Be careful not to let the fact that there's so much to be angry about regarding animal abuse turn you into a fundamentally angry person.
Conversation
Replying to
1
Replying to
to me, the weird claim is the idea that people get more rational and compassionate when the harm and advocacy are intermediated
1
Replying to
they get less so, which is precisely why the advocates have to turn it around I think.
2
Replying to
people will have decency to feel guilt/shame when an actual victim rages verbally at them.
2
Replying to
I’m not saying that more anger is the right tactic at all, but the question is whether dRights/dAdvocateAnger is + or -
1
Replying to
positive briefly then negative. It's an excuse to ignore them.
1
Show replies
Replying to
seems clearly + to me, but not because or the instrumentality of anger
1
Replying to
I think this will be put to the test in about 20 years, one way or another.
1


