Since when is livestock made to fight to the death, then tortured and hung/drowned/shot/electrocuted if it loses?
If we’re going to make comparisons, then lets keep it equal.
But why bother making comparisons? There will ALWAYS be a bigger fight, but why should that keep people from choosing smaller victories?
Sure I’m more outraged at Michael Vick’s dog torturing than the fighting on the Gaza strip. Why wouldn’t I be?
-My best friend is a dog
-Dogs are innocent
-Dogs cannot fight back
-This fight, meaning the people against Michael Vick, can be won
You can call me a hypocrite if you want, but I am not ashamed that I have a more passionate response to an issue more personal to me. I’m not going to lie and say that I care more about fighting between 2 religious groups on the other side of the world than I do about an American public figure taking part in the torturing of animals. As much as I don’t want to quote Jay Z :hang:
“There’s much bigger problems in the world, I know. But first I have to take care of the world I know.” The world of animals is a lot closer to me than the world of fighting Middle Easterners.
Granted all of this is lip service anyhow, because be it dog fighting or violence in the Middle East, it’s all beyond our personal control and all we’re really arguing is over who gets to feel more virtuous for responding with indignation to which issue. :cjerk: