nazgob wrote:*waits patiently for the resident vegan to provide his valuable insight*
Oh go on then. (copied from my facebook comment when this article was posted to Blood Bowl Community):
I feel like I should weigh in here. I’m in the fairly rare position of being both a devoted tabletop wargamer and a dedicated vegan (which, in case you’re unfamiliar with the term, means someone who strives to reduce the consumption of animal products of any variety as much as is reasonably practicable.) There is nothing anyone in this group, or any other group of any size or influence, that could shake me from this stance. I say this because I do not write this comment as an invitation to debate my own personal ethics. So if you try, I will ignore you.
In case anyone was curious, the things I research before engaging in my favourite hobby are: paintbrushes (sable hair brushes is a result of the fur industry), paints (particularly colourings such as E120 etc), and to a lesser extent plastics (which can contain tallow). A reasonable response for someone in my position would be to buy synthetic brushes and buy chemically created paints. I have trouble avoiding plastic, it would take an extraordinary amount of effort and complication do so, so it is not reasonably practicable to do so. That said, I do prefer metal miniatures, but that’s by-the-by.
So, on to the meat (ahem) of the article. Peta have a reputation of being loud-mouthed, ill-informed holier-than-thou irritants that throw literally anything they can think of to argue their points. While this is true in some instances, their overall stance is one that many people can sympathise with. They have done good stuff in the past (raising awareness of animal testing in cosmetics in the 90s, for example), but that isn’t to say everything they say and do is the right stance.
Most people are anti-fur/meat/milk etc because of the inherent cruelty necessary for such a market to exist in today’s enormous market. It’s rare that you’ll find someone like me getting angry at someone that keeps chickens in their garden, but more as a protest to industrial scale production and usage of animal products.
As a result, we tend to avoid it as much as we can, so we can feel we are not participating in a system we disagree with. We avoid leather, wool, all meat, cheese, dairy, honey, silk… it’s a big list.
With that being said, it is churlish to ignore that our system of life is the only way. While I dislike the notion of fishing, I understand there are small communities on the planet that don’t have the luxury (and it is a luxury) of choice. Without the use of furs etc nomadic Mongolian communities would have to disappear, which is sad.
I enjoy fantasy books as well as books about history. While I would not wear fur myself, I can still enjoy stories about those that do. No animals would be harmed if I write a story about a butcher that hunts deer. I would be wholly surprised if I ever found anyone that was directly influenced by such a story to follow in his footsteps. Just because I read about a cult of chaos flaying themselves in honour of a higher power, doesn’t mean I will. When I read about an ogre maneater devouring a villager, doesn’t mean I will. And when I see Leman Russ wearing the skin of a wolf, it doesn’t mean I’m going to go hunting in the artic for my own skin-cloak.
The context is wholly different, the suffering is nonexistant, and the lifestyle I live is not belittled by my enjoyment of such a model, character, story, idea, myth, aesthetic, or piece of artwork.
/Rant
TL;DR a small plastic fella with a fur cloak =/= approving of animal exploitation.
