We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
In the mess hall, it's a similar story. The menu is packed with non-vegetarian options like goat, lamb, chicken, and fish almost every day of the week. This heavy presence of meat doesn't seem to bother the same students who are vocally against animal cruelty in other contexts. The vegetarian options, on the other hand, are often of such poor quality that I've seen people give up vegetarianism due to the lack of choices and willpower to endure it for five years.
This selective activism seems to be a reflection of the dominant woke liberal ideology at NALSAR. While this ideology promotes social justice and equality, it often comes with its own set of contradictions, especially regarding animal rights. The selective compassion these students show likely mirrors broader societal tendencies to prioritize certain issues based on cultural and ideological leanings.
Personally, I find this kind of selective animal welfare activism pretty troubling. I believe all animals deserve the same level of care and respect, whether they're dogs, cats, or any other creature. The selective empathy on display at NALSAR highlights a bigger problem within modern activist movements: the tendency to let cultural and ideological biases dictate which causes to champion, rather than adopting a consistent, universal approach to treating all animals ethically. The real challenge is to encourage a more comprehensive and inclusive view of animal rights, one that goes beyond these selective concerns and embraces compassion for all animals equally.
What Do Others Think?
To broaden the perspective on this issue, I'd love to hear views from students and faculty at other law schools. Do you observe similar patterns of selective activism on your campuses? How do you reconcile advocacy for animal rights with dietary choices and attitudes towards different animals? Is there a more consistent approach to animal welfare activism that can be adopted? Let's open the floor for discussion and learn from each other's experiences and viewpoints. Don't want irrational responses, back your responses with a good logic.
I honestly think a lot of that culture is built by how faculty use students for their own purposes. How they indoctrinate students into having their blindspots. All faculty- yes even your favorite one. the way the curriculum is designed in many courses including constitutional law, legal methods, law and poverty , is all so slanted its quite disturbing- you arent even learning important literature in that field anymore. I'm on the left generally and happy to go along, but I have never been more uncomfortable with all the equivocation and memory holing and obfuscation that the left does than when I was at NALSAR. I think the reason the atmosphere is so charged is because there is such a bias among faculty toward the left, and that leads to resentment and bias among mostly male students on the right, and that polarises the whole student community. People wont talk to each other or make friends outside their clique. Why go to university if you dont want to develop your thinking or meet people different than you?
Basically you have to choose teams and ignore all the mistakes your team makes. We're not there to be academics and think carefully, we're in the middle of nowhere and you need a tribe to survive, so pick a tribe and dont rock the boat.
This all has been happening for ages. This is how nalsar will always be. I suggest you spend very little time thinking about nalsars internal politics, focus on improving your mind and skills anyway you can, and get out into the world as much as possible.
Moreover, I'm concerned about why this post is being tagged as trollish when it raises a serious issue. Are diverse viewpoints not welcome in this forum? Isn't the goal to encourage thoughtful discourse rather than living in echo chambers?
I found debating society to be a refuge to the charged political atmosphere. If youre challenging yourself to argue a side you dont believe in pretty regularly, and you surround yourself with similar folks, that led to a lot of growth and discovery for me.I dont know if the debsoc is still that place on campus or no. Hopefully you will find some place that will do the same for you.
I dont know why its marked trollish. Mods here are completely captured by ideology.
Firstly, the so-called "woke liberal ideology" if anything supports staunch veganism using the exact same logic you do. ( using woke in an idiotic manner is probably what got you marked trollish, but thats just speculation on my part )
Secondly, while there is nothing wrong with your perspective, others may have different perspectives - for example, they may believe that some animals are less intelligent/sapient and thus it's fine to eat them, they may believe that it's fine to eat all animals but we shouldn't mistreat them for no reason; they might even only support animals which they think are cute ( a little hypocritical and emotional yes, but your response imo is also unnecessarily vitriolic and is jumping to conclusions a little bit too far)
also note that mice are a much greater health and safety risk than dogs and cats, though even with those there are of course risks
It is true that many supporters of progressive ideologies (Woke liberal as originally referred in the post) advocate for veganism, but my point was about the inconsistency in applying these values. It's contradictory to vocally champion animal rights while participating in practices involving animal cruelty, like eating meat or supporting events where animals are killed. This selective empathy undermines the goal of universal compassion for all animals.
Moreover, I understand that people have different views on animal intelligence and which animals deserve protection. However, the idea that some animals are less sapient and thus okay to eat is ethically problematic. The capacity to suffer, not intelligence, should be the criterion for moral consideration. By this standard, causing unnecessary suffering to any sentient being is unethical. Promoting the reduction of animal suffering logically leads to reconsidering one's dietary choices.
Furthermore, the health and safety risks posed by mice are valid concerns, but we should still use humane practices to address them. Humane traps and deterrents can manage rodent populations without causing unnecessary suffering. Treating animals differently based on their perceived nuisance value or cuteness reflects a biased approach to animal rights, which I argue against.
Animal Rights Activists Who Eat Meat
It's true that some animal activists are not vegetarians. However, this doesn't negate the argument for a more consistent and ethical approach to animal welfare. Advocating for the humane treatment of animals while consuming them presents a moral or ethical inconsistency that many animal rights advocates, including Peter Singer and Tom Regan, have critiqued. The ultimate goal of animal rights activism should be to minimize suffering and promote compassion across all species.
My intention is not to be confrontational but to challenge the inconsistencies in our approaches to animal rights and advocate for a more comprehensive ethical stance.
In my view, the theory of the food cycle no longer applies as humans are now sufficiently equipped to choose ethical dietary habits. If we haven't created an animal, what gives us the right to end their life?
I just watched a video by Robin Singh (PFA the aforementioned link) from Peepal Farm. Robin, who is an animal rescuer, vegan, and promoter of organic farming, shared his thoughts on Bakrid (Eid al-Adha), which is today, June 16, 2024. His message highlighted the problem with millions of goats and other cattle sacrificed during this religious festival, sparking a timely discussion about animal rights.
It's crucial to recognize that this issue isn't confined to any one religion. In India, many people, including a large number of Hindus, consume meat. This widespread practice highlights the broader challenge of advocating for animal rights in a society where meat-eating is common. Therefore, this comment should not be considered coming from a religious perspective. Animal rights is a universal cause that goes beyond religion, taste preferences, protein needs, and income sources. The philosophy of ahimsa, or non-violence, is deeply ingrained in Indian culture (something that should not be limited to any particular religion) and supports extending compassion to all living beings.
Philosopher Peter Singer, in his work "Animal Liberation," argues for considering animals' interests based on their capacity to suffer, not just their utility to humans. His utilitarian perspective challenges the moral justification for practices that cause animal suffering, such as factory farming and ritual slaughter.
Moreover, treating animals ethically aligns with broader environmental and health benefits. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization has pointed out the significant environmental impact of livestock farming, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution. Transitioning to a plant-based diet can help mitigate these environmental issues and promote sustainability.
On a personal level, adopting a more compassionate lifestyle can lead to better health outcomes. Research shows that plant-based diets are linked to lower risks of chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. By advocating for animal rights and reducing meat consumption, we not only promote ethical treatment of animals but also improve our own health and the planet's well-being.
Robin Singh's video and the timing of this discussion on Bakrid/Eid al-Adha remind us of the importance of consistently and universally advocating for animal rights. By fostering a culture of compassion and ethical consideration for all animals, we can address the inconsistencies in our activism and work towards a more humane and just society.
But I have found that political slogans are panacea to all ills. So chanting them all the time. You also do so.