Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Weatherlight Is it not worthwhile to put some thought into the respect of animals? Cats are the animal species killed most in my country due to homelessness. Millions per year in the US. How many billions of animals in the US do you think are slaughtered for meat, fur, leather, etc? I can't judge which does more good for the world--mindlessly petting a few homeless cats for a few hours vs pondering personal decisions regarding one's animal-based property. The cats will be happier for a while (assuming, you know...). The decision may result in some less support for animal slaughter. I think whoever does which, it is spending time related to helping animals, and in amounts that can't accurately be measured, so I won't vote in a competition. |
I totally agree with this. I've been aching to link this quote ever since I stumbled across it a few weeks ago, so it might not be totally applicable, but I think this goes back to the whole AR vs AW debate and the issue of people who are concerned for animals fighting with each other instead of trying to accomplish something.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
-- Henry David Thoreau
It shouldn't be a competition, because philosophical analysis and soap-box pontification have tremendous value and can potentially help change individual or collective thinking. In this sense, it's more important to write books, give speeches, and promote ideas than it is to visit cats in a shelter. People who choose to be vegan and aren't ashamed to talk about it at any given moment, but who aren't particularly active in hands-on activities like rescuing animals and volunteering at shelters still have a lot to contribute. At the same time, people who choose to visit those cats shouldn't be judged negatively for it, because they're still doing something positive and not doing anything detrimental to the cause.