Alright, so I read this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/...pphu-container
Here's what I wrote on it (I rarely bother on yahoo comments since most posters are.. comical to say the least but I said "hey, why not?" lol)- started out with vegetarian/vegan viewpoint since it seemed a lot were backing this ban and the example worked well imo:
To clarify my point I had to write this since some people couldn't grasp my point and instead said I either "made no sense" or "I am stupid"For those that are vegetarians/vegans here:
The thing is, you don't eat animals but I do. However, I won't force you to eat meat (and I have no right to)- why should anyone have the right to take away what I eat?
Apply this to bull fighting and many other things as well-
I do not support animal cruelty, but I do not support outright bans of common practices or traditions.
However, I do support responsible regulation/ comprimise, not a ban in favor of one extreme vs another.:
Anyway I'm just looking for opinions on this for fun so let's keep it friendly folksFor example not being allowed to draw blood or inflict injury upon the animal. How they'd do it after such a regulation was in place is up to them not us.
My point is that comprimise would have worked best here.
Reply With Quote