it is not "my" way or "our" way that is at issue but rather the fundamental questions of morals, ethics, violence and non-violence. when one has a choice in the matter, is not doing less harm always better than doing more harm? just as i do not consider myself superior for choosing not to harm or kill other humans or puppies and kittens, but instead look at it as the minimum standard of decency of not treating others the way i would not wish to be treated.

anyone who supports the killing of non-human animals is only looking at things from the human perspective-i.e. that of the oppressor. just as in the case of any form of violence and exploitation, the foundation of all of the false justifications against veganism are based on ignoring any consideration of the victims point of view. this is all too easy when one is not a victim of oppression themselves.

it is truly a very sad thing when mercy, compassion and empathy are considered as extreme while supporting torture, cruelty and death in the name of pleasure and profit is considered as normal and a matter of personal choice.

“For hundreds of thousands of years the stew in the pot has brewed hatred and resentment that is difficult to stop. If you wish to know why there are disasters of armies and weapons in the world, listen to the piteous cries from the slaughter house at midnight.”- Ancient Chinese verse

My comment wasn't telling you to have more personal involvement, or criticising you for a lack of empathy. Just pointing out a possible reason as to why you would blithely attach "EIA" to something which is another form of human tragedy. ; )

@Asmo , @enoch , @Jinx --

I appreciate what you're saying and I know that I *should* feel the way(s) you suggest. ...But I have a hard time actually getting there.

At some point, we are all responsible for our own actions, and the consequences of our own actions. Even though these people may not have any of the sort of opportunities that I take for granted, even though circumstances well outside of their control might push them into the direction of addiction, at some point they made a choice to start up with this crap. And they make a choice to continue with the drugs, even if the physical and mental addiction makes it nearly impossible for them to choose anything else.

There's a lot of problems in the world. There's a lot of people who unjustly have to contend with major problems that are absolutely 100% in no way their fault. Addicts are at least partially at fault for getting themselves into the mess that they are in. That puts them way down the line on my empathy list, that's all I'm saying.

Asmo said "To fix a problem, you first have to understand it. That does not require sympathy or empathy." That in particular helps me look at the issue from a different angle. Just because addiction is not a problem on my personal priority list, I 100% agree that it *is* a problem, and it is a problem that affects *me* also, indirectly if not directly. I live in a society of people, and helping each individual person in the society can help *everyone* in the society.

The war on drugs and its approach of mass incarceration, etc. pretty clearly doesn't work well to alleviate the problem. The part of me that (mostly jokingly, but not entirely) would tag this as EIA might be happy to take the approach of letting these people all shoot themselves up with krokodil or whatever else until they kill themselves. But rationally, I know that wouldn't fix anything. I'm not convinced that it would be worse than the war on drugs, but it definitely wouldn't be ideal.

So rationally, I know that social systems to help people break those addictions and whatever situations or psychological problems contributed to them are probably the optimal solution, from a society-wide sort of view. But I don't want to be at the front lines of any of that myself, because I think that it *does* require some empathy to the situation to be an effective contributor there, and I simply recognize that I personally can't scrounge any up.

So by all means, STOP taking my tax dollars and spending them on the war on drugs, and START spending them on social programs that experts and scientists who study addiction believe will do a better job of actually fixing the problem. But that's the extent of the personal involvement that I want to have.

I suspect that how a viewer considers the sincerity of these men may correlate to the empathy a viewer has. Just a guess although i could be completely wrong. I'm no psychologist although i find i'm playing one constantly I for one assumed this was extremely uncomfortable to do regardless of cameras.

I do not mean to be rude, but the reason why you're feeling no empathy is because you assume that drug addiction is a choice that people make, turning away from better and brighter options and choosing the short road to an early death.

It isn't. It's generally a result of inability to deal with life, a job, trauma from their past etc. It is a result of social systems which allow people to sink to the point they need an escape. Look at any mental ward, most of the inmates (if allowed) will smoke. Same with various anon groups, smoking/coffee etc are almost encouraged as an alternate addiction to the one that will put them in a grave far earlier.

Addiction is a crutch, a way of escaping from something else.

The work by Carl Hart on addiction provides a lot of proof that when given social interaction and ways to reintegrate with society, addicts can and do have the fortitude to get off drugs. And that most drug addicts are fully functional, and drugs are a way for them to cope with the stresses or lack of control in their life.

http://www.drcarlhart.com/

To fix a problem, you first have to understand it. That does not require sympathy or empathy. That is basic science and it's based on evidence. That the DEA is freaking out over krokodil is because they don't understand that drug abuse in the US is a factor of the social situation people find themselves in. At least for the classes of people that will use a cheap and dangerous drug (not to put too fine a point on it, predominately black). It would not be unexpected that because of the supposed danger, users found with krokodil may end up with far harsher sentences than heroin users. Soaring African-American incarceration rates again?

Funny how we never see videos like this over oxycodone or cocaine abusers, or housewifes who will pop whatever prescription they can get their hands on. They are no less addicted, but it's a nice, clean, acceptable addiction that allows them to stumble on through life. Is that EIA?

This is important. Especially, I find, on matters of religion. Many christians will say that being a christian is part of their identity. Not simply an opinion they hold, but part of what makes them who they are.

Convincing someone to discard that belief should be done with care and empathy.

I can't invoke channels, but I propose EIA.

And I know this is terrible, but frankly if there is any segment of the global population that we can collectively benefit from "evolving away from", it is idiots like this that inject shit like Krokodil into themselves until they are removed from the gene pool.

Very hard for me to feel any empathy for such people. Maybe I'd feel differently if I personally knew any addicts ... but I'm not sure even that would help.

OK, it was poorly said, and yes Bill's getting hyperbolic in his old age, but I think the sentiment is correct.
Every time you coddle a child (at the expense of the public) and make it think the world revolves around it and other people don't matter, you take a step towards creating a narcissist with no empathy like Drumpf. That's bad for them and us.
One instance of non-parenting does not a Trump make, but a consistent pattern can.
I actually took an interest in food at about 4years old when my parents sent me to jr cooking class. Pigs in a blanket, crepes, and cherry tarts, so simplistic cooking, but it got my interest in food started.
I also constantly questioned my teachers, but I did it because I wanted to know the why of what they just said, not because I thought I knew better than they did....usually.

Please allow me to disagree on all points.....

1) Humans are absolutely animals. Some may have the mentality of vegetables or minerals, but they are still animals.

2)Instinct can be difficult to ignore, and dangerous to ignore as well. Instincts developed because they helped our ancestors survive better than those who did not possess them. Those that had less developed instincts, didn't have them at all, or ignored them died off.

3)Not all people have a conscience (or lack an ability to experience empathy...essentially the same thing), sociopaths and psychopaths for instance usually lack one at all, and many of those that DO have one consistently and intentionally ignore it.

4)I don't believe there have been psychological experiments on lions to see if they really experience empathy or have a 'conscience' or not...and I'm not at all sure what one would look like. Simply stating that other animals don't have empathy does not make it so.
For example, people have said for eons that dogs don't have emotions, but that's simply wrong, and nothing more than a self serving excuse to abuse them and ignore their needs. Actual study and brain scans have proven they DO have the same type of reactions in their brains that humans do to emotional stimuli, conclusively proving the claims that they don't have emotions false...lions could be the same, simply unstudied rather than emotionless/lacking empathy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've always thought this was true. However, using my empathy, I can see it from their view - that they think liberals are OVER-empathetic, to a fault.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Then, we'll finally have true empathy, as we feel the pain of others like it's our own. We'll turn our collective mind to the true work of man, build a space elevator and begin colonising the galaxy.

your stance about veganism is very similar to the climate deniers in that you choose to buy into myths and lies as opposed to looking into the facts youself. the documentary i posted considers the issues of local, and so called "small" farms also. they are no more humane or less cruel than so called "factory farming" and are every but as inefficient and environmentally devastating. "factory farming" is a mere symptom and the root cause is the commodification of sentient non-human animals, just as in the past humans used to commodify other human beings of certain races. for example here is an article on the myth of "humane" animal farming: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/factory-farming-alternative-farming/

the fact that climate change is driven in large part but the raising of non-human animals for food is without question a well documented fact. the human population is without a doubt a major factor but above this issue is the fact that it requires MANY times the resources to produce on calorie of flesh, dairy or eggs than it does to produce one calorie of plant based food. are you aware that in the USA, around 80% of crops grown are fed to the 10 billion farmed animals who are murdered every year for food? it has been estimated that 800 million humans could be fed on the crops which are grown for farmed animals alone. these issues are also gone into detail in the documentary.

as far as "tugging on your heart strings" goes, how is having compassion and empathy for anyone who suffers a bad thing? no one would be questioning it if the victims were human children but since they are "only" cows, pigs chickens and fishes (all of whom feel pain just like you or i do, perhaps even more so), suddenly violence against them is considered a matter of personal choice. the bottom line is that if you would not wish to expeience something yourself, it is never moral or ethical to force others to experience it, especially not in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

finally, here is a quote which i think best summarizes the situation:
“Aren’t humans amazing? They kill wildlife – birds, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice and foxes by the million in order to protect their domestic animals and their feed. Then they kill domestic animals by the billion and eat them. This in turn kills people by the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – health conditions like heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, and cancer. So then humans spend billions of dollars torturing and killing millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, few people recognize the absurdity of humans, who kill so easily and violently, and once a year send out cards praying for “Peace on Earth.”~ David Coates