Debate Mansion

   

Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral? (Page 3)

Post Reply New Post

Page 3 of 15

raunaq

IF-Sizzlerz

raunaq

Joined: 10 October 2006

Posts: 12011

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 5:26pm | IP Logged
not again! Cry Cry Cry i thought many of you agreed on non veg as hypocrites looks like we are steering back from where we started Wacko

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral? (Page 3)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 6:17pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

someone fighting for women's rights,you have to be a woman for that? or men do go and do a gender change?

The question is whether it's moral to be a non-vegetarian and yet advocate love for animals. No one is asking them to live like the animals do. If they ill treat women in their personal life then how can they be allowed to fight for women's rights.

It is not a question of morals, it is a question of can you have both the feelings, having a passion for something and able to live your life the way you want to

If their passion and their way of life contradicts each other then doesn't that become hipocrisy.

It would be hypocritic if the human every did any harm to any other living being, if that the defination all humans are hypoctices, if that the case no human is allowed to be a animal activistWink

A non-vegetarian doesn't harm an animal??Confused

did I say that, you said thatLOL

We are not talking about being hypocrites, we are talking about serving the cause in whichever is the best way the person feels suitable 

So, if a person feels that by supporting animal activists he's serving the cause but doesn't want to cause inconvenience to his personal lifestyle by turning vegetarian then it's acceptable.Confused If a person wants to support anti-fur campaigners to serve a purpose but doesn't want to stop using fur in his/her life, should that be acceptable too.

not personal lifestyle maintain his/her livelihood, fur is a luxory

when you sympathize about orphan children and want to do something about them, do you go and adopt one? if you cant, you donate money for the charity

It's not about whether it should be mandatory for every animal activist to keep a pet. If someone exploits orphaned children to serve their purpose then should they be allowed to be an activist for the orphaned.

You are missing the point, Animal activists feel for the animal, the way a person would feel for the orphans.

But if their feelings suddenly get lost at their dinner table then what's the point.

If that is the case, why only food, and if that the case, no human will be allowed to be animal activitist, you do what you can for the cause

Do all pujari's have to be sin-free before preaching?

If we've knowledge about some sins committed by the pujari which are in total contradiction to his preachings then would we take him seriously. If someone is preaching about loving animals and yet have no qualms about culling them and putting them on their dinner plate then ain't they contradicting themselves.

The whole original post of the thread is based upon  practice/be(veg) what you preach, so if that the case, is the pujari sin free? and the examples all of them become valid.

The pujari tries to practice as he preaches at LOLleastLOL conciously. If some of his actions are in contradiction to his preachings or if he commits some sin then as I said no one will take him seriously.

Dancing around the logic arent we, or you want to giveLOL

Can you be more clear as to what was so funny about the word 'least'.

yep you are on the side which says all or nothing, I am on the side which says, you can be both, and you are negating your all or nothing by using "at least"

when you do a noble cause, you do what you can

What I have understood so far from your argument is, it's fair to join and support a group fighting against certain practices even if they follow similar practices in their personal life just because s/he's trying to serve a purpose.

As long as they need it to be alive, food is a neccesary item, dont we think so?

Let us make it simple Humans did not get to the top of the food chain by being nice to living beings, now some developed a conscience they stopped eating some living beings, some started caring for what happens to other living beings

Why does it have to be if you care for other living beings, dont harm them or eat them

Note: I am using the term living beingsWink 

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 6:20pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by raunaq

not again! Cry Cry Cry i thought many of you agreed on non veg as hypocrites looks like we are steering back from where we started Wacko

all non-veg are hypocrites?

uh hello personal attackBroken Heart

just jokingLOLWink



Edited by sareg - 03 April 2007 at 6:21pm

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13885

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 7:36pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

someone fighting for women's rights,you have to be a woman for that? or men do go and do a gender change?

The question is whether it's moral to be a non-vegetarian and yet advocate love for animals. No one is asking them to live like the animals do. If they ill treat women in their personal life then how can they be allowed to fight for women's rights.

It is not a question of morals, it is a question of can you have both the feelings, having a passion for something and able to live your life the way you want to

If their passion and their way of life contradicts each other then doesn't that become hipocrisy.

It would be hypocritic if the human every did any harm to any other living being, if that the defination all humans are hypoctices, if that the case no human is allowed to be a animal activistWink

A non-vegetarian doesn't harm an animal??Confused

did I say that, you said thatLOL

Yes we all do say something don't we. So, it'll be much appreciated if you say your's clearly. You said that the animal activist would be an hypocrite if s/he ever did any harm to another living being and yet you think non-vegetarian animal activists are not hypocrites. So, what are you trying to say, non-vegetarians don't harm animals or is it you didn't say that but I'm saying it for you again.

We are not talking about being hypocrites, we are talking about serving the cause in whichever is the best way the person feels suitable 

So, if a person feels that by supporting animal activists he's serving the cause but doesn't want to cause inconvenience to his personal lifestyle by turning vegetarian then it's acceptable.Confused If a person wants to support anti-fur campaigners to serve a purpose but doesn't want to stop using fur in his/her life, should that be acceptable too.

not personal lifestyle maintain his/her livelihood, fur is a luxory

And how is being a non-vegetarian related to one's livelihood.

when you sympathize about orphan children and want to do something about them, do you go and adopt one? if you cant, you donate money for the charity

It's not about whether it should be mandatory for every animal activist to keep a pet. If someone exploits orphaned children to serve their purpose then should they be allowed to be an activist for the orphaned.

You are missing the point, Animal activists feel for the animal, the way a person would feel for the orphans.

But if their feelings suddenly get lost at their dinner table then what's the point.

If that is the case, why only food, and if that the case, no human will be allowed to be animal activitist, you do what you can for the cause

Do all pujari's have to be sin-free before preaching?

If we've knowledge about some sins committed by the pujari which are in total contradiction to his preachings then would we take him seriously. If someone is preaching about loving animals and yet have no qualms about culling them and putting them on their dinner plate then ain't they contradicting themselves.

The whole original post of the thread is based upon  practice/be(veg) what you preach, so if that the case, is the pujari sin free? and the examples all of them become valid.

The pujari tries to practice as he preaches at LOLleastLOL conciously. If some of his actions are in contradiction to his preachings or if he commits some sin then as I said no one will take him seriously.

Dancing around the logic arent we, or you want to giveLOL

Can you be more clear as to what was so funny about the word 'least'.

yep you are on the side which says all or nothing, I am on the side which says, you can be both, and you are negating your all or nothing by using "at least"

I negated nothing, read the next word and you'll find 'conciously' the opposite of which is 'unconciously' or 'without concious knowledge'.

when you do a noble cause, you do what you can

What I have understood so far from your argument is, it's fair to join and support a group fighting against certain practices even if they follow similar practices in their personal life just because s/he's trying to serve a purpose.

As long as they need it to be alive, food is a neccesary item, dont we think so?

Let us make it simple Humans did not get to the top of the food chain by being nice to living beings, now some developed a conscience they stopped eating some living beings, some started caring for what happens to other living beings

Why does it have to be if you care for other living beings, dont harm them or eat them

Because noone can preach what they don't practice. Or are you talking about something like selective type of caring, I care for some and I eat some.

Note: I am using the term living beingsWink 

mermaid_QT

IF-Sizzlerz

mermaid_QT

Joined: 25 September 2005

Posts: 11613

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 8:06pm | IP Logged
SOURO, I am with you on this topic.

I am sick of those people who come by and protest against raising animals whose scarifice goes into making drugs even  for these individuals, many a times rented at 9 hr / hr to protest LOL LOL LOL .

I have nothing against non-vegetarians who speak against violence / torture of animals. They are not hypocrites.  I am one of them.

Only those hampering research while gobbling down quarter pound burgers should be told to shut up!

qt

Edited by mermaid_QT - 03 April 2007 at 8:07pm

raunaq

IF-Sizzlerz

raunaq

Joined: 10 October 2006

Posts: 12011

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 8:10pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by mermaid_QT


SOURO, I am with you on this topic.

I am sick of those people who come by and protest against raising animals whose scarifice goes into making drugs even for these individuals, many a times rented at 9 hr / hr to protest LOL LOL LOL .

I have nothing against non-vegetarians who speak against violence / torture of animals. They are not hypocrites.
I am one of them.
Only those hampering research while gobbling down quarter pound burgers should be told to shut up!

qt


Thumbs Up true LOL LOL LOL

ani11

IF-Sizzlerz

ani11

Joined: 13 October 2005

Posts: 14996

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 9:02pm | IP Logged
Are we supposed to be sympathetic towards the animals that eat other animals like a cat eating up a cute bunny... Embarrassed

raunaq

IF-Sizzlerz

raunaq

Joined: 10 October 2006

Posts: 12011

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 9:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by ani11

Are we supposed to be sympathetic towards the animals that eat other animals like a cat eating up a cute bunny... Embarrassed


the whole ecosystem is based on some being the predators and some the victims. humans are on top of the food chain. there is this system in ecosystem. there are animals who will eat animals and there are animals who will eat plants. humans choice is to choose to be herbivore or carnivore but if animals stop eating animals or plants, and same goes for human, imagine the population of some of the animals flooding and whole ecosystem will be disturbed. same goes for the extinct animals. people who work for the cause of abused animals or extinct animals and are non veg i dont see any problem in it.

Edited by raunaq - 03 April 2007 at 9:09pm

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
In wake of SKS: censorship/moral responsibility? --arti-- 9 668 12 August 2009 at 6:04pm
By angelic_devil
Animal Captivity - Sad ?

2 3

raj5000 21 1153 30 December 2007 at 12:42pm
By ~globetrotter~
Fashion or Animal cruelty Swar_Raj 9 831 05 October 2007 at 8:50am
By Swar_Raj
Soldiers killing is moral?

2

raj5000 15 759 02 October 2007 at 10:28pm
By sareg
Moral Inspector of TV? realitybites 8 532 07 February 2007 at 12:13pm
By realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.