Quote:
|
Unless you are completely vegan, do not take any medicine, wear any makeup, and refuse to shop at many retailers, you are still supporting animal cruelty in one way or another.
|
Actually, even if you do all that, you're still causing some animal suffering and death. It's physically impossible to literally live without harming animals. Of course, this doesn't mean you should live with the attitude of "**** it, if I can't save everything then I might as well torture and kill whoever I feel like."
How has this arrogance been detected? What sorts of things do people say? Are you interpreting tone online, or have you talked to groups of activists face to face?
As for making some people feel like their current efforts are inadequate, in two words: they are. In the case of neglecting guinea pigs, no matter how much you sugarcoat, the message is still plain: "You need to do x and y better. Your current standard of care is unfair to your
cavies." No one likes hearing this, as far as I know. And I've given up on "nice" ways of saying "you neglect your dependents," "you're an animal abuser," "you kill animals by doing this," "you're supporting child slavery when you buy that," or "you're only saying that because you haven't learned about the subject." I was never good at sugarcoating, anyway :P Half the time I tried, people told me I sound condescending! So I'll be honest and just hope they don't hate me. And most importantly, hope they take something good from it.
It also bothers me when people act personally superior to others, especially when their reasoning is fallacious and/or based on lies. But take even an extreme example--Person 1 takes excellent care of hir gpigs and loves them very much, eats factory farmed products every day, buys personal care products tested on animals, delights in stomping insects and spiders, and beats hir dogs frequently. Person 2 doesn't take care of hir gpigs, but is kind, well-intentioned, vegan, and loves and takes wonderful care of hir dogs. Person 1 tells Person 2 that they really
need to get decent food, improve housing, take the pigs to a vet, etc. If anyone decides that Person 2 must be doing a great job after all because Person 1 is horrible, they're the ones who are wrong. And when you tell Person 1 to stop talking like that, and that they are wrong because of all the other things they do, there's a name for that: ad hominem tu quoque.
At least when discussing things like
cavy care, why can't people all just talk facts, logic, behavior, and plans of actions, and give up on gossip, ad hominem, and constant comparisons of who is better in what way?