The 41-year-old Zhang Jingchu released a documentary promoting "vegetarianism" on social platforms, but was ridiculed by netizens, because she had the opportunity to see a documentary about "cattle", and then claimed to have "conscience discovered" and had not eaten beef for 20 years. Zhang Jingchu became a vegetarian, 5 months ago, because she was infected by vegetarians, she believes that people who do not eat meat have the best morality, claiming, "Other animals are driven by appetite, hungry and have to kill, they have no other choice." But we are different people, we people have the initiative, this is what I think is the most noble and the most outstanding place for being born. "It seems that the implication is that people who eat meat are not so civilized, that is, people who are not excellent.
Zhang Jingchu
From the current point of view, although there is also a small number of manpower to support Zhang Jingchu, the people who refute Zhang Jingchu still account for the vast majority. This is a great blessing for the country.
But we can assume that if Zhang Jingchu's documentary promoting "vegetarianism" is in a country with a strong religious atmosphere, such as India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Thailand, and Afghanistan, I am afraid that public opinion will be completely different. These countries are relatively poor in all aspects, but religious beliefs are generally particularly religious, and the mainstream thinking in these countries may not necessarily oppose Zhang Jingchu's idea of not eating meat. It can also be said that the closer to a civilized, secularized country, the less likely it is to support Zhang Jingchu's views. Even in some European and American countries that have pushed for legislation to "ban dog meat", not eating meat is not a common phenomenon.
The reason why I feel that there is a crisis in the country behind Zhang Jingchu's vegetarian diet is because I have a vague worry, that is, there are more and more star artists on the market who call on people not to eat meat, and the pressure of ideological views brought about by this invisibility will definitely have an impact on some people, especially those with religious beliefs, who are particularly easy to accept their ideas. There are also teenagers who have not established a mature worldview, even if they may not be religious, but can they not be affected by the words and behaviors of their idols? In Zhang Jingchu's documentary, a total of 7 guests were invited to stand on the platform, including Tao Hong, a famous actress who was even bigger than her. I am sure that it is entirely possible that there will be several "shadow emperors" and "shadow queens" in the future for this platform. The public opinion caused by this will be greater, and many teenagers will definitely be affected. This is almost unavoidable. Authoritative international surveys show that the greater the occupational risk, the more likely people are to be superstitious in their thinking. In the performing arts industry, there are especially many people who pray to God and worship Buddha and do not eat meat. The appearance of several "shadow emperors" and "shadow queens" to promote superstitious ideas is just a natural phenomenon.
And if in the future, more and more such star artists openly stand for not eating meat, will the social atmosphere and public opinion in our country slowly change. The frog is slowly cooked in warm water, and in the process it does not know the pain. In this slow process, the frog was killed "painlessly". Our country today has seven or eight stars to speak for vegetarianism, tomorrow there are eight or nine big V for the fasting of dog meat endorsement, and constantly link vegetarianism with "high civilization", "high morality" and "high quality", bringing subtle influence to the people, so long-term development, what will happen in the end?
Tao Hong
One possibility that came to my mind would eventually lead to national legislation banning dog meat, or even all animal meat.
I don't know the essential purpose of Zhang Jingchu's filming this documentary, nor do I know whether there is any support for religious unity behind it. Without evidence, I dare not say anything. But it is an obvious objective fact that certain religious groups in the international community today have spared no effort for many years to demand that the state legislate in the hope of prohibiting the people from eating all animal meat. Because such a proposition is too radical to be realized immediately, it is second to make dog meat a ban. Because dogs are universally loved animals, it is easy to find a breakthrough by starting from this aspect. When the ban on dog meat is established in the form of a clear law, it represents a great victory for religious forces – finally being able to intervene in secular society in a dignified manner. Subsequently, they will take advantage of the victory and pursue, trying to gain more power.
I personally oppose the legislature of prohibiting people from eating dog meat. Because eating dog meat or not has nothing to do with the so-called "civilization". In recent years, some domestic celebrities have continuously instilled the concept of Western society, saying that eating dog meat is uncivilized, in fact, this is the confusion of the Western world's own thinking, and their erroneous views have been poured into our country, pursued and used by some religious forces, creating an illusion for Chinese people, as if eating dog meat is immoral and criminal.
But it's all. I stressed in my article "I oppose legislation for cats and dogs, legislation for animals is never a reflection of a country's level of civilization":
The supreme principle of animal welfare advocates is to ban all animal farming and testing, essentially depriving us of the innate right to eat meat. Animal welfare and vegetarianism are not moral at all, but their own private fetishes and wishful thinking, which can only be regarded as religion at best. Modern countries follow the principle of separation of church and state, so how can legislation be used to force people not to kill livestock and not eat meat?
Legislation for animals has never been a reflection of a country's level of civilization. Even Animal protection organizations in the West have never said anything like this.
People-oriented is the embodiment of a country's degree of civilization.
farce
I also said in the article "Dogs are not friends of humans, just friends of dog owners":
Animal cruelty has nothing to do with any morality or "civility" and involves only mental illness. It only needs that doctors can prescribe treatment for them, rather than using their mental illness as an excuse to push for legislation.
For a very small number of people who openly abuse animals, it is entirely possible to take measures of shielding, banning, and warning, but they cannot abuse the law because of this. Abuse of cats and dogs is extremely rare in society, and there are very few cases of such cases, does it need to use legislative means?
Stamping the Pacific Ocean is an "abuse", and it is also a naked abuse to advocate legislation for cats and dogs because of the extremes of a very small number of people.
The law cannot be abused. If everyone has the same example, one moment legislation prohibits the eating of dog meat, one moment legislation prohibits eating cat meat, one moment legislation prohibits eating pork, one moment prohibits eating beef, one moment prohibits eating rabbit meat, and finally human beings put themselves in a "steel cage" and cannot move at all. Can't eat anything, just go and drink the southeast and northwest winds together. At this point, human beings have forced themselves to make even the most basic dignity a joke.
The essence of the law is first and foremost to protect people, not to infringe on the interests of other human beings for the sake of dog lovers. For a very small number of extreme obstructive behaviors, we must use criticism and education, education is the fundamental, supplemented by the treatment of psychologists, not the abuse of the law.
The U.S. also eats dog meat, and Kansas has hosted a dog meat festival for years
These are the main reasons for my opposition to legislation banning dog meat. The reason why European and American countries developed is because they liberated the productive forces and ideas and restrained religion. To judge whether a society is truly moving toward civilization, we must see whether it has liberated the productive forces, whether it has liberated people's minds, whether a person is often constrained, this cannot be eaten, that cannot be used, everywhere hits a wall, cocoons itself, loses man's basic rights, the productive forces and ideas are imprisoned, and people are forced to live in a society like a cage, which is not at all a more civilized, but a retrogression of "religious unity".
Zhang Jingchu several star artists promote vegetarianism, is this a trivial matter? For now, it seems to be a small thing. But in the long run, it's a big deal. This proves that some people have been solidified into wrong thinking, forcibly tying vegetarianism and morality, and discriminating against those who do not eat vegetarians. When this discrimination gradually becomes the mainstream of social thought, it means "changing the sky". At a deeper level, it also means that religious thought is constantly encroaching on the thinking of normal people, vigorously promoting vegetarianism through various means, influencing society and the country by promoting legislation, and forcing people to accept their ideas and views from the root. And once people inadvertently and slowly accept their ideas, they gradually become one of the extremist ideologues, and then push for other legislation that serves the interests of religion. In this way, our society will no longer be a secular society, and our country will no longer be a secular state. The reason why the Chinese nation has not experienced the suffering of religious wars for thousands of years and has not been completely controlled by theocracy is because our cultural genes are secular, moderate, and humanistic, and they are against theocracy. The promotion of the whole people to eat vegetarian is actually an important step to eliminate the genes of traditional Chinese culture.
But unfortunately, Zhang Jingchu's behavior has not really been taken seriously by the society, and the vast majority of people are only "dismissive" and laugh at a few words, but they can't see the undercurrent behind them. If we allow their behavior to be uncritical and do not know the social harm caused by exposing their ideas, will china become as backward as India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Thailand, and Afghanistan in a few years?
Is this hiding the crisis of the country?
Author: Skeptical Explorer