No, I’m not kidding. (I know this is all off-topic, but whatever.)
I think it’s hypocritical if you’re offended by the sight of a dog locked in a tiny cage and yet have no problems eating chicken, which are also locked in tiny cages. Either you think that animal suffering is a valid moral concern or you don’t. If you think it is a valid moral concern, then you’re compelled to become vegetarian, since I’m sure your yearly consumption of meat adds more animal suffering to the universe than all the stray dog beatings in Taiwan combined. (Well, if you’re vegetarian in order to reduce the amount of animal suffering in the world, you certainly could make exceptions for animals that do not have the capacity to feel pain.) If you don’t think animal suffering is a concern, then the sight of someone locking up a dog in a tiny cage should be no different to you than the sight of someone locking a carrot in a tiny cage.
Note that I’m not saying whether animal suffering is a valid moral concern or not. I’m a meat-eater myself, so you can guess which side of the equation I fall on, but I respect people who do believe that reducing animal suffering is a noble goal.[/quote]
What you are saying essentially is that if someone doesn’t go 100% into helping they shouldn’t try to help at all. So if someone does a little bit that negatively affects animals than they should turn a blind eye to everything that does? This is stupid. 5% here and 10% there can add up. This kind of mindframe is very detrimental to any cause.