Where do you draw the line?
I like the idéa of veganism in principle, and I've listened to people like Earthling Ed who argues very good and is extreamly well spoken. But as far as I'm concerned, you draw the line on not eating animal products and not using animal materials for clothes?
If the general idea is to reduce suffering of animals, would I need to figure out every brand in the store to know which is more ethical, if no, why not? And if no, how would that be different from having to figure out how to cook good tasting vegan recipes to make it sustainable in the long run. Isnt it just time spent on research and learning and the end justifys it?
The reasonable vegans as I consider them say that veganism is the way when you have a choice and indiginous people etc do it for survival. But why are they cut some slack on things because of culture and westerners are not? Many vegans argue say "well oh well yes we have eated meat historically, but tradition is not an argument since we have had bad traditions and we can evolve" Okay. Why can't we bring the same attitude towards them? And I understand some really militant vegans probably think we should do that, force them to live in modern society and teach them vegan values and logic so that they actually are able to engage in it. But to you who dont think we should force for example the Inu in Candada, or tribes in africa etc to adapt into society, why? Where do you draw the line that a culture should or dont need to change for the animals? And again why would I not need to check all the items at the store all the time otherwise I am a hypocrite. And if I dont need too check all items which probably alot of vegans dont and thus potentially cause more harm that needed, what is the arguement for saying that your amount of reduced suffering (since yes it would still be less that engaging in animal consuption), which is not all the way, gets a pass but others dont, how do you quantify it to being "enough"?
This doesnt make any sense to me. I understand wanting to reduce suffering, and you say you have the moral obligation to do what you can, but how far do we push that line and why? If you dont do it the entireeee way then doesnt the whole idea collapse on itself, since you are a hypocrite who says you do it for the animals "but not all the animals" just as meat eaters do it for some animals but not all of them.
Cheers.