Mixed Morality
Discussion
I was in London at the weekend, aimlessly wandering down Regent Street gawping through various shop windows. On my way back to the Oxford Circus tube, I went past the newly opened Canada Goose flagship store and decided to pop in for a quick look around. All very well-presented and full of people who I suspect I wouldn't get on with in most social situations. Anyway, I digress...
When I entered the store there weren't any animal rights protestors outside. When I left the store, there were a lot of them, armed with leaflets, laptops, shouting and loudhailers. They were peacefully (if noisily) protesting about the use of fur and down in CG's products, which is fair enough. Having a right to protest is important and one of the more fun parts of living in a democracy.
However, when I got home I decided to do a little more research into their cause and discovered that in the previous week the CG store had been done over by one of the moped gangs, who had had several thousand pounds worth of gear away on their toes. The protestors were delighted by this news and actively reveling in their loss.
The thought occurred that this is a bit wrong. Not only will the loss be insured, so the store hasn't really lost anything, but also that the stock will have to be replaced, which lead to more production of what the protestors are against. Also, at what point does the self-perceived morally right (the protestors) actively support, encourage and delight in theft, particularly when its performed by one of these much talked about moped gangs.
For the sake of disclosure, I own a few CG items but don't have a strong opinion on the use of fur or down. On the one hand you have CG saying their methods of procurement are legit and regulated and on the other hand you have PETA and SURGE saying they're the most barbaric killings since the dark ages. I suspect the truth may be somewhere between the two.
So really, I'm just wondering where the moral line is for most people and how many moral compasses do actually point at true north and how many may need a little calibration.
When I entered the store there weren't any animal rights protestors outside. When I left the store, there were a lot of them, armed with leaflets, laptops, shouting and loudhailers. They were peacefully (if noisily) protesting about the use of fur and down in CG's products, which is fair enough. Having a right to protest is important and one of the more fun parts of living in a democracy.
However, when I got home I decided to do a little more research into their cause and discovered that in the previous week the CG store had been done over by one of the moped gangs, who had had several thousand pounds worth of gear away on their toes. The protestors were delighted by this news and actively reveling in their loss.
The thought occurred that this is a bit wrong. Not only will the loss be insured, so the store hasn't really lost anything, but also that the stock will have to be replaced, which lead to more production of what the protestors are against. Also, at what point does the self-perceived morally right (the protestors) actively support, encourage and delight in theft, particularly when its performed by one of these much talked about moped gangs.
For the sake of disclosure, I own a few CG items but don't have a strong opinion on the use of fur or down. On the one hand you have CG saying their methods of procurement are legit and regulated and on the other hand you have PETA and SURGE saying they're the most barbaric killings since the dark ages. I suspect the truth may be somewhere between the two.
So really, I'm just wondering where the moral line is for most people and how many moral compasses do actually point at true north and how many may need a little calibration.
It has always been thus. Those most strongly opposed to one thing are generally exponents of something strongly opposed by someone else.
Anti-abortion types who are so vehemently opposed to the killing of unborn children that they will murder doctors who carry out the proceedure.
Same thing with animal rights/feminism/any one of a million other things that generally smelly, not overly bright types tend to gravitate toward.
And before anyone says it, it's been going on donkeys years and is absolutely nothing to do with (and I shudder even to type this) 'entitled Millennials'
Anti-abortion types who are so vehemently opposed to the killing of unborn children that they will murder doctors who carry out the proceedure.
Same thing with animal rights/feminism/any one of a million other things that generally smelly, not overly bright types tend to gravitate toward.
And before anyone says it, it's been going on donkeys years and is absolutely nothing to do with (and I shudder even to type this) 'entitled Millennials'
Rawwr said:
Bit harsh. Bit unfair. I'm sure they don't all meet the stereotype.
The following post is a very gentle jibe. Read it in your best 'condescending primary school teacher' voice and we'll remain friends.Would it help if I wrote 'generally' in slightly larger lettering? Would a link to an online dictionary for all the big words assist you, do you think?
ferrariF50lover said:
It has always been thus. Those most strongly opposed to one thing are generally exponents of something strongly opposed by someone else.
Well we don't call them extremists because they're the tolerant and understanding sort.Some people just cant see how they sabotage their own causes by going to such extremes, given how bad their causes are I guess its for the best in most cases.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff