Monday, March 7, 2011

The ten-dog race





Before anyone starts thinking I'm posting these because I care about LUSH wanting to ban dog racing: I don't give a tupenny Ford about what LUSH wants to ban. I only even know about it because someone else blogged about how they are boycotting LUSH because of the dogsled issue, and I made time to read the blog, and I was disappointed by the lack of anything worth discussing. I wouldn't want anyone to think I am gonna blog something boring about LUSH and the sled dogs.

I shot these photos on Sunday for the simple reason that we have dog races the first weekend in March and the ten-dog race goes right past my house, and the weather was beautiful, and therefore I went down to take some photos. It has nothing to do with advocacy of any kind.

However if you want to know what I think of LUSH, I think it's bizarre to boycott them because they want to shut down dog sledding, but not because they want to shut down the oilsands. Seriously: we need the money from the oilsands, and if you ever ride around in a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, or you own anything that was ever carried in a truck, train, ship, or airplane, or you live in any kind of man-made dwelling, then your lifestyle depends on oil, just like everybody else's; while on the other hand, nobody's lifestyle or livelihood is seriously dependent on sled dogs. So it strikes me as rather hypocritical to get huffy about the dogs and not about the oil. Also, LUSH is not an effective advocacy group, nor do they care. They do this because it's their corporate image, that's all. And again, it's hypocritical to boycott LUSH because of their corporate philosophy, but keep buying petroleum products. Or coffee. Or any foods not grown locally. Or anything made in China. Or Microsoft.

Then again, it takes zero effort to live without LUSH, and considerable effort to live without petroleum products, coffee, food, Microsoft, and things made in China, so I see your point.

Personally, I buy from LUSH, and I don't care what they advocate against, or whether they even advocate against anything. I also like dog sled races, not because I have any opinion on the ethics of the people involved, but because if I had enough money to keep ten dogs, I'd totally be racing myself. Because it would be awesome fun.

And now I totally conned you into reading a boring, pointless blog post about LUSH v. sled dogs. Bahaha!

3 comments:

Megan said...

I didn't realise LUSH wants to ban dog racing, so I suppose they've got a rather ineffective advocacy campaign.

Chelsea and Wilson said...

if this was a facebook note my response would be "Like"

Bravewolf said...

hyp·o·crite
   /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Spelled[hip-uh-krit]
–noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

A company is doing something that an individual disagrees with. The individual decides not to support the company by not purchasing the company's products.

So far, this is consistent with the individual's philosophy and beliefs. Now, if the individual continued purchasing the company's products while complaining bitterly against the company's philosophies, *that* would be hypocritical.

Perhaps you're thinking of "inconsistent", in that it seems inconsistent for someone to care about a company's attitude towards sled dog racing and tours, but not apparently care about their lobbying against the oilsands.

However, caring about dogs and caring about the oilsands are two different things. It's possible to care about a company's targeting a dog sport and not be concerned so much about their lobbying against the oilsands. Therefore, the label "inconsistent" would be misapplied in this instance as well.

My impression is that you think that boycotting LUSH because of the dog sled lobby is "hypocritical" because you believe that the oilsands lobby is of more import; the implication being that it's okay to boycott LUSH because of its position on one issue, but not because of its position on another, based on the perceived value of such positions/effects from lobbying for or against an issue.

I submit that either issue is a good one to boycott - or support - LUSH with the consumer dollar. You state that you "don't care what they advocate against, or whether they even advocate against anything." Therefore, the whole point is moot for you - if you don't care about LUSH's philosophy, it seems inconsistent that you would care about the reasons that other people boycott it.