessly cruel to chickens, I want to point out that 1./ just about every chicken humans breed, we kill, 2./ the ways we kill them may not be much less cruel than cockfighting, and 3./ they're just chickens, so who cares? Avoiding hypocrisy may be impossible for anyone to consistently do, but I've always been the one saying we need to make allowances for human weakness. But I'm not the one seeking to put people in jail for staging chicken fights. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


No one is alleging that "if you come from a culture that supports bloodsport you're nastier by proxy". Instead I'm alleging that the bloodsport itself, and no the culture that created it, is the source of negative impact. You're going to have to address the concerns as they exist, not continue the charade of pretending it's about rejecting a culture. Ikanreed (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you reject cockfighting, you are automatically rejecting cultures. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If you reject human sacrifice, you reject cultures. If you reject gladitorial combat, you reject cultures. If you reject bride kidnapping, you reject cultures. All literally true statements that deflect the notion that a multicultural society has an obligation to reasonably decide boundaries based on pragmatism. Ikanreed (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a key distinction here. Gladiatorial combat, human sacrifice, and bride kidnapping all involve human beings as victims. Cockfighting has only chickens as victims. Ultimately, all of these arguments boil down to inappropriately equating human beings with chickens. The sufferings of chickens at minimum carry a whole lot less moral weight than that of human victims. Given the ways this culture routinely treats chickens, we're hypocrites if we give chickens any moral weight at all. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, no one in the western world has outlawed animal abuse on it's own terms. Or demanded ethical standards for animal testing. No wait. That's the opposite of true. I'm not saying the values are totally consistent in declaration and enforcement and understanding, but there's no magic double standard except in your head. Ikanreed (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, yeah. And I would dial that stuff back quite a bit myself as well. There was a local controversy a few years back when a local pound ran out of drugs and euthanized some dogs with a shotgun. Never mind that using a shotgun is not considered inhumane by the US humane society, or that it's a pretty traditional way of quickly putting down a dog. Some activists thought it was gross and sad that dogs died, and started a fuss demanding the jobs of the director and a sheriff's deputy who was involved. Animal rights depend on how familiar and pet-like the animal involved is, and how emotionally attached you can talk yourself into becoming. So in biology class lots of people object to dissecting the cat, but making the flatworm regenerate its tail is still cool.

Some time ago I became aware of organized crowds of White animal rightsers interfering with Native fishing and hunting rights that were promised to them by treaty. Racism can hide just as well behind granola moral earnestness as it can behind other flavors. That did get me thinking, and I concluded that animal rights was mostly about sentimentality. Here in the States, having endured forty years of sentimental and gross-out dreck from the anti-abortion cult, to carry on in the same vein about a chicken is a non-starter here. I have chosen to deliberately harden my heart against every such appeal. Where human freedom conflicts with animal rights, I will opt for human freedom every time. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, it's starting to sound like you aren't multicultural and don't like the subculture of animals rights and want to punish it for existing. Ikanreed (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Aren't almost all movements about sentimentality when you get down to it? Also, I wouldn't consider littering a creature's innards with small metal spheres as particularly humane. Unless they shot directly at the brain, the animal would feel significant pain before passing away. (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it means to "be multicultural" or not be; but I do in fact appreciate the fact that cultures may value in their tastes and values, and would prefer to live in a place where people are free to participate in a wide variety of such cultures and that no one culture should be empowered to enforce its tastes and values on those who disagree. I have pretty much nothing but contempt for animal-rightsers. They would deprive the world not only of cockfights but also of circuses and saltimbocca, and otherwise build a greyer and more samey world in the name of their chosen piety. And it doesn't end, either. We have the humane society saying it's OK to put down a dog with a shotgun, and arguments here that it's mean. People who argue from lofty abstractions can't be given an inch. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 03:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably expressing a crackpot or stupid idea but, isn't the very least we can give most animals who live for the purpose of human use a painless death? Is it because much of human morality has some basis in reciprocation of the treatment of others and we consider most non-human life ("nature" or at least mammalian life) a form of other? Is the most we can possibly wish or desire from this other a quick and painless death, and because of this our idea of the best treatment we can give them is to painlessly or swiftly do away with them after they can no longer serve their purpose? I'm terrible at communicating my ideas, but my line of thinking comes from the "Golden Rule" (do unto others) and from how most people (or most westerners at least) think we should treat animals.

We don't give our own kind quick or painless deaths; we aren't obliged to give the same to chickens. Nature never guaranteed them quick or painless deaths either. If we set all our chickens free as PETA demands, billions would die miserably. They never really cared about animals half as much as they care about being smug, anyways.
And in any rate, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the group of human cultures that find cockfighting acceptable. These people take priority over any moral consideration afforded to the comfort of chickens. We can't condemn cockfighting without judging them in a bigoted and parochial way. Humans and human cultures > chickens and their comfort. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Few questions[edit]

First, I don't think this is exactly a litmus test for multiculturalism. But anyway, some questions.

  1. Do you support other cultures breeding dogs just to eat dogs? I personally have no problem with this. Do you, however, support eating pets after they're euthanized? You can put their dead bodies to good use.
  2. What is your statement for people who think we should limit unnecessary cruelty? These people criticize both our farming practices (which usually leads to less tasty food anyway) and how we treat cockfighting. Would you support changes that would minimize the cruelty?
  3. Would you support a hypothetical culture that mutilates puppies, cut off the noses of proboscis monkeys, or slowly pulls legs off decapitated cockroaches and then burn their bodies while they're still alive in the name of sacrifice? Do you support shark finning? How about killing animals in the name of pseudoscience, which you can say has cultural aspects? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, let's all answer this, why should we put humans on a higher pedestal than other animals, even if humans are mentally challenged? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to put humans on a pedestal because I am one. I certainly don't mind people eating their own dogs. Right now, the notion that animals are chattel property that their owners can do what they please with is an important concept that needs defended against authoritarianism. I don't care what happens to cockroaches; I suspect they'll get by and outlast us. With things like shark finning, it presents sustainability issues, but those are hardly insurmountable. I certainly do not give a rat's ass about whether it's mean to sharks; sharks are mean to us too. It may well be that the raising of animals for food creates pollution control problems. Moving the process into an enclosed building strikes me as a helpful step in the right direction, even if it makes chickens, pigs, or cows miserable and removes their ability to roam free in the fields and styes.
Our culture does things like clip the ears and tails of dogs. Kennel club standards make our dogs less healthy than they might be too. Those who object, also object to people keeping dogs at all; and that's so far-out that I can't even begin to get my head around it. Again, it's important to keep dogs as property that people can do what they want with, so those things do not bother me. I also think the world is greyer, more samey, less diverse, and duller since fox hunting was banned in Britain; it disgusts me that something so quintessentially British is no longer allowed there, because some jackass felt sorry for the foxes. If ancient traditions sustained the 'abuse' of dogs in other cultures, I doubt I would care. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The "some jackass" who got fox hunting banned was actually parliament, acting on the opinion of a large majority of the British public (even the rural British public oppose it bby a huge margin). Personally I could do without the traditional British pastime of tearing living animals apart for His Lordship's Noble Delectation. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
...tearing living animals apart. As if I'm supposed to care about some goddamned fox, or be grossed out, or something. Not working. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 23:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Foxes in the wild get torn apart, often while alive; not sure why humans, and only humans of all the species which eats other animals, shouldn't be permitted to partake. Being an ASD person I know perfectly well how slaughterhouses work, and would happily shoot the nail gun into and/or guillotine any animal I wished to eat (indeed I've put mice caught in "humane" traps out of their misery via hammer more than once, there are many worse experiences in the world); using animals for blood sport is no different in that regard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
So you can't feel a little empathy? IDK just because nature is cruel doesn't mean we have to be unnecessary cruel especially if this cruelty doesn't make us happy (think about it, why are so many people squeamish at this? I think it's empathy and sensitivity playing a role here and most of us can't help it when we see cruelty even if this ends up being in our dinner plate; it might be cognitive dissonance). It's easy to favor humans over nonhumans because we're humans, but that's circular reasoning, isn't that so? If not circular (like higher moral reasoning or that they're the same species), then it's arbitrary (like some nonhuman animals have intellect comparable to a child but we still favor mentally challenged people). I'd also prioritize human life over nonhuman life and there are tiers of it, but it's speciest to say the least. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I suppose I ought to be grateful to the anti-abortion crackpots for making me immune to animal rights. There's something about the intersection between authoritarianism and maudlin sentimentality that brings out the worst in people. The fact that I just don't care, neither about pwecious widdle fetuses nor about pwecious little fur-babies, and continue not to care after being commanded to care, inspires the sort of 'direct action' that makes me so contemptuous of militants for either cause. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 10:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've a question for pro-animal rights. What if this "being bred for slaughter" actually favors the chicken as a population (but at the individual level, it's bad)? Like, the chicken's popularity for consumption and cock fights actually helps expand its population and maybe, MAYBE even diversify the gene pool? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with Smerdis that it is fair to "put humans on a pedestal", but for different reasons, leading to somewhat different conclusions.
First, the reasons for "the human pedestal": Humans possess the ability to reason and empathise to an extent far beyond any other animal. This is why, apart from the basic species preference expressed by Smerdis, I also think that a loss of a human life is generally more of a tragedy than the loss of an(other) animal life. If, for instance, someone runs into a burning building and deliberately chooses to rescue a puppy rather than a child, I would view this as a unethical act.
However, as Uncle Ben (the one from Spider-Man, not the guy with the sauce...) pointed out: "With great power comes great responsibility", which also pertains to our powers of reasoning and empathy. Sharks, to my knowledge, don't and can't empathise or reason and therefore they actually not being "mean to us too," but rather they're simply being instinct driven predators. This is also why male lions taking over a pack and killing the all the cubs are not being "evil" or morally bankrupt, but simply being lions. Hence, you cannot compare instinct driven (non-human) animals ripping foxes to shreds in nature with humans choosing(!) to do the same for sport. Otherwise, you could just as well argue that because people die in accidents all the time, murder is fine, at least if it takes place in something like a Roman arena, featuring gladiators.
Hence, due to our powers of empathy and reasoning we can and should consider such issues as whether we inflict unnecessary suffering on (other) animals and which trade offs we're willing to make in general between animal suffering and human welfare (e.g. the costs of animal welfare vs. costs of human welfare, such as access to affordable food) and this must be done at a societal level.
This societal debate was essentially what happened with fox hunting (along with bull fighting one of the last European "animal blood sports") when society, i.e. the British Parliament, decided that the suffering of foxes was an unnecessarily large trade off in comparison with the human gratification of the small section of society that enjoyed the sport. Foxes are of course still being hunted, just by different means that allow for a quick death, i.e. by shooting. It is no different from the rules on humane(!) slaughter which also leaves the core deed (killing an animal) untouched, but targets the methods by which it is done, thus minimising unnecessary suffering for (non-human) animals without substantially raising the costs to humans. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
One problem is that the terroristic tactics of the animal-rightsery undermines reasonable standards for humane treatment. We're forced to swallow any misgivings and insist on abortion on demand from 0 to 8 months, because compromise with fanatics is impossible, and any compromise just shows weakness and will give rise to a new round of demands for fresh restrictions. For the same reason, it's important to insist on the status of animals as chattel property whose owners can treat them as cruelly as they please. Not because we enjoy the cruelty, but because the vegan zealots will be much crueller to more people, and won't be reasoned with. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't give a hoot about what some ALF, extreme vegan, raw foodie or hard green might think and I don't let their extremism back me into a corner where I have to ignore animal cruelty or whatever, just because of some slippery slope argument that I'll otherwise have to consider the life and welfare of (non-human) animals as being equal to those of humans. The idea that when you face extremists you are obliged to answer with an equal but opposite extremism (at least that's how I read your comment, Smerdis) seems frankly ludicrous to me. I know at least one fairly vociferous vegan (only very peripherally, though), but I simply disregard her attitude and don't let it dictate that I would therefore need to, for instance, eat more meat (I already eat plenty of it...) or that I have to buy solely battery cage eggs. I still will never buy the latter, but I recognise that the society I live in still doesn't consider battery cages (too) inhumane a treatment of animals, even if I personally do. We all have to decide on where we draw the line and when enough agree that it should be moved then societal norms and legislation changes. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If I can do anything at all to spare my country from the rise of something similar to the anti-abortion cult blocking clinics and screaming abuse at the patients, I will do it. In some areas, I'm afraid, animal rights crackpots have gotten that bad. There are apparently areas that would benefit from more drive-by shootings, it seems. Again, there seems to be something uniquely toxic to the mix of authoritarianism and maudlin sentimentality that affects both cults. I suspect it's a reaction to the indifference of the sane, and that to me is a good enough reason to strengthen and cultivate that indifference. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)