172 Comments

Ricky Gervais is not vegan and does not care about animals, so can vegans please stop promoting this guy?

Hello again, fellow vegans (and non-vegans who should be vegans). Ricky Gervais has been recently showing up in my social media feeds, blasting a young woman who kills giraffes and other animals for fun. Makes sense, right? I mean, killing animals for no reason at all is definitely a moral wrong, and we vegans need to call non-vegans out for their non-vegan behaviour.

Except…Mr. Gervais is not, himself, a vegan.

So who the hell is he to criticize and condemn the actions of another non-vegan? Doesn’t that make him, uh, well…a hypocrite?

YES! Yes, it most certainly does.

And for all of you who are going to start arguing that Mr. Gervais is somehow “transitioning” to veganism, let me say this: YOU ARE WRONG.

The transition to veganism BEGINS with the decision to be vegan; it does not end there. Then, once that decision is made, you start to live your life as vegan as possible, enhancing your knowledge of veganism each and every day by reading and learning so that finally you have eliminated animal use from your life to the greatest extent possible. While veganism is not about perfection, it IS about doing the best we can, and the best we can does NOT include using animals because it’s fun, or because they taste good or because it’s convenient. That is not the best we can do.

You dig?

So how in the hell can anyone say Mr. Gervais is “transitioning” to veganism? He’s never indicated any such thing or made any such pledge! He’s not trying at all. In fact, he says he eats meat so long as it’s “humane” meat (there is no such thing, but you already know that).

So, no, Mr. Gervais does not care about animals. If he did, he’d understand why it’s not only wrong to kill a giraffe for fun, but it’s also wrong to eat animals because they taste good and you just can’t be bothered to make a simple change.

So please, for the love of all things tasty and vegan, stop holding this guy up as some kind of hero we should all aspire to be. He’s not—not even close. He is exactly the same as those people who are outraged when a cat or dog is abused but then turn around and munch a steak for dinner. This is not moral consistency—it is moral hypocrisy, and it demonstrates very confused thinking. There is no moral difference between someone who picks up a gun and kills a giraffe and someone who pays someone to slaughter an animal. Psychological difference, yes; moral difference—not at all.

Mr. Gervais is a hypocrite. He’s not some vegan hero. So please, just stop talking about this guy as though he is.

Advertisements

172 comments on “Ricky Gervais is not vegan and does not care about animals, so can vegans please stop promoting this guy?

  1. The thing is, it is brilliant whenever anyone is kind to animals in any way.
    So you should always be supportive of that, and encouraging.
    If vegans love Ricky, then he is more likely to fall in love with veganism.
    If vegans spit on Ricky, he is going to run away from them.
    Hatred and judgement only lead to bad things.

    Spread love, not hate and exclusion.

    • I think you missed the point of my post, which is that it makes no sense at all to be unkind to hunters when you yourself kill and eat animals. The point is that he has no right whatsoever to call this young woman out on her behaviour when he is guilty of the same behaviour–only he pays someone else to kill animals for him.

      As a vegan, it is not my mission to make people “fall in love with veganism”. It is my job to advocate for justice for animals. If people “run away” from their moral obligation to not exploit animals, it is not because of anything I’ve done. It is because they are not willing to make the changes necessary to live according to their principles.

      I have in no way spread “hate” or “exclusion”–but I also do not accept Gervais’ hypocrisy. You don’t think HE is judging the young woman who killed the giraffe? OF COURSE he is. And I am judging him, just as I would judge someone who is racist, or a child molestor, or a sexist–I most certainly do judge any kind of behaviour that victimizes and exploits others, non-humans included.

      • Well, he does have the right to call her out.

        Is he hypocritical, yes he is, but so is everyone. Vegans, myself included, ignore the wildlife suffering (which is magnitude larger than the ones we cause by raising animals), vegans somewhat the impact their usage of cars, heating and energy has on other animals, and the planet. That is all okay, we’re getting there one step at the time.

        I’m pretty sure every animal lover, who recognizes veganism but cannot make a huge transition immediately is working towards that goal.

        He deeply cares for the cause, and eventually he will transition to a vegan diet.

        Here is Ricky Gervais eating vegan hot wings and drinking soymilk.

        He’s getting there, and he does care about animals.

      • No, he does NOT have the right to call out other non-vegans, as he is doing exactly the same thing as them–needlessly harming animals.

        No, vegans are not hypocrites. Please stop with the “well we can’t be PURE vegans so therefore we are all just as hypocritical as folks like Gervais”. No, we fucking aren’t, and you know it, so smarten up. As I’ve said a thousand times here, there is a MASSIVE difference between vegans who may inadvertently harm others while going about living, and non-vegans who deliberately bring BILLIONS of animals into existence for the SOLE PURPOSE of killing them and eating them, with no need to do so.

        To liken those two things is just utterly ridiculous, so don’t come here on my blog and do that, okay? Because you are demonstrating so much ignorance it’s actually causing me physical pain right now. Seriously.

        If Ricky cares so deeply for “the cause” then he can fucking go vegan now. Not in ten years, or whenever it suits him–NOW. If he can’t do that, he doesn’t care.

  2. The bible says its ok to eat meat ,vegans actually eat animals food so you could say vegans are cruel as well

    • Well, John, I don’t actually care a whit what the bible says, because it was written by men a couple thousand years ago and has absolutely no relevance in this day and age, so moot point there. And the whole “vegans eat plants so they are cruel” argument is absurd, and I’m fairly certain you already know that. Have a great day!

    • Please, where does it say that it’s OK to eat meat int he bible? And even if it does actually say that and I missed it, who cares? The bible is not really anything but a book written by a bunch of men a thousands of years ago. It has no relevance for today. It is not, as much as you wan it to be, the “word of god” because no god would have a bunch of flawed silly men write something like this. I could go on and on about how silly it is to take what the bible says literal, but I’ll stop here.

      • You’re right, Celeste. Anyone who uses the bible as support for their arguments doesn’t have much to go on. Works of fiction aren’t support for real-world moral issues. Although Aesop is pretty good–maybe the bible should be replaced by Aesop’s fables, which are far more enjoyable to read 😀

    • No, Christ was a vegan. Some parts of the bible was rewritten.

      • I………what? “Christ was a vegan”. Um…..Christ is a mythological figure and I couldn’t care less if he was vegan or not. There is no way to verify or prove that statement, so as far as I am concerned, it’s moot. And the Bible has no place in any sort of reasoned discussion–it’s a book of myths. Might just as well bring Zeus and Athena into it.

    • Oh, thats ok then, if the bible says so…. I’m a humanist and don’t believe in the bible, so what can you tell me now?

    • Actually, before Noah’s arc, people were NOT allowed to eat animals. God gave humans the right to eat animals after the flood in order to SURVIVE (seeing as how all the crops were dead). In our day and age, we do not need to eat meat to survive. Therefore, I’m sure God would approve of veganism.

      Don’t use God to justify your behavior.

    • You have failed John, byt saying ”it’s okay to eat meat cause the bible allows us” the bible also tells you to live by the rules it has, do you follow those too? Don’t use context when it fit’s to your needs. And how are vegans cruel, you’re not smart are you? Vegans eat healthy, yes we eat a lot of green but you are doing twice the murder, by eating an animal that is on your plate, and don’t forget the salad you eat too. You’re twice the murderer yourself. Stop being and idiot, and get your facts straight. Also, because of these industries, the world is coming to an end very near. Not only bad for animals, humans but nature too. You have no clue what you’re talking about, read a a book other than the bible. Maybe you will enlighten about what’s actually going on.

      • Anyone who quotes a book of myths as a justification for anything is demonstrating a lack of thinking skills, in my opinion. Facts and the bible don’t tend to go hand in hand, unfortunately. But thanks very much for standing up to John and his ignorance. Much appreciated!

    • You are retarded. Or have the mind of a 5 years old (in a bad way). No point in even considering a proper reply.

  3. There is most definatly a moral difference between abusing an animal and having a steak that was raised free range and killed humanely. A massive problem I see with the whole “mustn’t hurt the ickle wickle animals” viewpoint is what are you going to do with the millions of animals that are currently being raised as food? Can’t just turn em loose. Also our Eco systems are messed up because of our interference, we no longer have many top predators and so leaving nature to do its thing now would result in overpopulation of animals, leading to their inevitable suffering due to lack of food/habitat.

    • No, Jess, in point of fact there is NO moral difference between abusing an animal and killing an animal so you can eat his/her flesh. In either situation, there is no moral justification to cause harm to an animal. People do not need to eat animal flesh (or dairy or eggs); therefore, they cause harm to animals for no reason other than their own palate pleasure. Enjoying how animals taste is certainly not a moral justification for exploiting and killing them.
      “Free range” and “humane” are buzzwords used by industry to make you feel better about paying them to torture and kill animals needlessly so you can indulge your taste buds.
      “Ickle wickle animals”…..what? If you are implying here that vegans are against exploiting animals because animals are cute and fuzzy, you are sadly mistaken. Veganism is about justice–we don’t believe that it is ever okay to use other sentient beings as our own personal property to satisfy our own wants. Nonvegans use animals for reasons that can only be described as convenience, entertainment and personal pleasure, none of which is morally justifiable.
      In regard to the old “if we didn’t kill animals they’d take over the world” line, as demand for animal products goes down (which it will as more people become vegan), then the supply will also necessarily go down. Because the world won’t suddenly go vegan overnight, as we vegans are constantly reminded, there is simply no possible way for us to suddenly have billions of animals to “turn loose”. Over time, all breeding of animals for people’s use would taper off and eventually stop. Basic economics there.
      Thanks for stopping by.

    • THERE IS NO HUMANE WAY TO KILL ANY LIVING THING. This is 2016, how can you possibly be so naive and ignorant. I won’t even dare respond to any of your other absurdly ridiculous points. But don’t you dare imply that there is a difference between abusing animals and killing them. Organic and free range do not exist! No living creature is born with a tag that reads: I want to die. Slaughter me. I lose brain cells every time a fool posts a comment referring to the humane murder of ‘free range’ animals for their beef steak or pork sausages.

  4. When I first decided to stand for animals back in 1994 I wasn’t even a vegetarian, not even dreaming of becoming vegan. I stopped eating meat in 2001. Today I’m vegan and an animals rights activist. Why do things have to happen the way you consider right? His message isn’t wrong. Stop killing. How can that be wrong?

    • It’s not about things happening “the way [I] consider right”. It’s about the idea that if we want people to go vegan–which we do because that’s the ONLY way to stop animal exploitation–then we need to educate them about veganism. What we do NOT need to do is prattle on about the rights of some animals while we continue to participate in the exploitation of other animals, because that is hypocritical and does not give a clear and consistent message about veganism. The reason why animal exploitation persists to this day is that people like Ricky Gervais are confusing the issue in many people’s minds. We need to be clear and consistent, and we can’t do that if we are harping on about how fur is bad while eating meat.
      “Stop killing. How can that be wrong?” But Gervais HASN’T stopped killing, that’s the point. He keeps on eating animals, but while he’s eating them, he’s berating others for wearing or hunting them. Surely you can see how that is very wrong indeed.

  5. Just like those that are the radicalists of the religious world, you are one of those with Veganism. Who are you exactly to dictate how one becomes vegan? Or what one stands for? Do you know Ricky Gervais personally? Have you had deep intimate conversation with him to know where his heart truly stands and any preparation he might be doing to become vegan? Making any judgment about someone based off of interviews or any other form of media is quite ignorant. Just remember, media …all forms of media, can be and typically is edited. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but rather than coming across as the Vegan Holier than Thou casting eternal damnation on any non-vegan or vegetarian, maybe have a more loving approach. This world is FULL of hatred, I believe it has met its quota in that department.

    • No, in point of fact I am not a radical. There is nothing radical about what I am saying. If we want people to become vegan, we promote a consistent vegan message. How is that radical? It isn’t. I don’t need to know Gervais personally to know that he is not committed to animal rights because he continues to EAT some animals while criticizing other people for their cruelty. That is called hypocrisy. Regardless of what he is or is not doing about becoming vegan–which is nothing, despite all the vegans trying to educate him–he is being a hypocrite. And please stop whining about how “judgmental” I am being–we are ALL judgmental. Do you have a problem with pedophiles? Stop being so damn judgmental! I don’t hate Gervais, and I’m really not sure why people like you just leap to that conclusion. I never said any such thing. What I ACTUALLY said was, he’s a hypocrite. And he is.

    • Just re-read your comment, and I have more to say. I’m not spreading hatred. Disagreeing with someone and calling them out on their hypocrisy does not equal hating someone. Why is it that so many people are scared of critical thought and leap right into “hate”? I don’t HATE Ricky Gervais–I’m criticizing the fact that what he says doesn’t align with what he does. How is that “hate”?

      Do I know what Gervais might be doing to “prepare” to be vegan…….well, did you read my post? No, you didn’t, because if you did, you’d have seen that I addressed that point. Veganism isn’t something you plan to do and take “baby steps” to achieve. You do it now, because you realize that exploiting animals is wrong and the only reasons you have for exploiting them are convenience, palate pleasure or entertainment and none of those is a justifiable reason for exploiting animals. So you stop. Now. Not in 10 years, or 15, or whenever, but NOW. You might make mistakes as you “transition”, but you are actively trying to be vegan RIGHT NOW. And I have seen absolutely no indication that Gervais is remotely interested in being vegan.

      How is calling someone out on their hypocrisy being “holier than thou”? I am not holier than anyone, whatever that even means as I am not remotely religious, and I never said I was. What I SAID is that his behaviour is hypocritical–publicly criticizing a person who hunts animals for fun when you yourself pay other people to kill animals so you can eat them is hypocrisy.

      Look, if you want to have a conversation about this rather than just launching ad hominem attacks and arguments that hold no weight, please read up on animal rights theory, starting with the Abolitionist Approach website and books authored by Gary Francione. Check out his Facebook page. Learn about abolitionist vegan theory, and then come back and chat.

      Again, have a great day.

      • Why do you bother ? Animals will always be used and it won’t stop.
        You’ll die and no one will care what you’ve written or what you did.

      • Why do you bother? Black people will always be used as slaves and it won’t stop.
        Why do you bother? Women will always be men’s property and it won’t stop.
        Why do you bother? Rape will always be a fact of life and it won’t stop.

        Fuck off. Injustice won’t stop unless we stand for something. If I don’t speak out, I am complicit. Will anyone care what I’ve written or done? Maybe you are right–good thing I am not in this for self-aggrandizement.

        Thanks for gracing us with your ray-of-sunshine presence. And people say I’M joyless. Fuck that.

  6. This is so incredibly stupid. If you eat a piece of meat, you’re equally as bad as someone who hunts for fun? That’s like saying all sins are equal. Someone who kills for fun is way worse that someone who consumes meat. I understand not supporting him because he doesn’t identically line up with your ideology (I understand it, but I think it’s stupid) but to discredit anything he’s done for animals because he doesn’t fit with your thinking is what’s really absurd. You seem incredibly self-righteous and wouldn’t even doubt for one second that you are wrong. I debate even posting this comment because I know it’s pointless, but I couldn’t deal with how pompous you are. Also, you’re so stubborn you can’t even realize that people like you, do drive people away from being vegan and if you truly cared about animals, that would be important to you. You may advocate for the justice of animals but advocating is apparently more important than doing to you. If you knew you could make someone vegan by being less critical why the hell wouldn’t you!? But no, you’re more interested in your own political-agenda than you are making change happen.

    • Well, way to start off with ad hominem attacks. For the record, I am not stupid. Now, to address your points. Yes, morally speaking, someone who pays another person to kill for them is equally as bad as someone who does the killing themselves. This holds true in the legal system as well–you are equally culpable for murder whether you pull the trigger yourself or whether you hire someone else to do it for you.

      The issue I have with Gervais is not that he “doesn’t identically line up with [my] ideology”. Rather, it’s that he is being completely incoherent in his own. It makes no sense to criticize others for hunting animals while paying others to kill them for you so you can eat them.

      I’ll ignore your other rude and insulting comments, and move on to your final point about my being more interested in my “political agenda” than in making change happen. That comment makes no sense. I am a vegan, and I want others to be vegan. How do I do that? By talking about veganism in a clear and consistent manner, which means my actions align with my principles. You say this makes me somehow arrogant and pompous, when all it really does is make me clear and consistent. If people are “driven away” by consistency and clear thinking, then that is nothing to do with me. What is absurd and utterly inane is the idea that we can get people to become vegan by telling them that wearing fur is wrong, or hunting is wrong, but it’s perfectly okay to eat animals because gosh they just taste so good. That is morally incoherent and confusing to anyone who might be genuinely interested in veganism. If anyone is driving away potential vegans, it is Ricky Gervais, because he clearly has no idea what it is and is putting out an incredibly confusing message.

      Look, if you want to have a conversation about this rather than just launching ad hominem attacks and arguments that hold no weight, please read up on animal rights theory, starting with the Abolitionist Approach website and books authored by Gary Francione. Check out his Facebook page. Learn about abolitionist vegan theory, and then come back and chat.

      Thanks for stopping by, even if it was just to insult me. Have a great day.

  7. This is without a doubt, the most arrogant post I have ever read, and Im a vegan myself.

    People like you do way more harm than good in animal rights issues. Firstly, you have the attitude that if someone isnt doing their bit in the exact same way as you then ‘their bit’ is worthless. How arrogant. Secondly, Ricky Gervais promotes himself to MILLIONS of people, he has over 3 million followers on Facebook. Trust me when I tell you that man has converted more people to veganism than you have by preaching and judging from your little blog in a dark dingy corner of the internet….

    And he has converted others to vegetarianism, and many more people now only eat free range meat as a result of being educated by Ricky. Is this as good as veganism? No. But it is better than them continuing to eat conventional meat? HELL YES! And the last thing the animal rights movement needs is someone like you trying to make them feel worthless for their efforts! How dare you belittle people who try in their own way just because its not the exact same way as yours?!

    I take my hat off to you for being vegan as I know how difficult it can be to make that change, but you are not helping the cause by ridiculing others who try. This post is irresponsible and damaging. It does not come from a place of ‘I care about animals and want to do the best I can by them’ but more from a place of ‘IM A VEGAN, WORSHIP ME BECAUSE IM BETTER THAN YOU’

    You are more damaging to animal rights than a full blown meat eater because of your arrogance and ME ME ME attitude!

    • Oh, good, another response that begins with an ad hominem attack! My favourite. I’d like to know exactly how you figure Mr. Gervais has “converted” people to veganism when he is not a vegan himself and spreads a very confused message about animal use.

      People like you (New Welfarists) always leap to using words like “preaching” and “judging” when in fact, all I am doing is being consistent. And how exactly is Ricky Gervais not judging people who hunt animals? He said some pretty nasty things about the woman who killed the giraffe–is he not judging her? Yes, yes he is. He IS judging her and others like her. And he is being a hypocrite in doing so, because he is every bit as bad as she is in terms of animal exploitation.

      And you’re damn right I am judging him–he continues to exploit and victimize animals while ranting on about others who do the same thing he does! Not only is he an animal exploiter, he’s a hypocrite.

      A little aside on the word “judging”–please get over it. Everyone judges everyone else’s behaviours. You, for example, likely judge pedophiles–most people do. Any time a person does something that victimizes another, they are going to be judged for it. So please get over it.

      As far as his “converting others to vegetarianism”, well, that’s a problem since vegetarians are people who continue to exploit animals while telling themselves they are doing something good for animals. And that is my point–because Gervais is sending out such an incredibly confused and confusing message, people don’t know what to do to “help” animals. Because he has no idea what a vegan is and has no apparent interest in being one, he’s not getting people to consider veganism. He’s not helping any animals in any way.

      And please spare me your bullshit about how I want others to worship me because I’m better than them. Nothing in my post indicates anything of the sort. Veganism has nothing to do with me at all–it’s about justice for animals, which will never be achieved as long as misguided fools like Ricky Gervais keep confusing people with their hypocrisy.

      Look, if you want to have a conversation about this rather than just launching ad hominem attacks and arguments that hold no weight, please read up on animal rights theory, starting with the Abolitionist Approach website and books authored by Gary Francione. Check out his Facebook page. Learn about abolitionist vegan theory, and then come back and chat.

      Have a great day.

      • “He’s converted others to vegetarianism”. First, that’s not good because vegetarianism does nothing to help animals. Second, please cite empirical evidence of this. How can you say that he’s converted anyone with no evidence of that?

      • Christ you really are quite horrible in response aren’t you. It’s a great shame you can’t extend your compassion for animals to a modicum of understanding in people.

      • Yes, when I keep hearing the same stupid idiotic non-thought-out arguments over and over and over again, when I’ve already addressed them on this blog and people are too stupid or lazy to read. Then, I do become quite horrible, out of frustration, annoyance and all those other human feelings. I have a great deal of understanding for anyone who wishes to discuss things intelligently and have an honest desire to learn about what veganism is, or why I might criticize people like Gervais or Yourofsky. However, I don’t see much of that here. What I see is people leading with personal insults, following up with stupid arguments, and ending with more insults. So I get cranky sometimes–sue me.

  8. Thank you! All of my vegan friends go one about how marvelous Ricky is, and how He’s ‘changing the world’ that’s crap! He’s nothing but a hypocrite.

    • Hi! Thanks for stopping by! It’s amazing, isn’t it, how many vegans defend this guy? He does absolutely nothing for animals–in fact, he’s causing more harm than good and I wish he’d just go away!

  9. I totally agree with you ,though I think anyone with fame promoting animal rescue is a positive thing , he is no doubt a hypocrite.Also form reading some of his tweets ,he likes to make himself look heroic ,and a cow wants to live as much as a dog ,as a matter of fact pigs have personalities just like dogs ,so therefore he has no point ,and is a POS masking himself as some animal saint . Hardly . And to the people quoting the bible: please go back to your trailer park . And no ,there is no humane way of being killed ,since being murdered isn’t a humane thing in itself ,who gives a toss if you were allowed to walk on grass .I knew just looking at him he can’t be vegan ,no one would be this bloated on a vegan diet .

    • Animals that we eat are bred to be eaten and don’t live very long anyways, so a cow probably wouldn’t even live as much of a dog if it wasn’t killed. It would suffer a death much worse.
      I raised meat chickens and letting them live makes them suffer. They get very big because they eat so much and then they can’t walk. If you were bred to be fed would you rather be killed in the most humane way or die a slow and painful death? These kinds of animals will ALWAYS be bred no matter how much your little pretentious veganselves fight against it. People will always eat meat because a mix of vegetables and meat is how humans are SUPPOSED to eat. Living on just one or the other is unhealthy, no matter how many nasty-ass protein bars you people eat.
      I could care less what kind of food lifestyle you people live, but you’re trying to say that we don’t care about animals because we’re eating like humans, as animals, SHOULD? Excuse you. I own many animals, most of which are reptiles. They’re healthy and I love them. But you have the nerve to say that just because I live my human life like I should that I don’t care about animals? “Just because YOU’RE on a diet, doesn’t mean I can’t eat this cupcake”…”Just because YOU’RE a vegan, doesn’t mean I can’t eat meat”.

      • Animals people breed to eat don’t live long because they get slaughtered young. A cow can live over 20 years if she’s not slaughtered. “It would suffer a death much worse”…….what are you talking about? What death is worse than being slaughtered?

        Again with your chickens. Again, are you aware that the reason these domesticated animals grow so large is that they have been genetically altered to do so to provide humans with more “meat”? I mean, you must know that the undomesticated species that chickens, pigs, and cows are derived from don’t grow that big. You do know that, right? You can’t possibly be that ignorant.

        “..humans are SUPPOSED to eat”. According to whom? Not the American Dietetic Association or a whole bunch of doctors and researchers. What are you basing your statement on? As far as veganism being unhealthy, oh wow are you ever wrong. When I went vegan ten years ago, my skin cleared up and I lost a bunch of weight. I got my energy back. I feel better now than I ever have. And I don’t carry around the burden of knowing someone died so I could eat tasty, unhealthy food.

        The final paragraph of your comment just illustrates how ridiculously ignorant you are. No, you cannot say you “LOVE” animals and then fucking eat them. Get over yourself. I am not telling you what to eat. Eat whatever the fuck you want, but you should at least have a fucking clue that when you do so, you are killing someone, needlessly, who wants to keep living. “you have the nerve to say that just because I live my human life like I should that I don’t care about animals?” Yes, Laurel, that is exactly what I am saying. You cannot claim to “love” someone and then turn around and needlessly victimize them.

        Have a nice life, and please feel free to not comment here again.

  10. Wow. I concur with the arguments made above in relation to the importance of Ricky Gervais’ message and those with whom he reaches – vegan, pescatarian, or carnivore. Just because he is not vegan (he has never professed to be) does not mean that he cannot reach out to others that you, yourself, are unable to reach to spread the word. I think you must learn to be respectful of others and that there is a continuum of those whom care for animals. By your definition only vegans care about animals and therefore, only vegans are able to advocate for animal rights. It’s a shame that you appear to have an all-or-nothing point of view. I can relate to Ricky – when I first was considering giving up eating meat I struggled with my conscious .. he appears to be doing the same. Instead of knocking him down, you should be supportive. He is at least making an effort to show some awareness of the cruelty involved in the meat industry; whereas, other people truly do not care about animals or their suffering in the least. You speak about Ricky Gervais causing more harm than good; it’s a pity that you do not see this by the article that you’ve written.

    • So you read the comments but not my responses to them? Great, because I love repeating myself! Ricky’s message is “it’s okay to pay other people to kill animals so you can eat them but you are an asshole if you kill an animal yourself”. That is literally his message. You could add to it, “some animals matter more than others. Pigs, cows and chickens mean nothing because they taste good but damn you to hell if you kill a giraffe because giraffes are somehow more special”.

      You have got to be out of your god damn mind if you think that someone can “care” about “animals” and then turn around and fucking EAT them! Seriously? No, you are talking about those people who rage against “Asia” because dogs and dolphins but gorge themselves on cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, lambs, goats, ducks, etc. at home. These people are very confused, and Ricky Gervais does NOTHING MORE than perpetuate that confused thinking.

      “All or nothing point of view”……….as in, if you think animals matter then they ALL matter, not just dogs and cats or whatever other animals you feel are somehow better or more worth protecting than others? If that is what you mean, then you are correct–it god damn well is “all or nothing” because nothing else makes sense.

      Look, I am tired of talking with you welfarists who prattle on about baby steps and how Mr. Gervais is so gooood for animals. Try reading up on the Abolitionist Approach at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com and then come back and talk to me when you have a clue.

      • Um, for one, endangered animals ARE more important. That’s just fact. Things like cows, chickens, and deer ARE NOT endangered. And actually, many animals that are slaughtered and are bred to be eaten will suffer more if not slaughtered. It really is the only humane thing to do. I raised meat chickens and they grow to become so large and sickly that they suffer if they’re not slaughtered. There will always be animals bred like this and people will always eat meat, no matter what.
        I could care less what you decide to eat in your diet, but just because you have reasons to do so, doesn’t mean I should. Personally, I like to get the best of both worlds with ALL my vitamins, not just the ones from plants, but also the many in animals.

      • …….what?! Um, no, for one, endangered animals are NOT more “important”, whatever that even means. So, no, not a “fact”. Cows, chickens and deer are NOT things, and it is utterly irrelevant how “endangered” a species is.

        Oh, my god: “And actually, many animals that are slaughtered and are bred to be eaten will suffer more if not slaughtered. It really is the only humane thing to do.” Are you…..are you serious here? You do understand, I hope, that the reason your “meat chickens” grew that way is that they have been genetically altered to? So that you can get more “meat”? You know that, right? I mean, they would not be that way if human beings were not fucking with their genetics and using them for “meat”. You are not doing them a favour when you slaughter them. Oh wow.

        You are implying that eating animals is a personal choice. It’s not. When there is a victim, it’s not a personal choice. You are killing someone who wants to live, and you are doing so for no reason at all other than your own selfish pleasure. There is no magical “vitamin” found in chicken that is not found anywhere else. I’ve been vegan for ten years, and I am not deficient in any vitamin or mineral.

        Thanks for stopping by. Your ignorance is utterly astounding.

  11. It’s true, you are pretty joyless 😉 This world is far from perfect but let’s be grateful for any act of kindness which reduces animal cruelty, whether it be full blown veganism or adopting a stray cat from the RSPCA.

    • Actually, I’m a very joyful person and being vegan brings me tremendous joy. But as I mentioned in a previous post, it’s not about me. It’s about justice for animals. Being vegan is the very baseline of decency. Do you go around telling others about how joyous not molesting kids makes you? No. Why? Because not molesting kids is the morally decent thing to do. You don’t not molest kids because of how joyous it makes you; you don’t molest kids because it’s morally wrong and is an injustice to its victims. It’s not about you; it’s about justice, and not making others into victims for your own pleasure.

      I am not interested in “reducing” cruelty to animals. That is a welfarist idea, so please don’t promote it here. I am in favour of ABOLISHING animal use, not just making our use of them a little bit better. I think I will post about welfarism and why it doesn’t work because a lot of you seem to think it’s a good thing when it’s not. It really, really isn’t and I guess I need to educate about that.

      Thanks for stopping by. I highly recommend that you read anything by Gary Francione to help you understand why welfarism does NOTHING to help animals; it actually makes things worse.

      • Out of interest, where do you do your shopping? For me veganism isn’t far enough – it’s not about what you choose to eat, it’s about where your money goes. I hope you stand by your own principles on this point.

      • What kind of shopping? I get my groceries at various places, as there is no dedicated vegan grocery in my city. I support a small local business that carries mostly vegan–even vegan dental floss!–but it’s a small business. I buy from stores like Superstore sometimes, because they carry a wide variety of products that are vegan-friendly. I shop at farmers markets in the summer, but those get very expensive. At one point, I was having locally grown organic produce delivered to my door by a small local business, but that got too expensive for me to continue. It was great food though. What other shopping do you want to discuss? I buy my clothing second-hand, no animals in them–all I buy new is socks and underwear. I don’t really buy cosmetics, because I just don’t give a shit about makeup, but I have made purchases from Cheeky Cosmetics or Ecco Bella. What other shopping are you wanting to know about?
        Also, please don’t condescend to me about what veganism is all about. I know it’s not about what you eat, and if you’d read my blog you’d know that I know that. I am feeling like you are mansplaining to me, and I don’t like it so I am going to ask you to stop. However, veganism IS about animals. So while I try to be conscious about my consumer choices, my being vegan is about not consuming anything that has animal products in it. It’s not about workers in clothing factories in Bangladesh–however, as I am aware of other issues, I do spend my money in ways that avoid exploiting others as best I can. However, I have a TV, a computer and a cell phone, so there are exploited factory workers in that mix somewhere, and they could be Chinese, meaning I am supporting state brutality with my consumer choices, I guess. All I know is, I do my best to consider others, human and non-human, in my consumer habits. Not sure what else I can do, given that I am operating from within a capitalist system without the ability to tear it down. I’m not a hypocrite because of that, if that is what you are driving at with your “I hope you stand by your own principles on this point” comment.

  12. How does a mass vegan diet make sense with a massive human population and a planet 70 percent coverd in marine water where very few plants live.. Surely the key to saving bio diversity on land is the consumption of more wild native flora and fauna and fish?.. something that all truly sustainable cultures of people past and present depend on!! Never heard of a vegan tribe..how can an Eskimo be vegan?…

    • A mass vegan diet is the only way humanity is going to survive. We don’t need to eat meat, so why are you suggesting eating undomesticated fauna? No. We don’t need to do that. What we need to do is grow plants to feed humans. Vegan organic agriculture. I’m not sure what that bit about “never heard of a vegan tribe” means, but first, yes, there are “tribes” that eat plants exclusively, and second, whether or not you’ve heard of such a thing is completely and utterly irrelevant. Oh, and thanks for bringing up Eskimos, because what would a discussion on veganism be without bringing up some group that “can’t” be vegan? Except that first, they CAN be vegan, and second, regardless of what some population that makes up a fraction of a percent of the planet’s population can or cannot do, what are YOU doing? You and the billions of other people who live in places where they CAN be vegan? Maybe try reading up on the subject–start with Dr. Oppenlander’s books about food and sustainability. The bottom line is this: We don’t need to consume animals–any animals–to survive and thrive, so why are we?

  13. I agree he’s a hypocrite, but then so was I until very recently. I was all for animal rights although I ate meat; I convinced myself that I was eating free range or organic, and that made it ok. Then someone posted an excerpt on Facebook from a book called Slaughterhouse, by Gail Eisnitz. It’s changed my life, it’s taken the meat out of my diet and I am becoming vegan. I needed to read that, although I can’t get certain images out of my head.

    Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that Ricky hasn’t yet had that moment where something has really resonated. He’s doing what a lot of people do, burying their heads about some things and being vocal about others. I was the same, hating fur farms and fox hunting, but not relating that to the food on my plate. He may well come to a realisation, but it needs to be in his own time. I’m glad he’s vocal as he’s able to reach out to a lot of people, so hopefully at some point down the line he’ll make the connection.

    Thank you for your blog!

    • I agree with PART of what you are saying–most of us DO believe animals matter morally, as we get upset when we hear of someone hurting a cat or dog, but most of us fail to expand our compassion to ALL animals. I get that, and I was like that too. I called myself an animal lover! But the difference is this–I didn’t know any vegans, and no one had told me about veganism. Gervais has tons of vegans who follow him and have TOLD him how what he is doing is wrong. He is choosing not to listen. And I agree with you one hundred percent that each of us comes to it in our own time–but that doesn’t mean that those of us who see the hypocrisy of what he is doing should remain silent. I would have been vegan a LONG time ago if someone had pointed out to me my hypocrisy and told me about veganism. We must stay consistent with our message and not just back off and hope he’ll come ’round.
      I am also particularly annoyed with Gervais because he’s a celebrity and his message carries to many people. Average people like you and me don’t reach the number of people Gervais does, and that is why it is even more imperative that he clarify his own thinking and start sending a clear and consistent message to his fans. But he never will because to promote veganism would likely alienate a lot of them, and he doesn’t want to do that. He’ll keep promoting welfarism because that offends the fewest people–they can feel good for doing nothing.
      Thanks for stopping by and commenting! Much appreciated 🙂

  14. Just plain stupid …. He is creating awareness you fool,I wonder how many people will see this post compared to Mr gervais

    • Oh, look, ANOTHER ad hominem attack! Those who follow Mr. Gervais are certainly convinced everyone else is stupid! Thanks for stopping by and letting me know your uninformed thoughts. Have a great day!

  15. I disagree.
    I am a vegan too but I welcome anyone who highlights animal abuse in all its shapes and sizes. So he’s not vegan. He is however a voice for the causes he believes in. Has he joined up all the pieces? Will he ever? I haven’t a clue. But if you want to dismiss his compassion for causes he believes in, you have to be dammed sure that you are whiter than white. And as most of us were meat eaters previously, we would do to remember our own journeys. I started my own journey as an anti vivisectionist. I was a meat eater then. I became vegan as an evolving process and at my pace. I got there but if I was faced with constantly snipping, I would have found that tough.
    I am starting to find absolutionists to be so militant that they forget their own imperfections and past indiscretions.

    • As I am rather tired of repeating myself, please read responses to other comments of a similar nature to yours.

      Veganism isn’t a “personal journey”. It’s not about you. It’s about animals.

      • I agree Adam and well said. It must be nice to be perfect like the “joyless vegan”. Of course veganism or any other choice made by a person is part of a personal journey. The “joyless vegan” needs to open up her mind. And I find it very interesting she does not directly respond to your well thought out comment but she is happy to argue her point when she feels attacked.

      • Who said I’m perfect? Because it sure as hell wasn’t me. Eating animals isn’t a “personal choice”. When you victimize someone else, it is not “personal”. Choosing what colour of shirt to wear today is a personal choice; killing someone for no other reason than that they taste good is not a personal choice. And no, veganism is not a “personal journey”. It’s where you start, if you care at all about animals. Being vegan is the absolute LEAST we can do for animals. I am responding directly to you, and will respond to everyone who leaves a comment, however poorly thought out the comment is.

        Have a nice day. Thanks for stopping by to attack me.

    • More on this idea of veganism as some sort of “journey”…..Veganism is where you start, not where you end by taking a bunch of “baby steps” because going vegan is just too inconvenient or “hard” for you. Veganism is not the destination–it’s the very least we can do for animals. If we were to speak of someone who is racist going on a “personal journey” toward not being racist, and taking “baby steps” and using only some racial slurs and not others and telling racist jokes only a couple of days a week, we can see how stupid it is to talk about veganism as a personal journey. It is not. It is not about you, and your feelings, and your glowing health, and your pride at how much you’ve “given up”. It’s about doing what is morally decent, and it’s about what we OWE other sentient beings. We have a moral obligation to not exploit animals, and once you make that decision, you do it.

      Did you ever think that maybe the reason you took so long on your “personal journey” toward veganism was that no one was actually talking to you about veganism and challenging your beliefs about animals? Maybe you kept taking useless “baby steps” because no one told you that you could do better. The big welfare organizations encourage people not to be vegan, but to do a little better in terms of how we treat animals. That doesn’t get anyone to go vegan. VEGANS get people to go vegan.

      “constant snipping”. So, by putting forth a clear and coherent message about veganism, instead of telling people that some types of animal use are okay but not others, I am “snipping”? Seriously?

      Oh, there’s the word “militant”! I was waiting for that. And “absolutionists”. That word does not mean what you think it means–I think you mean, “absolutist”. But hey, I know what you meant. And when it comes to justice for animals, you are damn right I am absolutist. Any and all animal use is wrong–one kind is not “better” than another. It is ALL wrong. There is no room for shades of grey when you are speaking of victimizing other sentient beings. Apply that same thinking to rape: We should not be so absolutist in saying rape is wrong. Don’t be so militant. Let people stop raping in their own time and way.

      Are you kidding me?

      This has nothing to do with “forgetting their own past indiscretions”. I used to be an animal exploiter. That is true. But now I am vegan, and I did not go “vegetarian” first and keep exploiting animals. Why? Because some vegans talked to me clearly and coherently about veganism, and that was all I needed to understand how hypocritical I was being and how, if I cared about animals at all (which I did), then I could not use them as resources. So I am not sure what your point is here.

    • Okay, adam, Catherine is telling me I have to respond to your comment, so here I am! Even though I’ve already responded to it twice, that is not good enough for Catherine!

      So, you really don’t have an issue with a man who publicly and loudly criticizes and insults other people for doing exactly what he does? Good for you! I do have a problem with hypocrites, and I do feel the need to call them out on their shit behavior. If that upsets you, so be it. I really don’t care what you think.

      Gervais quite viciously attacks people who hunt. The most recent was the dentist who killed Cecil the lion. Yet Mr. Gervais pays other people to kill other animals, who are equal to Cecil in every way that matters, so he can eat them. That demonstrates confused thinking. Obviously, Gervais cares about some animals, like dogs, lions and giraffes–great! All I am saying is, why not extend that caring to ALL animals and stop fucking eating them?! Is that really THAT outlandish?

      Am I “whiter than white”? What does that even mean? Do you mean, am I “pure” vegan? I may not be able to prevent hitting insects as I drive my car, but that is a far fucking cry from paying others to needlessly kill animals because I like how they taste. THAT is entirely preventable. So please just stop with the ridiculous “you better be perfect if you dare criticize anyone else” bullshit.

      The word is not “absolutionist”, adam, it’s “Abolitionist”. If you can’t even get the terms right, you obviously have no understanding of the theory and I am wasting my time with you.

      There, Catherine, was that sufficient?

  16. I get you and I totally agree he is a hypocrite, but I could care lesser as long as even if he saves one animal from harm.

    Taste to meat is not acquired overnight, you cannot expect a person to change overnight. I did not become a vegan overnight either, I was first a vegetarian.

    We call call them hypocrites, fake, etc and as long as they CANNOT or REFUSE to make the connection, they’re not going to change. So, instead of spending time being frustrated with what he did not do, why not focus more on what you as a vegan can do?

    “Veganism isn’t a “personal journey”. It’s not about you. It’s about animals.”

    OK, but why is it about Ricky Gervais?

    Hmmm…not quite 100% agreeing with this because humans are mammals, just like many animals who produce milk are mammals. We cannot put humans above animals, just as we cannot put animals above humans.

    So, as much as animals should not be exploited, so the same applies to humans. It cannot be veganism to see a human exploited by another human (and not doing anything about it), much the same way you do not wish to be bullied or exploited. The animals need YOU to be in your best form of mental and physical health in order for you the vegans to help them.

    Kindness to environment means kindness to animals and to ourselves. They are all interlinked. We are all connected. One cannot do without the other.

    Veganism is about the animals’ journey of life and their rights as much as human rights and the unspoken rights of the Mother Nature. I feel this is a better explaination of what I will call “universal veganism”.

    It’s good to rant and move on. Don’t let one meat-eater frustrate you – there are loads more out there whose aim is to give you a heart attack! 🙂

    • Again, I repeat that this man is NOT saving animals from harm. He is choosing to attack some people for their use of some animals while he continues on in his own use of other animals.

      Please, stop with the “world won’t go vegan overnight”. No vegan on the face of the earth has ever said it will. And that is not the point. The world will go vegan when people start spreading a consistent and coherent message that all animal use is wrong. Ricky Gervais does not do this. In fact, he is confusing the message so much that no one will go vegan by listening to him.

      “spend time focusing on what you as a vegan can do”. I am. I am spreading a clear and coherent message about veganism and attempting to undo the damage that confused folks like Gervais are doing.

      It’s “about” Ricky Gervais because he is an outspoken celebrity who is very confused about the animal rights issue and should stop speaking about it because he is doing far more harm than good. People who might be vegan if given proper information look at him and think, well he “cares” about animals and still eats them so I can do that too.

      What the hell are you talking about when you say “we cannot put animals above humans”? What are you referring to? No one is saying to put animals “above” humans, whatever the hell that even means. Animals are EQUAL to humans in their right to not be used as a resource. I have no idea what you are getting at there.

      “It cannot be veganism to see a human exploited by another human”. What………? Where is this coming from? Okay, here we go: Veganism deals with ANIMAL rights, not human rights. Obviously anyone familiar with systems of oppression can see the links between human oppression and animal oppression, but veganism is about ANIMAL rights not human rights. Do vegans care about human rights too? Most of us do, because we are against injustice in all its forms. Hope that answers whatever the hell you were trying to get at there.

      “Veganism is about the animals’ journey of life”. No, it isn’t. Veganism is about realizing that animals value their lives every bit as much as we value ours and that we have no right to use them and kill them for no reason at all other than we can. Veganism is about justice for animals. I don’t know what you are talking about there.

      I wasn’t “ranting”. In fact, I put forward a well thought out argument of why what Mr. Gervais is doing is utterly illogical and hypocritical. Everyone seems to be taking it pretty personally. But I reiterate: the man is a hypocrite who is doing a great deal of damage to the animal movement by spouting confused ideas. We should not be listening to a word he has to say.

  17. People throw so many logical fallacies around, it’s frustrating.

  18. Ask him to spend some time on Gary Yourofsky’s Facebook page. He’ll never be vegan after that encounter. Seriously though, he donated a signed guitar to one of my favourite animal charities, one that will be auctioned off for donations. So he is a hero to me.

    • I don’t mean to say that he is a bad person. I don’t “hate” him. I just don’t think he is particularly lucid about his stance on animals. He is very confused and is sending a very confused message to his followers. It’s a shame, because he can do much better.

  19. To say that a meat eater cannot care about animal rights is inaccurate and closed minded. This has recently been a massive thought process of mine and I’ve short term practised vegetarianism, pescatarianism and veganism. I do genuinely care about the welfare of animals and how I contribute to that. But I’d be lying to say that I don’t enjoy eating meat and have not struggled in my pursuits to give it up. In your eyes that must make me a horrible person. But though that is the case, I feel that all living things die and whether that be a death which results in decomposition or a death which results in consuming, I still support the notion that all living things should be content. Whether you support meat eating or not surely you must prefer that, if meat eating will go on (which it will) that the animals should at least live a happy life before death. Which we all want for ourselves, regardless of our cause of death. Free range and content animals are the future of farming. Yes they are killed but everything dies. If you blindly condemn all and genuinely see NO difference you are as ignorant as you think we are.

    • No it is NOT closed minded. You are either vegan or an animal exploiter–there is no third option. I am not interested in animal welfare–the problem is not how we treat them but THAT WE USE THEM.

      Most people I know are non-vegans, and no, they are not “horrible” people. What they are is morally confused. Most of them would get outraged if someone hurt a dog or cat, but they give no thought at all to the animals they eat.

      It does not matter that “all things die”. What is the point of even saying that? So just because “all things die” we should bring them into existence for the single purpose of torturing them and killing them to eat them when we don’t even need to do so?

      Please spare me the humane animal exploitation bullshit. I don’t give a single shit if they are content while they are alive. They die, and they die needlessly.

      No, I am not ignorant. You are the one who refuses to get through your head that you are harming other sentient beings for no good reason at all, and they value their lives and want to live every single bit as much as you.

      I don’t think you are horrible, but I sure think your outlook is.

      Have a nice day.

    • Also, it may have been a “massive thought process” of yours, but I’d advise you to think a little more, and a little more critically.

  20. I agree with your basic message. It is a hypocrisy (although more a minor one in my head than yours) that RG is on one hand advocating the fair treatment of some animals whilst still eating others. That goes without saying.

    It was actually a search online of ‘Ricky Gervais Vegan?’ That brought me to your blog. After seeing one of his animal rights themed Facebook status’s I had wondered if he was a vegan.

    After reading the blog and comments, I think what most of the people who posted a negative/ or even slightly argumentative response have a problem with is your attitude. Nobody likes being condescended to, in my opinion it’s one of the ugliest characteristic that humans have. It’s cool you have such a strong opinion, and you’re still going strong as a vegan after 10 years but having this superior attitude where there is no room for debate/argument and you just shrug off people’s well written responses to your blog with snide copy and paste paragraphs of suggested reading and sarcastic sign offs is making you come across like a bit of a jerk. I’m sure you’re a much nicer person in the flesh. I was active in the AR and ALF scene ten years ago and I’ve met/debated people that are just as committed and knowledgable about veganism and animal rights as you seem to be but who have been completely approachable and open in a debate. Which as a teenager at that time was just what I needed. I think if I had come across someone as vitriolic as you I would have been scared away.

    What I try to remember when judging, (and you’re right, everyone does it) is that nobody is perfect. To make a huge assumption, you may be tapping away replies on a smartphone or laptop made out in a country where the worker is paid a pittance, works in fear and lives in squalor. Nobody can move through life without having a detrimental effect on certain things in the world. Nothing is black and white.

    • Hi Jack, Thanks for stopping by to comment. It certainly is not a minor thing that a celebrity is telling people that a person can love animals and continue exploiting them. It’s a pretty major thing, and it lets his followers feel good about themselves while continuing to needlessly exploit animals. His followers are already against hunting, so he’s not spreading awareness, as some claim. All he is doing is reinforcing the speciesist paradigm. But if you don’t think that’s a problem, then you don’t. Good for you.

      You are right–there is no room for “debate” on this issue. It is black and white. People are needlessly victimizing millions of animals every single day for no other reason than that they can. Would you say that the enslavement of black people by whites was something that was debatable? No? Then why is it suddenly debatable when it’s animals and not humans we are speaking of? Oh, right–speciesism.

      For the record, I have not once “copy and pasted” a single response on here. Do I have to repeat myself over and over? Yes. Do I write it out each time instead of copying and pasting? Yes, yes I do.

      When I tell someone to have a nice day, it’s not sarcastic. And I feel it’s good to end with something positive. As for coming off as a jerk, I don’t really care. I’m not out to make friends–I’m out to challenge the deeply ingrained speciesist thinking that people seem so attached to. Also, did you take the time to see the number of insults leveled at me? I don’t tolerate that–if someone has something of worth or value to say, say it. I am willing to take the time to address people who are sincere, even if they are misguided or misinformed. What I have little time or patience for is being told I’m stupid. I don’t need ad hominem attacks here, thanks. You disagree? Good for you. But you don’t get to call me stupid. I think I have handled most of that crap with relatively good grace. But I am tired of people who wander on here and make some inane comment without even reading how I have ALREADY addressed what they are saying.

      Please don’t use the “well you are using a computer so you can’t be pure so therefore you can’t judge anyone else ever”. That is crap. Yes, I am using a computer, the making of which may have caused harm to someone somewhere. How does that excuse someone like Gervais or his many defenders DELIBERATELY and NEEDLESSLY contributing to the slaughter of BILLIONS of animals each year? Really? I believe that is called a “strawman”, and those, like ad hominem, are not welcome here.

      Have a nice day. And I mean that sincerely. I really hope you have a great day.

  21. Ultimately, the world is very unlikely to turn vegan anytime soon. So while that would be the ideal for you, you shouldn’t criticise people who decide to eat higher welfare animal products. If it’s really about the animals, then you should ‘give a shit’ about if they live happy or miserable lives. A chicken who is confined in a cage for the use of their eggs is suffering it’s whole life, I cannot condone that. A small scale farmer who cares for their chickens and gives them a happy free range life is obviously a better alternative no? The farmers who spend more money to give their animals contented lives, because they care that the animal does not suffer, surely you would prefer that over the farmers and consumers who do not give a shit at all about the animals welfare? So instead of blasting those people because they are not what you want them to be, maybe accept that free range farming is better for the animals than factory farming and that can surely only be a good thing.

    • Sigh. Again, I must repeat myself. Okay. No vegan has ever once said that the world will go vegan overnight, or even any time soon, so I don’t know why you all insist on bringing that up over and over again as though it means anything. Please stop.

      As I have already said on this blog, I AM NOT IN FAVOUR OF ANIMAL WELFARE BECAUSE ALL IT DOES IS ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONSUME MORE ANIMALS. I hope that by putting that in caps, I will at least draw your attention to that, because apparently my other blog posts on the matter were not sufficient. Animal welfare does NOTHING for animals, and actually makes things worse. I am not interested in getting bigger battery cages for hens–that is a useless goal. What I am for is getting people to stop eating eggs and using animals altogether.

      You have bought into the “happy” meat myth. It is not true. You are being lied to. Free range farming is in absolutely NO WAY “better” than any other animal “farming”, and I’d suggest you read up on that. Have you stopped to consider that if people think the animals aren’t suffering (which is a lie–they are), then people will buy MORE of those products, thus exploiting more animals and feeling better about it? How does that in any way address the problem of animals as property or resources? It doesn’t. It is not effective. It is how welfarists work with exploiters to make everyone feel good about continuing to needlessly kill billions of animals each year.

  22. Ricky Gervais did actually contribute to my decision to become vegan – because I realised how hugely hypocritical all of my Facebook friends sharing his posts were.

    I had thought for some time about becoming vegan, and realised this was the only correct moral way to eat/shop, but just hadn’t quite got there yet (possibly because of getting through a period of depression) and seeing all of these posts, and people getting up in arms about the Yulin dog eating festival, and fox hunting, and fur, while just ignoring the suffering of animals we use for food just flicked the switch for me.

    So maybe he might be helping people to turn vegan by annoying them 😉

    • Hi Becky,

      I’m glad Ricky did something for you, however unintentional 🙂 He does shine a glaring light on his, and other people’s, hypocrisy when it comes to animals. It’s too bad that so many people keep defending him instead of doing like you did and seeing right through him.

      Thanks for coming here and commenting. It’s great to hear from you! 😀

  23. You care about animals? Hmmm.. how about mosquitoes, cockroaches, ants, pleas, flies, lice, intestinal worms, etc. And by the way, plants have feelings too, and you eat them?

    • Plants do not have feelings, so that is not a valid argument. Insects? Are they sentient? Who knows, but yeah I tend to err on the side of assuming they are. If what you are getting at is that we can never be perfect vegans, well maybe not but just because we can’t eliminate all our harm toward non humans does not somehow give us licence to needlessly kill billions of them every year just because we can.
      Thanks, and take care.

  24. It amazes me the absolute moral exclusivity vegans seem to think they have where anyone non vegan or non vegetarian somehow don’t care about the welfare of animals and any care or concerns they show or difference they make to the welfare of animals is ruled to be completely invalid. It’s just that black and white with you and you completely negate your own pious concerns by ridiculing everyone else’s. Everyone can make a difference to improving the welfare of animals and you don’t just have to be a vegan to do that. I applaud your lifestyle choice and on the other hand condemn the way you actively and destructively look down on everyone else to the absolute detriment of your cause.

    • Hi again, adam. Vegetarians and non-vegans exploit animals and cause them harm. You cannot claim to care about animals while exploiting and harming them for no justifiable reason. I don’t see why that is so hard for some people to understand. I am not being pious, self righteous, arrogant or anything else you and others are accusing me of. I believe the word you are all looking for and failing to find is “consistent”, as in my actions (being vegan) are consistent with my principles (it’s wrong to needlessly harm animals). You can call me names all you want or say rude things but that does not actually change reality.

  25. So what you are saying is that no one can engage in a good cause unless they are perfect to your standards ? this has got to be one of the most stupid posts I have read. I’m sorry but get off your moral high horse!

    • Hello, Nicole, thanks so much for stopping by to comment! I am not on a moral high horse, thank you. I never once said that anyone had to be “perfect” to my standards. What I actually said was, it makes no sense to criticize other people for doing exactly what you are doing yourself. That is, Ricky Gervais publicly criticizes other people for hunting some kinds of animals while he himself pays people to kill animals so he can eat them. And no one NEEDS to eat animals. We eat them because we like to. So Ricky Gervais pays others to kill animals because he likes how those animals taste. How is he any different from the people he openly and vocally critcizes? He isn’t.

      Have a great day, Nicole.

  26. You utterly pretentious prick. One needn’t be vegan to concern themselves with animal welfare – sure, it is of course the most ethical option, but some don’t want the inconvenience. Your blasting of Gervais is uncalled for and arrogant. I’m vegan, I don’t go crying about how “ohhh no, Gervais sticks up for animal rights over his bowl of cereal.” This guy still advocates animal welfare and it’s his choice. You and vegans like you are the reasons why veganism is seen to be a joke by others.

    • Well, hi there Will. Thanks for starting things off with an insult. Always much appreciated.

      No, one does indeed not have to be vegan to concern themselves with animal welfare. In fact, most animal welfare people are not vegan. That’s because they don’t actually care enough about animals to stop using them. They want animals to be treated better so they can feel better about continuing to needlessly use them. Animal welfare is causing enormous harm to the animal rights movement.

      I am not “blasting” Gervais. I am not sure why you are saying that. I am pointing out his hypocrisy and saying that he’s not some sort of vegan hero. I am accurate on both counts, and have said nothing about his character, and am not spreading “hate”, so I really don’t get why you are so upset about this.

      I am also not “crying” about anything. Again, I’m pointing out how inconsistent Gervais is being. That’s not “crying”. However, your comment sounds remarkably like crying.

      Thanks for stopping by. Have a great day.

      • Oh, finally. A vegan who doesn’t make excuses for carnists who pretend to love animals.
        “I love animals”, they say, eating their Mcdonalds meal from a battery farmed chicken, on a leather chair, with make up that has been tested on animals all over their faces. Yes I’m gonna judge you, you bunch of hypocrites. “Oh, but lions are endangered”. Well, if their population was stabilised you’d be happy to torture and kill them just like you do to other animals. I’d call that speciesism.
        Oh, as an end note. Thanks for the “humans need meat” argument. It was convenient, but wrong. You can stop using it now.

      • ………I love you. 😀 Thanks for sharing your voice of reason here–as you can see, it’s desperately needed!

  27. Yes, that much is evident. People’s only response to others pointing out their hypocrisy is to insult them. The only reason they get annoyed is because we are showing them the truth of their actions, and they just can’t admit it to themselves.
    You’re right. There are no shades of gray, only black and white. Non-vegans indirectly contribute to the mistreatment of animals. Simple as.

  28. There was a study done wherein sensors were placed on a plant and the leaves were burned. It proved that plants at least have the sense to feel things, if not completely feeling pain. Saying something is sentient just because it has a face is just as unenlightened as ignoring scientific research and saying this just gives people an ”excuse” to eat meat. Jellyfish do not have a heart, brain, or a central nervous system. I guess vegans can eat those, too.
    http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/video/titles/12151/do-plants-respond-to-pain

    Then again, bleeding hearts don’t care about things like logic and common sense. It’s usually their way or the highway.

    “Do you use a cell phone (or any other technology?) So save the animals, but not the children in China, dying for your rare earth minerals? We are all alive at the expense of the world. You appear to lack critical thinking skills and self-awareness. I obviously have no issue with eating animals. If I am going to, I would prefer they live a natural life and die with the sun on their face and a song in their heart. If I die that content, and not wasting away from cancer or dementia, I would absolutely call that ‘awesome.’ No question. Do you think combines harvesting wheat brake for bunnies and mice? Do you raise ALL your own food, eat quinoa, use pharmaceuticals, sew your own clothes? Do you know how veggies and grains get to your plate? Get off your arbitrary high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.” – TWWLY (small farm owner)

    I would like to add that you’re eating bugs, bug parts, rodent feces, rodent hair, etc. all the time. They’re mixed-in with your grains and even your processed “vegan” food, because there’s no way to pick them out one-by-one when a machine is doing the work. The FDA calls this “Food Defect Action Level” and there can only be so much before it’s considered unsafe to consume.

    We should give thanks to the life that lent itself to us so that we may sustain our own lives. There is no wrong or right, it simply depends upon your own relationship to the life on this planet. Each person is born with different things to accomplish while they are here, and we eat – with gratitude – for whatever supports our completion of those accomplishments. Gratitude and respect for the life support is what is fundamental.

    I also believe factory farms have got to go and small farms that replace them need to be inspected for animal health & safety frequently. Abattoirs need to be randomly inspected in person and on a constant video stream which can be viewed at any time by any inspector without notice (via the internet, phones, etc.)

    • Actually, I have seen that study. First, plants are NOT sentient, and no one said that “something is sentient just because it has a face”. Where did anyone say that? And no, vegans don’t eat jellyfish. Or oysters. In fact, if there is any doubt about another being’s sentience, we err on the side of caution and don’t eat them or otherwise exploit them. The plants in that “study” you are quoting are demonstrating reflex, NOT sentience.

      Plants are not sentient, but even if they were–if you are so gravely concerned about them, how then can you justify feeding them to animals for humans to slaughter and eat? The animals eat far more plants than the humans would, so you are killing more plants by eating animals than you would be by simply eating plants. And do you cry each time you mow your lawn? Would you send a fire fighter back into a burning house to save the houseplants? No? Didn’t think so. Plants are NOT sentient, no matter what “studies” may say.

      Thanks for calling me a bleeding heart. I really appreciate when folks like you come on and use abusive and rude and derogatory language. It’s terrific.

      Please stop with the straw man arguments. No one said we don’t care about children in China. We can care about children in China WHILE WE ARE NOT EATING ANIMALS. It’s not a zero sum game. Did you also ever stop to consider that your eating habits are contributing to human suffering and starvation around the world? I guess you don’t care about those little kids in China half as much as I do, then.

      Wow you are trotting out every stupid argument against veganism out there. Okay, to address the “you are eating bugs anyway all the time” horse shit, let me just say this: No vegan has ever stated that it is possible to be “pure” vegan and no vegan is striving for “purity”, whatever that even means. But if you can’t see that there is one big fuck of a difference between accidentally consuming insects or harming other beings accidentally while raising plants for human consumption versus DELIBERATELY bringing BILLIONS of sentient beings into existence for the SOLE PURPOSE of killing and eating them, then you are not someone who can be reasoned with and you are therefore not worth my time.

      “Giving thanks”. Oh, I am sure that makes a big fucking difference to the being that you killed for no reason other than you like how they taste. I am sure that if they could just understand how thankful you are for the “sacrifice” that they would not choose to make if they had a choice, they’d just be so happy to die so you could eat them……..do you even listen to yourself? You will tell yourself anything to try and justify something that simply is not, in any way, justifiable.

      “for the life that lent itself to us”…..are you kidding me?! Seriously, are you even reading what you are typing? These animals are not “lending” their lives to us! Their lives are being taken forcibly, against their will–they wish to keep on living. You can romanticize murder all you want, but it’s still murder. All the “blessing” and “gratitude” don’t change the fact that you are needlessly and violently killing and exploiting other beings who, like you, value their lives and, like you, want to continue living.

      Please don’t bother commenting here if that is the kind of crap you are spouting.

  29. I just wanted to say something that might ruffle some “feathers” (not your’s Kylie, I hope) I have to admit, that while I find animals interesting and care for them as earthling companions just like humans, I don’t particularly “care” about animals. To me they are cohabitants of this planet and as such I endeavour to interact with those that cross my path as such in a respectful manner. A bit like flatmates if you know what I mean. It does not matter to me if he or she is an ant, a pig, cow, sheep, elephant or lion. I would not eat an ant either. Although I’m tinkering with the idea to somehow cultivate a worm farm to “exploit” their natural tendency to produce compost and worm tea in exchange for veggie scraps. Not so sure about it yet, but that would be totally more ethical than aquaponics, where people harvest veggies and kill fish as I would just benefit from worm poo while not harming the worms and they would simply do what they naturally do until they decide to pop off the planet.
    So in terms of Gervais crying foul on lion murder while stuffing his face with pig steak… that’s called hypocrisy and correctly so. Otherwise no word has any value and becomes just noise. Once Mr Gervais decides to live vegan himself, we can review things, but by then he can do the authentic talking from the heart, and it might sound different than what he’s producing as a non-vegan animal welfarist.

    • You don’t have to ‘care’ about animals to realize that we are doing them a grave injustice and that there is no need for us to do so. You don’t have to ‘love’ them to stop participating in speciesism. You don’t have to care about, or even like, animals to be vegan. You just have to recognize injustice and be willing to change your habits and behaviours so that you are no longer perpetrating that injustice.

      Not sure about the vermicomposting or worm ‘farming’ you are looking to do–it is exploiting worms and it’s unnecessary. Any exploitation is harmful, inherently. Why do it at all?

      Yeah, Gervais is most definitely a hypocrite–too bad all his vocal defenders are so busy screaming in his defense that they can’t take a minute and see the harm he is actually doing. 😦

      • Rings true. Except for the worms. If I make a compost heap (which is much like what a worm farm is) what happens is humus is being created by the worms. I “feed” them with scraps and they “poop” so then I feed my plants with it and they end up in my tummy. It seems quite natural to me. But then there always is breathetarianism (no, I’m not kidding 🙂 )

  30. So Ricky is speciest. Not a problem. The vegan anti-speciesist position has been torn apart for decades, but go ahead, vegans, whatever flimsy ideological ideas help you get to sleep at night.

    • ………huh? “The vegan anti-speciesist position has been torn apart for decades”. Uh, what? What exactly are you saying here? I’m not being sarcastic; I just literally have no idea what you are talking about. Care to elaborate?

      • The speciesist argument is basically based on engaging the reader emotionally more than intellectually. That’s why it was coined as an “-ist” like “racist” and “sexist”, an immediate pejorative before the analogy with racism and sexism is even put forward. I like Peter Singer on a basic level, but the comparison of speciesism to other forms of prejudice was deeply undermined by people on all sides. Multiple philosophers and behavioural ecologists point out that for something to be a prejudice it must arise from scenarios where the prejudice categorically is neither intuitive nor conducive to us. For example sexism cannot be argued as intuitive to humans, nor conducive to us. It is a prejudice. Whereas, to take the analogy from Allison Hills, people treat their friends differently to strangers, but we don’t accuse them of being “friendist” because despite it being true that we favour our friends over strangers, we accept this and understand that it makes sense for us as a species and consciously reversing it would be sort of bizarre and come with all sorts of ramifications that make human society unworkable. There’s more to the analogy than that but that is the long and short of it. Speciesism, when analysed candidly, falls into the same category as ‘friendism’ and consequently we have to redefine how animal rights works not because this analysis of speciesism undermines animal rights, it doesn’t, but basing them on a moral obligation stemming from our view of ourselves as a species is not a sound precedent for anything. Singer himself rejigged his original argument after some time. Tzachi Zamir built the notion of moral vegetarianism where the shortcomings of vegan doctrine à la Singer began, so that people understand that ethical consideration of animals does not hinge upon speciesism. And it’s gaining in popularity with people like Unnatural Vegan on youtube trying, despite the vitriol from the mindless hardcore, to bring the science, reason and impartiality of ethics discourse to veganism.

        I can’t speak for Gervais but from what I’ve heard his approach to his diet is very pragmatic (something like pescetarian, I’m not certain), and at least follows his own reasoning, which superficially seems to acknowledge the pitfalls of the anti-speciesist position.

      • We may “favour” our friends over strangers, but we don’t use that as a justification to go out and needlessly slaughter a bunch of strangers. Your academic babble is just that–babble. The bottom line is this: if you think animals matter morally, which almost all of us already do, then there is no justification for causing needless harm to them by eating them or otherwise exploiting them. If there is no justification, then stop doing it. That’s pretty much it. But thanks for stopping by.

      • And I concur–Gervais’ approach is very pragmatic. He gets legions of fans to cheer him on his morally confused course and never offends any of them by suggesting they follow their own beliefs and go vegan. He wins, his fans win. The only losers are the animals who are needlessly exploited by Gervais and his fans. Pragmatic, indeed. It works for the big welfare organizations, too.

      • When vegans want their beliefs to gain academic merit, people like Peter Singer write Animal Liberation, but when it’s tackled academically it’s “babble”? Yes, when an animal dies the parallel takes on a different significance. But that doesn’t change things as much as you think. Biologically, we are omnivores (not culturally, not artificially, categorically) and although we can prescribe new courses of action based on our ideological persuasions and ethics, it’s a coarse kind of logic and a tenuous position to sort of deny what we have been for millions of years. And don’t give me the “but it’s time to change our brutal cultural traditions” retort. We’re not talking about bull fighting or using leeches in medicine here. This runs almost unfathomably deeper. Every species of every animal on the planet is speciesist, we are not an exception; why would we be? And our speciesist intuition stems from exactly the same fact that Singer took as a reason to champion anti-speciesism: that we are animals too, not better, not worse. But really, it follows from that that we accept the animal that we are. Even if we didn’t, that wouldn’t really change anything. We frame our ethics around what advances us, and protects us (and we call this ‘right’). But a sound ethical perspective does not go against what we as humans do naturally. We oppose racism because it’s self destructive, it’s not, and should not become inherent to us. Same with sexism, forms of abuse and most criminal acts at theoretical level. Speciesism/being omnivores, although it may make you uncomfortable in 2015, is an evolutionary hangover that we do automatically, like being diurnal or having sex for pleasure. Trying to reverse that, particularly on ethical grounds, is dubious and frankly is just not going to work. Nor should it have to. Like nearly all ideology, veganism aspires to this childish and ironically paradoxical perfection. Vegans think that they’re going to make the world better for animals without having any decent explanation as to why there is any onus on us to do that in the first place. It is apparently an attempt to remain consistent with the rest of our ethics, but if that’s the case then there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins and purpose of human morality to an extent which renders vegan doctrine a big non-sequitur.

        You want to make ‘the world’ a more compassionate place? The more I think about it, the more naive it sounds. What part of you thinks that nature favours that intention, or values it? If that notion had any merit why do we have the ichneumon wasp, Philornis downsi, or our beloved wild, free orcas that hunt for sport and (knowingly) toy with prey before eating it? Why do dolphins, the poster children of a happy sea, exhibit vicious bullying behaviour to certain members of their pods? Why do chimpanzees turn on each other and rip certain members of their group (as well as other primates) apart, and docile animals like sheep and many tropical birds turn omnivore when they don’t need to, but have the chance? I could go on forever, but you get the gist. Those are of course rhetorical questions, taken literally I know why they do those things. But it demonstrates one key thing (and it’s not the “lions are allowed so we are too” argument, I know vegans love this softball). Nature has absolutely no desire to be ‘pleasant’. It doesn’t value it or favour it. The only time this isn’t true is when it applies to individuals of the same species (and even then it’s limited). The rest of the time, it is an utter hellish war zone. And we are just another primate. Literally, that’s all we are. With all the corresponding brutality that shouldn’t be remotely surprising to anyone who understands what nature is like on this planet. If vegans can’t face this it’s not because we’re doing something ‘wrong’. Grow up, we’re not in a Disney movie! And I get the vegans that consider it a personal choice, and recognise that their choice is a modern aesthetic that gives them peace of mind. Honestly, I do. But vegans who think their ideology is a moral imperative for humanity demonstrate nothing other than a limited understanding of morality and a damning naivety about human behavioural ecology.

      • Singer is hardly a vegan. Try Gary Francione and get back to me.

      • Please don’t quote Singer to me. He is a utilitarian and has no place here. Thanks. And thanks for more babble. Veganism does not aspire to a “childish and ironically paradoxical perfection”. Where is that coming from? It’s aspiring to not kill billions of other sentient beings every single year for no reason. That seems like a worthwhile aspiration for supposedly intelligent and rational beings. It seems to me that you are saying because we are animals we should just throw morals and ethics to the wind and rape, kill and pillage wantonly because fuck it we’re animals. That is one of the stupidest things I think I’ve ever heard. We pride ourselves on being so far “above” animals because intellect but when it’s convenient to do so, folks like you trot out the “aw shucks well we’re just animals after all” garbage argument.

        No, I don’t want to make the world a more “compassionate” place. Compassion has fuck all to do with it. What I want is for people to exercise that thing we have called intellect, called reason, and start acting justly toward each other and toward other sentient beings.

        All that babble about what nature favours–we have removed ourselves from nature, so that argument does not hold. Why the fuck do I care about what other species do? So, a lion kills a zebra to eat. I should too then because whatever lions do, by your logic I should too. And following that “logic”, male humans should kill the offspring of other male humans to get human females to mate. And we should hurl poo at each other because monkeys. Who cares what other species do? That has absolutely no relevance to humans and human behaviour. So, yes, it is that “softball” argument. What animals do in nature has nothing to do with us, and I ‘m not sure why you keep harping on about it as though it’s some sort of justification for our unjustifiable behaviour.

        And you are quite mistaken in characterizing “nature” as brutal. In fact, there are many, many documented instances of animals showing tremendous compassion for one another, even those of other species, even from predator to prey.

        No one wants a Disney movie. What the fuck is that even about?

        Your comments make little sense, and you seem to enjoy hearing yourself go on and on. You know nothing of vegan thought and theory, and until you do, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop babbling on this blog.

      • Also, no, vegans don’t consider veganism a “personal choice”. It’s not. Veganism is a matter of justice. We have no need to harm and kill billions of other sentient beings every year, other than personal pleasure, convenience or entertainment. Those are not justifications. So yeah, it’s not a “personal choice” when you victimize someone for no justifiable reason.

      • Getting butthurt because someone has a different opinion to you, aren’t we? Hardly surprising. You understood nothing of my arguments. We were talking about speciesism, Singer pioneered that, it underpins the vegan ideology, that much is obvious and yet you say I don’t know about vegan thought and suddenly, conveniently Singer’s off limits now. What is this, hot potato?

        Here’s how you didn’t understand my arguments. Either that or you’re deliberately making strawmen because you struggle to counter my actual point.
        “It seems to me that you are saying because we are animals we should just throw morals and ethics to the wind and rape, kill and pillage wantonly because fuck it we’re animals. That is one of the stupidest things I think I’ve ever heard.”
        I don’t care if it’s one of the stupidest things you’ve ever heard. Because that’s not what I was saying. Did I say screw ethics? Did I say abandon them because we’re animals. As much as it might be convenient for you to pretend I did, I didn’t. What I tried to explain to you, perhaps it was too difficult for you, was that any ethic or ethos we construct for ourselves is bound to fail and fundamentally irrational if it goes against what we are. We are just primates. And to pre-empt the line of thought you got stuck on last time, no, I am not saying we might as well be monkeys and hurl crap at each other. Because that and all the other things you inferred was never our natural state. But we are omnivores. Saying we can or should alter that using an ethical stance is fucking stupid. It’s like saying you think it’s unethical that we have a command of language, because we can spread hatred, manipulate, upset and lie, and so you form an ethic based around no use of language. However technically true it is that we can do harm through language, it is unequivocally part of us. It doesn’t matter if you try (even if you partially succeed) to suppress it, it’s just not going to go away.

        “All that babble about what nature favours–we have removed ourselves from nature, so that argument does not hold.”
        We’ve removed ourselves from nature!!? What planet are you on? Of course we haven’t!? You think because we drive around instead of walking, noticed that for our own species to progress, we should make a code of laws (don’t kill each other, steal from each other etc.) otherwise there would be too much chaos to get anything done, and take vaccinations to combat diseases that we’re not a part of nature anymore? Everything living is nature. We built ships and submarines, but we have no gills or fins, we couldn’t possibly change that. We philosophised about the meaning of life, and conquered space. But Descartes still had to take a piss between chapters and Apollo 11 still had food on board. We haven’t removed ourselves from nature!? What a preposterous thing to say.

        “So, a lion kills a zebra to eat. I should too then because whatever lions do, by your logic I should too. And following that “logic”, male humans should kill the offspring of other male humans to get human females to mate [what? that doesn’t even follow your “counter logic”, let alone mine]. And we should hurl poo at each other because monkeys.” Nope. Once again, I didn’t say that. All I said was that you need a better understanding of what you (we) are. We’re not lions, but we’re not bunny rabbits either. Given the chance, lions wouldn’t create an ethic that says they shouldn’t kill zebras to eat. Nor should we think it is pertinent to create an ethic that says we shouldn’t do something that’s natural to us.

        “Who cares what other species do? That has absolutely no relevance to humans and human behaviour. So, yes, it is that “softball” argument. What animals do in nature has nothing to do with us, and I ‘m not sure why you keep harping on about it…”
        Still not getting it. I’m not suggesting we base our ethics around what other species do. If you think that’s what I’m saying you need to stop being so defensive and doing the mental gymnastics to think I’m saying not what I really am saying, but what’s convenient for you. Any mention of animals is purely a parallel to show you that nothing goes against its own nature. And you have nothing to compel humans to do so (apart from your own aesthetic of morality).

        “And you are quite mistaken in characterizing “nature” as brutal. In fact, there are many, many documented instances of animals showing tremendous compassion for one another, even those of other species, even from predator to prey.

        No one wants a Disney movie. What the fuck is that even about?”

        You’re plain wrong. Nature is brutal. You think videos on youtube and contrived instances of predators acting altruistically (which are generally only recorded because this phenomenon makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside) represents the general state of nature? Ask yourself how could it? Ask yourself if that even fucking works, logically. You’ve been watching Gary Yourofsky too much. This is exactly why I said you’re living in a Disney movie. If you see a shooting star one night, you understand that that’s not representative of what space is, an infinite playground of centillions of shooting stars, don’t you? If it was common (everyday) for predators to act altruistically to prey, then how would that predator species actually survive? Literally, how? Extrapolate that out to however widespread you think this lovey-dovey nature is, and I’d be surprised if there was any wildlife left on this planet. You know, you couldn’t possibly not know, that carnivores and omnivores from big to small, everywhere, are devouring each other every nanosecond of every hour of every day. Nature would implode if they didn’t. The only reason altruistic phenomena doesn’t undermine that (and essentially doom nature) is because it’s comparatively rare. And these phenomena you see, that people like Yourofsky just love to bring up are fucking brilliant. Do you know why? When (Yourofsky’s example) a leopard spares a young baboon and stops the others attacking it, keeps it safe for a while, vegans like you he (and seemingly you) get all starry eyed and think that’s what nature is, heartwarming. Besides that being literally impossible, otherwise it wouldn’t be there for you to see, it’s indicative of the speculative, conjectural nature of so many vegans. A natural scientist or naturist who actually fucking knows what they’re talking about will tell you that that is actually one of the most sinister predatory behavioural quirks, and yes, you’re right, it is well documented. Especially big cats and higher mammals, are acutely aware of their relationship with prey, and consciously try to ensure that they don’t go too far and wipe out their prey populations. It’s almost a kind of sustainable farming.

        “We have no need to harm and kill billions of other sentient beings every year, other than personal pleasure, convenience or entertainment. Those are not justifications.
        I agree. I’m not joking, I agree one hundred percent. And if you’d understood even a line of what I’ve being saying for the past few posts you would understand why.

      • “Getting butthurt”. Shut the fuck up, I’m not “butthurt” because you have a different opinion. I am simply stating that your “opinion” makes no sense, which it doesn’t. You are the one getting “butthurt”. Singer is off limits because he’s not a vegan. He’s a utilitarian who thinks it’s great to eat animals when he’s out with friends. So yeah, off limits because I don’t give a fuck what Singer says.

        You keep prattling on about “what we are” and “our natural state”–“we are primates”. That may be, bro, but we are humans. We have reason. Rationality. Intellect. All those things that we say separate us from the primates. Either we are “just primates” and will fling poo at each other and kill each other’s young, or we won’t because our intellect and rationality place us above that.

        We are NOT omnivores. Are we capable of cooking and eating meat? Yes. Do we eventually suffer ill effects for doing so? Yes. Do true omnivores cook their meat? No. Physiologically, we are NOT omnivores. But even if we were, we don’t NEED to eat animal products. Also, omnivores don’t nurse from their mothers past infancy, so why do we “need” milk?

        No, it’s not “fucking stupid” to say we should “alter” being omnivores, when we aren’t to begin with, for ethical purposes. That’s like saying that because we are sexually driven beings, we shouldn’t alter rape. We don’t rape, even if we might really desire someone sexually, because it’s fucking wrong. Why can’t you get that?! Eating animals, not just their flesh but their bodily excretions, and using them for entertainment, fashion, convenience–it’s not “unequivocally part of us.” You are really grasping at some sad excuses for shit behaviour.

        Yes, we have removed ourselves from nature. It’s all around us, but we are definitely removed from it. I am not sure what planet YOU are on if you think otherwise. We still eat, breathe and shit, but we are pretty fucking far from nature.

        “Nor should we think it is pertinent to create an ethic that says we shouldn’t do something that’s natural to us”. Killing animals isn’t “natural” to us. If it were, you could place a baby in a crib with an apple and a bunny and the kid would try to eat the fucking rabbit. Humans are actually NOT naturally wired to chase down and kill animals. Using animals, killing animals, is LEARNED. You can see it in children, who are “naturally” kind to animals and don’t wish to cause them harm. Why are you so bent on this idea that humans are “naturally” killers? We aren’t.

        No, nature is not “brutal”. Nature is nature. There is life, and there is death.

        How could YOU possibly know everything that occurs in nature? You seem to spend a lot of time on the computer coming here and insulting me, so I’m not sure how you are managing to spend enough time out in nature to actually have a clue enough to make such sweeping generalizations. And again I don’t give a fuck whether nature is brutal or not, as that has NO RELEVANCE on what humans do. You yap on and on about “predators” but humans have no need to BE predators so what relevance does any of what you say have? None. It has none.

        And fuck you for calling me “starry eyed”. You don’t know shit about me. I am definitely NOT starry eyed when it comes to the reality of nature, so just fuck you very much.

        Get the hell off my blog, mmkay? Thanks.

      • “It’s a tenuous position to sort of deny what we have been for millions of years”. Are you kidding? I know you aren’t, but that is just such a ridiculous statement. We are not still cavemen; at least, most of us aren’t. What we have been doing for millions of years is evolving. Changing. Not staying the same. I won’t deny that at some point in our history, killing animals was necessary. The thing is, it’s not anymore. We have evolved to the point where we no longer need to do that.

        Maybe I am just stupid, as you keep implying, but your argument just makes no sense whatsoever. None. At all.

        Or maybe you just aren’t wording it well. Or don’t know what you are talking about. Or maybe your ideas are just….not defensible. Whatever the case, I’d appreciate no longer hearing from you. Thanks.

  31. I know exactly what worm composting is, and yes, it’s natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary or ethical. There are specific kinds of worms that are bred and sold (or exchanged among vermicompost enthusiasts) and they are used for the purpose of composting. Maybe they don’t suffer, I don’t know, but the thing is that we don’t need to do that. Just have a normal compost heap in your yard–I do, but I’m not exploiting anyone to do it. If there are worms in my heap, great, but I didn’t buy them and put them there with the intent of using them. So I guess my point is, if you have a compost heap, great. If worms are in there doing their thing, great. But if you are talking about somehow obtaining worms specifically to use in your composting, that’s not really a vegan thing to do.

    My experience has been that people do worm composting because they can do it inside their homes and don’t need a yard. And while it is terrific that they want to do something as cool as composting, I’d rather they didn’t if they are just going to exploit the worms. It’s not necessary. It’s neat, and yes “natural”, but it’s not necessary.

    Not doing worm composting does not leave only “breathetarianism”. That whole “purity” thing is just false.

  32. I attempt to live a vegan lifestyle and have read this debate with interest. I feel that the author can only take this moralistic stance and criticise others for any small efforts they may be making to reduce suffering if they can say no to the following example questions

    Do you drive a car? If not do you take public transport? If you do then you are knowingly polluting the environment and knowingly contributing to the death of thousands of insects every year.

    In my opinion there are very few, if any, true vegans -if such an ideal exists – and therefore, while I too see the inescapable hypocrisy in jervais’ stance, the author should take heed of the saying ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’

    • Hello, jimbo. As I’ve already stated in the comments here, and in other blog posts, being vegan is not about “purity”. No vegan anywhere has ever said it’s possible to be “pure” vegan. Simply by existing, we cause damage and harm to other species. Okay? So no one here or anywhere is saying otherwise. HOWEVER–as I have said before–there is one HUGE difference between accidentally, inadvertently harming other species while going about the business of living and DELIBERATELY bringing into existence billions of sentient beings FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT THEY TASTE GOOD. We do not NEED to eat them, wear them or otherwise use them for any reason.

      If you cannot see the difference between those two things, then you are not someone I can reason with and I will waste no further time on you.

      I am not in a “glass house”. I have chosen not to participate in the needless victimization of BILLIONS of sentient beings every single year. I am not a hypocrite, but Ricky Gervais certainly is.

      Thanks, and have a great ol’ day.

      • I am sure I share many of your views and I love your passion. As I said I try to live a vegan lifestyle. I am merely pointing out that even you are a hypocrite – we all are.

        if you admittedly kill insects on the windscreen and swat mosquitos then you should tone your criticism of others – as many have pointed out you come across almost preachy.

        By choosing to drive a car for convenience (you don’t have to) you are knowingly killing insects and, if all animals are equal, then you must surely see the hypocrisy in your own stance.

        I’m sorry that my response rattled you so much that you needed to bash out a blog post. I am not a critic – I admire your defence of animals. On the flip side I think Jervais, while hypocritical, should be applauded for using his platform to promote the subjects he does – they could strike a chord and start a journey that would eventually lead someone / many people to become a fully fledged vegan.

        Hell – I’d even respect a celebrity who lives and promotes ‘meatless Mondays’ while living a carnivorous life for the rest of the week. Not everyone cares about animals as you or I do – it’s surely better that people do something – even if we deem it minimal or hypocritical – than nothing at all?

        Respect x

  33. I have now read some of your other posts and see that my views may be deemed ‘welfarist’ in your opinion, despite me living as a vegan myself.

    The goals of abolitionist veganism are admirable – I sincerely hope that they will be appreciated and universally accepted in time.

    I think my previous argument stems from the fact that we are SO far away from this world right now. Therefore, in the meantime, I want as few animals to suffer as possible – even if it’s through better monitoring of hideous slaughterhouses or bio dynamic farming rather than factory. Im perhaps therefore more accepting of the welfarist argument in the world we inhabit as it is today than you are.

    • See, again, you aren’t picking up what I’m putting down. I have talked before about veganism as a “journey”–it isn’t. Gervais should NOT be applauded for continuing to exploit and needlessly harm animals while putting others down for doing the exact same thing he is. That kind of thing should not be applauded, because by applauding it, we are indicating that it’s okay when it’s not.

      In terms of vegans being hypocrites, again I say you are wrong. Vegans acknowledge that there is no such thing as vegan purity. You indicate in one of your numerous comments that killing insects by driving a car is completely avoidable because no one needs to drive a car. Yes, in fact, we do need to. The city I live in was expressly designed to encourage people to drive cars. While we do have transit, and I do in fact take transit, it’s not that great (especially in a cold winter city like mine) and transit vehicles still kill insects. Going about the business of being human will always involve harming some animals–like insects–but I again state that that harm is a far cry from DELIBERATELY and NEEDLESSLY harming BILLIONS of sentient beings for no reason other than pleasure, entertainment or convenience.

      So no, vegans are in NO WAY hypocritical. I’m not sure why you keep saying that, but you are wrong.

      You keep saying that we are so far away from a vegan world right now–right, and you know why? Because of welfarists like Gervais who keep pointing at SOME kinds of animal use/abuse while refusing to acknowledge their own involvement/participation in it. THAT is why we have an “animal rights” movement that focuses on treatment rather than the fact that we have no right to use animals at all in any way.

      You can accept welfarism if you like. Me, I’ll keep talking about why it’s a serious impediment to developing any kind of meaningful “animal rights” movement.

      Welfarism DOES NOT HELP ANIMALS.

  34. Finally, while it could well be a load of bollocks, I leave you with a link you may find interesting given a comment on your latest post inspired by yours truly 😉
    http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/holy-man-hasnt-eaten-in-75-years/

  35. Yes, humans are primates.
    However, you’re ignoring the one thing that we have – a conscience. This enables us to make informed decisions, and it is ridiculous to make this comparison.

  36. Fuck you. I’m making me a turkey sandwich.

  37. Do not agree with your article. Honestly, it’s just a jab at Gervais and nothing about animal-awareness. Gervais may not be a vegan, but he’s sending a message to followers that murdering animals for no reason is wrong. Eating meat is perfectly fine. That’s why animals being killed for food is fine since it has a purpose. Gervais is against trophy-hunting and any kind of pointless killing. No need to respond with a smart-mouth thank you. I don’t intend on attacking you. I don’t kill animals for sport.

    • Then don’t agree. What do you want from me then? It’s not a “jab” at Gervais–it’s pointing out his utter hypocrisy. He is sending a message to followers that killing animals is fine if you like how they taste and you pay others to kill them for you. Eating meat is not “perfectly fine”, as there is no difference whatsoever between a lion and a giraffe–which Gervais rants about when a hunter kills–and cows, pigs and chickens–which Gervais happily devours. All killing of animals is pointless killing (except for euthanasia, a whole other topic there). Good for you for not killing animals for sport, but if you pay others to kill them so you can eat them you are no better at all than someone who DOES kill them for sport, which is the entire point that you insist on missing. Thanks, and have a great day.

  38. I think a celebrity who is shining the spotlight on a cruel practice is a positive thing. People’s awareness and change starts with seeing what’s wrong outside of yourself, and with time applying that philosophie to yourself. I started out the same as Ricky Gervais. Condemning animal cruelty, while still eating meat. I slowly realized I was a hypocrite, and am now a vegan. I am not perfectly vegan, but I now do not eat anything with a face or dairy and eggs are also out of my diet. It is a journey and it starts out by seeing how cruel it is to abuse animals who are pets and finally realizing it applies to farm animals too… And if you believe that, you must change or remain in denial of this truth to keep eating animals. There are only two ways to be. In the truth of where and your meat gets to your table, or deny it and refuse to even look at it. It is also a very hard change to make as people make fun of you, and try to make feel bad about your decision because your decision makes them look at their decision to remain in denial.

    • The whole point I am making, Krisi, is that Gervais does NOT “shine the spotlight” on “cruel practice”. Indeed, he himself is a perpetrator of “cruel practice” by paying others to kill the animals he eats. He does not NEED to eat them; he just LIKES to.

      I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but VEGANISM IS NOT A JOURNEY. It is not about you, at all, in any way, shape or form. It is about justice for animals and basic moral decency. It is NOT ABOUT YOU.

      “perfect vegan”. Again, I’m not sure how many times I have to repeat myself here. There is no such thing as a “perfect” vegan. But we can sure as hell do better than eating them, wearing them, and otherwise using them for no reason other than pleasure, convenience and entertainment. You don’t have to be “perfect”, whatever that means, but you START by being vegan. Sure, we trip up, we don’t know, we make mistakes. But we DO NOT deliberately continue eating cheese because it just tastes good and it’s “hard” to give up.

      It is NOT “hard” to be vegan. It’s the easiest thing in the world.

  39. Did any of you who are citing the giraffe story bother to check what that was about…?
    It was not a girl killing a giraffe for fun.
    It was the Zoo of Copenhagen who had to put down a giraffe, because no other zoos wanted it, and they had no room for it themselves.
    The giraffe was put down and dissected in public (i the zoo), to teach people about the giraffe.
    A lot of children were present, and I guarantee you, that a lot of them now know more about not only giraffes, but about where meat comes from.
    I do not want to go into discussions about whether zoos are ok.
    I just want to point out that the social media once again is being used for publicising half truths and hearsay.
    And when it clearly is done just to get followers and sympathy for one self like i Ricky Gervais’ case (him having a lot of followers) it becomes a democratic problem.
    So go on discussing animal rights but please do not promote other peoples lies in the process.

    • Yes, I am fully aware of what the story was of the zoo in Denmark that slaughtered a baby giraffe for all to see and fed his corpse to lions. They did not “have to” kill the giraffe. They did so because he was surplus and they just fed him to carnivores. Dissecting animals in public does nothing to “teach” people about animals. It just furthers the very incorrect notion that animals are mere things we can use however we please.

      However, Gervais does call out hunters for killing animals. One such was a blonde American woman named Kendra something-or-other. Gervais is a hypocrite, because he pays others to kill animals just as Kendra kills animals. Given that we do not need to eat animals, both kinds of killing are unnecessary.

      You don’t want to go into discussions about whether zoos are okay because you know they aren’t. They are utterly indefensible.

      I don’t know what you are saying when you say “please do not promote other peoples lies in the process”. I am not lying. Gervais is. I’m not sure what you are getting at.

  40. Thank you, this is so on point. I would like to add that I think farming animals for food is much more cruel than killing a wild animal. Wild animals have at least had some semblance of a life, farm animals have had nothing but exploitation as a commodity. It’s easy to be an activist for dogs and elephants, much more difficult to challenge one’s self and others to change a culturally accepted practice, no matter how heinous. In my opinion Ricky Gervais is a hypocrite and a coward.

    • Thanks for the supportive comment Dawn. You are right–undomesticated animals at least get to live before being needlessly killed by a “hunter”. Farm animals never get that. I don’t like comparing degrees of suffering non-humans experience, because it ALL needs to be abolished, but you’d think if Gervais is going to advocate preferentially, he’d at least advocate for those who are born into slavery and never know a second of happiness in their lives. Hypocrite and coward are apt descriptors for Gervais.

  41. the ‘Joyless Vegan’?… Well thats for sure….

    “we vegans need to call non-vegans out for their non-vegan behaviour.”

    For a start, No. No you don’t. Not at all. Just live your life the way YOU deem neccesary. What gave you this idea in the first place? What makes you ‘King of the Vegans’? What makes you so intent to find the stance of animal Protector that even when other Vegans on this thread say that even they appreciate the way Ricky uses his platform, evenb though he is not vegan. And i got here by googling, ‘Is Ricky Gervais Vegan’ as i was interested in the hypocrisy side of things. Your totalitarian views are borderline fanaticism. As i said, even when sympathised with by fellow vegans, who maybe just have a much less ‘holier than thou’ frame of mind than yourself, you only reiterate your point of view.

    So what if somebody wants to take small steps in veganism? Is that not their choice? and isnt it a better choice for somebody as strongly into veganism as yourself? a slow transition into a vegan is better than no transistion at all surely. Even you, yes you, King Vegan, Protector of the Animals, were not born vegan. Was it a harrowing documentary you watched on factory farming that made you make your choice? or did you not eat meat at all from time the that you could grasp the concept that meant comes from dead animals? Or maybe you are echoing the passions that other radical vegans famous in the vegan have… Freelee the banana girl maybe? Either way your massively inflated vegan ego could constitue as animal cruelty as its probably putting a lot of weight on the shoulders of that high horse you are sitting on.

    • the “Joyless Vegan?”……yes, that’s me. And just so you understand, it’s a joke. I’m actually not joyless at all, but you are just some random internet guy, so draw whatever conclusions you feel like. I don’t know you, and I don’t really care.

      Yes, we vegans do need to call out non-vegans on their non-vegan behaviour, just as we need to call out sexists and racists on their behaviour. No one said anything about “King of the Vegans”, whatever the hell that even means. Why do people like you just jump to that inane conclusion? It’s not about being the bestest vegan evah, okay? Can we just get past that? Thanks.

      My views are not “totalitarian”. I believe the word you are searching for is “consistent”. Being consistent in principles does not make one “totalitarian”–words mean things, and you are using the wrong word here. “Fanaticism” does not apply either.

      Yes, it is someone’s choice to take small steps in veganism. Never once have I said otherwise. However, as an advocate of Abolitionist veganism, I do not ADVOCATE that people take “baby steps”. What I advocate is veganism not as an end goal, but as a starting point. And where is your evidence that Gervais is baby-stepping toward veganism? Where has he ever said that he’s going vegan but he’s going to take his sweet time getting there? I missed that.

      I am perfectly well aware that I was not born vegan. Again, never once have I said I was. What I have said is that the moment we understand that animals matter morally and if they matter morally there is no justification for using them for food, for entertainment or for any of the other needless reasons we exploit them, then we don’t “baby step” away from that. We stop immediately. Do we make mistakes along the way as we learn how to be vegan? We sure do. I did. But we don’t argue that it’s okay to ride horses or eat honey because we like those things and don’t want to give them up. That is what Gervais is doing. If you can’t see that, well I don’t know what to say to you, but you sure as hell have no cause to say the shitty things you are saying to me.

      Saying “a slow transition to veganism is better than none at all” is horseshit. First, that is a false dichotomy, and second, welfarism is extremely damaging to the vegan movement. Focusing on treatment rather than use is incredibly damaging, which you’d know if you read anything at all about Abolitionist veganism. Baby-steps and personal journeys are the welfarist mantra, and I don’t tolerate welfarist shit here.

      Who the hell said anything about “Freelee the banana girl”? I neither like nor advocate what that woman does or says, so stop putting words in my mouth.

      “Either way your massively inflated ego could constitute as animal cruelty as its [it’s, by the way] probably putting a lot of weight on the shoulders of that high horse you are sitting on.” Aw, did you think of that bit of cleverness all on your own? Cute. My ego is not at issue. It’s not about my ego. It’s not about me at all, which you’d know if you actually read a single word I’ve written. It’s about ending animal exploitation, which won’t happen so long as people like Ricky Gervais keep reassuring people that it’s okay to kill and eat some animals while tearing other people apart for doing EXACTLY. THE. SAME. THING. That is hypocrisy, friend, and my calling Gervais on it does not mean I’m arrogant or egotistical or on a high horse. What it means is that Gervais is a hypocrite. Sorry if you don’t like that, but your liking it or not doesn’t change a thing.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    • You should really try reading my responses to all the other comments just like yours on this post. While I thoroughly enjoy repeating myself ad infinitum, it would be simpler if you’d just take the time to actually read about my stance before going off on me and saying all the same silly shit that a lot of others have before you. Just a thought 😉

    • It needs to be approved. By me. Which I just did. So please don’t start the wild accusations of my only allowing comments that agree with my stance. One of the main reasons I started this blog was to argue with welfarists like you to highlight how silly the welfarist position is. Thanks for cooperating!

  42. I’ve come to notice that vegans are cunts in how they approach non vegan animal lovers.

    So, Ricky may not be fully aware, or aware at all, of the torments felt by the meat, egg, and dairy industry.

    It took several positive, friendly people in my life to ingrain what truly happens to the animals on farms. I never once thought about it before. Sure, I knew it was once an animal but it was an indoctrination that this was different. Farm animals have a different standing within society the same way dogs and cats used to and how Lions, elephants, giarraffes, etc are viewed.

    I wish progress wasn’t gradual, but it is. And your nasty approach to Ricky Gervais’ activism is bull shit. You don’t get people’s attention that way. That’s what kept me from engaging vegans for a long time until I met some that weren’t judging and weren’t ugly about my then non veganism.

    So, some people dedicate themselves to the welfare of dogs and cats, eventually, if educated, will learn about farm animals and wild animal issues.

    If you want to reach Ricky and educate him on veganism, tweet him about it or FB message him.

    But don’t be a self righteous jerk and dog him out for the good that he still does.

  43. I’ve come to notice that vegans are cunts in how they approach non vegan animal lovers.

    So, Ricky may not be fully aware, or aware at all, of the torments felt by the meat, egg, and dairy industry.

    It took several positive, friendly people in my life to ingrain what truly happens to the animals on farms. I never once thought about it before. Sure, I knew it was once an animal but it was an indoctrination that this was different. Farm animals have a different standing within society the same way dogs and cats used to and how Lions, elephants, giarraffes, etc are viewed.

    I wish progress wasn’t gradual, but it is. And your nasty approach to Ricky Gervais’ activism is bull shit. You don’t get people’s attention that way. That’s what kept me from engaging vegans for a long time until I met some that weren’t judging and weren’t ugly about my then non veganism.

    So, some people dedicate themselves to the welfare of dogs and cats, eventually, if educated, will learn about farm animals and wild animal issues.

    If you want to reach Ricky and educate him on veganism, tweet him about it or FB message him.

    But don’t be a self righteous jerk and dog him out for the good that he still does.

    • Well, thanks for bluntly stating your opinion. No generalizations there at all. I’ll be equally blunt–I don’t care how you became vegan. It’s irrelevant. Just because you took your sweet-assed time about it doesn’t mean that that is what we should advocate for. I went vegan overnight–that is what we should be advocating for. And no, I don’t think I’m “better” than anyone. But I do think that people can waste decades dithering around in vegetarianism, and if and when they ever do finally become vegan, they always say “I wish I’d become vegan sooner”. The reason they did not become vegan sooner was that all the welfarist apologists were clapping them on the back and congratulating them for continuing to eat and exploit animals.

      The whole point is that we don’t want people to be “eventually” educated while they continue to harm animals. Sorry if you can’t get that, but I damn well will continue to call Gervais out for being a hypocrite. He doesn’t do any good at all by making others feel good about continuing to exploit animals.

  44. Also he promotes zoos (Derek season 2). So yeah: fucking hypocrite! Don’t kill animals, but lock them away for life!

  45. You sound like a massively self-righteous arse. Like most vegans.

  46. People like you are the reason so many people dislike vegans. I am a vegan myself, and although the fact that I will be associated with you because of it, is incredibly embarrassing, I will not be ashamed because of it, because my own veganism has somehow not made me an arrogant self-righteous clown.

    • “Arrogant, self-righteous clown”. Soooo, being consistent in beliefs and behaviours is being an “arrogant, self-righteous clown”? I actually disagree with that, and posit instead that coming on to my blog, where I discuss the importance of being consistent in matters of justice for animals, and calling me names is being an “arrogant, self-righteous clown”.

      • “being consistent in beliefs and behaviours” doesn’t make you an arrogant, self-righteous clown.
        Acting arrogant, self-righteous and like a clown does

      • ……sort of like coming onto someone’s blog, not making any reasonable arguments against their stance and resorting to name-calling makes you an arrogant, self-righteous clown.
        Now kindly fuck off, unless you have something intelligent to say.

  47. I’d just like to say that a lot of people on here commenting saying self righteous this, arrogant that, need to take a step back and stop slinging mud at someone that has made a completely valid point. I like Ricky Gervais. I find him highly amusing. I certainly do not hate him. However, one giraffe got killed by a hunter (which I do not condone in the slightest, it is absolutely disgusting) but hundreds of thousands of cattle are slain EVERY day, many of them in terrible conditions where animal abuse is rife, and they are killed because of meat eaters and their demand for meat. Ricky Gervais is a meat eater. You cannot point the finger at a murderer for murdering something when you also indirectly murder them yourself . It’s as simple as that. Ricky Gervais more than likely knows this and like a lot of meat eaters decides to ignore the facts to suit the lifestyle he’d prefer to live. Ricky Gervais knows that if he was to speak out about the terrible abuses that occur to animals in the meat and dairy industries, then he would look like a bit of a plonker if he supports it by buying their products. It would be hypocritical. If meat eaters were true animal lovers and cared deeply about animal rights then they would stop eating meat because that animal DOES NOT WANT TO DIE. The sickening thing is that most people know that it’s wrong to kill animals for food or otherwise but decide to go along with it anyway because it’s either “too hard” to convert, or for their own personal selfish pleasure in that they enjoy the taste of meat. And unfortunately Ricky Gervais is one of these people.

  48. When rich Americans traipse out to go safari hunting, they are killing for sport, not to eat lion for dinner. Shooting something to pose next to a corpse is completely different from buying meat for nutrition. You don’t have to be a high and mighty vegan to oppose killing without purpose.

    • “Shooting something to pose next to a corpse is completely different from buying meat for nutrition.”
      Wow, there is a lot of ignorance in that statement.
      First, animals are not “something”. They are someone. They are not things; they are sentient beings.
      Second, there is no difference between killing animals for “sport” and killing them to eat, given that we don’t NEED to eat them. You do not need to pay someone to slaughter cows, pigs, chickens or any other animals simply because you like how they taste. Killing animals because you like eating them is not justifiable.
      Third, how does being against unnecessary killing make vegans “high and mighty”? Newsflash–it doesn’t.
      Fourth, if you are not vegan, you are not against unnecessary killing. You are very much for it.
      Please educate yourself. Your ignorance is astounding.

  49. Wow, I’m astonished by the amount of ignorant people who won’t listen to reason. And especially how many find their way here. Personally I like Ricky as a comedian, but as you state he is being a hypocrite. I believe a friend just won’t eat you.

    Just wanted to give you my support in this matter 🙂

    • Thanks very much! The voice of reason is very muted in today’s world and ignorance and selfishness reign supreme. People are so quick to defend Gervais without thinking much about what I am saying. People today don’t seem able to think their way out of a paper bag.
      I appreciate the support!!

  50. Still, I prefer a hypocrite who does a bit than a genuine person who does nothing.
    I’m extremely tired of people who cause suffering and simply accuse others who defend animals of being hypocrites. Since when is it better to talk and act both as a fucking asshole than being an asshole while trying to help a bit?

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not defending or praising Gervais. I like it when he tries to help animals as well as when he laughs at religion but, as a carnist, I’d not mind him disappearing. That said, I’d prefer a “genuine person” to go, before he does.

    And, well, after all, most of us vegans are hypocrites as well. Very little people live a life away from society and the total animal extermination which that entails. I’m aware of where the money I give for my bills is going, or the life I’m annihilating and crushing by simply walking on the grass.
    Still, better to do the best we can than do nothing at all. That also counts for non-vegans.
    Hypocrisy is just, after all, simply a word, another human creation with no real meaning in the natural world.

    In any case, I’m glad I found your blog. I shall check it out from now on.

    Greetings.

    P.S.: I don’t read comments, but I had a quick look and it’s amazing the amount of idiots posting bullshit (that’s why I don’t read what people say). I’m amazed at the will you show by replying to all of them. Anyway, good luck and keep the attitude: there’re too many flowers and too little fires in veganism.

    P.S.2: My apologies if you also got my previous, duplicated, comment. I wasn’t sure if it was sent, so feel free to just accept this one, if you choose to do so.
    Cheers.

    • I disagree about the idea that vegans are hypocrites. No, we aren’t. There is a huge difference between living your life and inadvertently harming animals like insects by doing things like walking or driving, versus bringing billions of sentient beings into existence for the sole purpose of killing them because taste buds. This “purity” argument comes up all the time, and it grates on my nerves. No one has ever said we can be “perfect” vegans, whatever that even means considering that being vegan means doing the least harm possible. But not being able to be “pure” does not by any stretch of the imagination make us “hypocrites”, and it sure as heck is not an excuse for non-vegans to not be vegan–but they use it as such (Oh, well if I can’t be a PERFECT vegan why bother being vegan at all? Such is non-vegan logic).
      Anyway, thanks for commenting. I appreciate it.

    • “there’re too many flowers and too little fires in veganism.”–LOL! I agree–thanks for the support 🙂

  51. I am not a vegan (anymore) neither vegetarian all though I eat very little meat. But I have some questions regarding your article. So lets say we today stop killing animals for fun and for eating. Then what? I predict a hell of a lot animals and to little space? Is it ok to kill an animal if it gets sick? Or just old? Or should we let the good almighty cruel nature kill them in a probably slower way? I dont mind killing a chicken from my back yard. I KNOW it had a good life and doesnt know the end was coming. I could go on, but since my english is not the best I stop here. But looking forward to your answer(-s)

    Best Regards

    • OH, fun, an EX-vegan. OK, here we go. Although, if you were once vegan, as you claim, you should already know this:
      “So lets say we today stop killing animals for fun and for eating. Then what? I predict a hell of a lot animals and to little space?”
      So, no one is saying “today”. In fact, what would actually happen is that as fewer and fewer people consume animals, demand would drop, followed by supply. So there would be no “hell of a lot of animals” to take care of–they would simply no longer be bred into existence to satisfy your taste buds. This is such a stupid fucking argument against veganism–and as you assholes love to remind us, “the world won’t go vegan overnight”. So how the fuck is this even an issue? Here’s a clue–it’s not.
      “Is it ok to kill an animal if it gets sick? Or just old? Or should we let the good almighty cruel nature kill them in a probably slower way?” Killing ANY sentient being, human or non, should only EVER be done when it is in the BEST INTEREST of the one whose life is being taken. If we can cure them, we should, as we should other humans. I suspect what you are getting at is that vegans think dogs and cats shouldn’t be euthanized, or you are trying to somehow manipulate the discussion to show how vegans are “hypocrites”, or some other stupid fucking thing. But the thing is, no one ever said euthanasia is out. However, “euthanasia” is a word, and words mean things. Killing animals for any other reason than their own best interests (ie incurable and painful illness leading to slow death) is NOT euthanasia. I know shelters use that word, but they use it wrong. Killing healthy animals is NOT euthanasia, as it is not in the best interest of the animal. Do you understand?
      “I dont mind killing a chicken from my back yard. I KNOW it had a good life and doesnt know the end was coming.” So I shouldn’t mind killing you then, as you have presumably had a “good life” up until now. What a stupid fucking thing to say. The chicken does not wish to die so that her flesh can tickle your taste buds, so your “not minding” killing a fellow sentient being who does not wish to die makes you both speciesist and sociopathic.
      Stop trying to excuse your shit behaviour.

    • So why are you no longer a vegan? It was just too hard not killing those animals? They were just too darn tasty? Or, wait, let me guess: “health concerns”.

      Yeah, I really don’t like ex-vegans. You aren’t an “ex vegan”–you were never vegan to begin with. And now you show up here, all smug, thinking you are going to win an argument by presenting the same tired, stupid arguments every other “ex vegan” and non vegan trots out.

      Give it your best shot, bro.

  52. Eh, ok. I thought this could be somehow constructive, but since your ego is totally in the way I’ll just stop here, I have better things to do. Bro

  53. Sorry, I can’t be “constructive” with someone who was once “vegan” but now consumes animals again. Bye bye bro.

  54. Get a grip – and a life!

  55. “He’s converted others to vegetarianism”. “First, that’s not good because vegetarianism does nothing to help animals.”

    I find this comment of yours exposes your true agenda here, self aggrandisement. So by your own (il)logical reasoning if everybody went vegetarian, or all vegetarians became meat eaters, that would make no difference in terms of the net suffering to animals. Wow!

    Vegetarians of the world, you may as well just start eating meat because you’re not helping, you’re just part of the problem, apparently.

    Well done! You’re better than everyone. Hope it feels good.

    • Oh, yes, self-aggrandisement is so obviously my agenda here. Give me a break. No, my agenda here is to get people to understand that “reducing” animals’ suffering is NOT the goal. You, like all welfarists, insist that “reducing harm” by being vegetarian is “better than doing nothing” but what you appear to fail to understand is that you are creating a false dichotomy. We do not have only two choices: reduce harm or continue harming. There is a third, constantly overlooked choice, and that is to stop participating in all animal exploitation. It’s also called “veganism”.

      You are correct when you say vegetarians are part of the problem. They are. If they actually gave a single shit about animals, they would not drink milk or consume dairy or eggs, which cause JUST AS MUCH HARM AS EATING MEAT DOES.

      I am not “better than everyone”, and your snot-nosed tone would indicate that you are, yourself, a vegetarian. You can do better. Stop fuelling the veal industry, and causing immense suffering for cows and hens. Go vegan. If you care about animals, you must stop exploiting them, completely. That does not mean Meatless Monday. That does not mean vegetarian, veg, v*g, or whatever else. IT MEANS BEING VEGAN. You are either vegan, or you are exploiting animals. Pick one. And apparently you have. You chose to be vegetarian, to exploit animals, and then you get pissed off at me for pointing it out. And you have the utter AUDACITY to come here and sneer at me. Wow.

      • Well, notice how many other people have accused you of being self aggrandising, sanctimonious and the rest? Because it seems to be a pretty prevalent opinion. But I guess you know better, up there, in your ivory tower!

        A pragmatist would say reducing harm is preferable to doing nothing. You skirted around my main point (because you were so busy going on about how great you are, being a vegan and that), as to whether vegetarianism is preferable to being a meat eater? And whether vegetarians not willing to go vegan should just start eating meat because their moralistic path isn’t up to your high standards.

        I’m a meat eater btw. Sorry to burst your bubble! As my brother once said to me, there are two types of people in the world, wankers and hypocrites. I’m a proud hypocrite, I guess you’re of the other variety. Ciao!

        Ps. Keep up the fight alienating people trying to so better by animals as opposed to, you know, attacking the main exploiters of animals (like me) 😉

      • And notice that many others have come on here saying just the opposite. And again, you are setting up the false dichotomy of doing a bit or doing nothing, when what we SHOULD be doing is being vegan. You can call that sanctimonious, or “ivory tower”, or whatever, and you are still wrong. Oh, and because you accused me of “skirting” around whether being vegetarian is better than being a meat eater, LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU IN LOUD, SHOUTY CAPS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND:

        NO, BEING VEGETARIAN IS IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL ANY BETTER THAN BEING A MEAT EATER. WHY? BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL CAUSING HARM TO ANIMALS BY EXPLOITING THEM AND CONTRIBUTING NOT ONLY TO CRUELTY AGAINST THEM BUT ALSO THE IDEA THEY ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN USE BECAUSE WE WANT TO AND WE LIKE HOW THEY OR PRODUCTS OF THEIR BODIES TASTE. IF YOU BELIEVE ANIMALS MATTER MORALLY, AS VEGETARIANS CLAIM TO, THEN YOU MUST REJECT THE IDEA THAT IT IS OKAY TO EXPLOIT THEM. WE DO NOT NEED MILK, EGGS, HONEY OR ANYTHING ELSE VEGETARIANS EAT. THEREFORE, THEY ARE NEEDLESSLY EXPLOITING ANIMALS TO SATISFY THEIR OWN DESIRE TO EAT THOSE THINGS RATHER THAN ANY NECESSITY.

        There…does that help, hon? You were so busy trying to tear me down and failing that I think you failed to comprehend anything I actually said. And you have the nerve to call ME sanctimonious. Eat a dick.

      • Also, Sir Fuckwit, this hardly qualifies as “skirting” the issue:

        You are correct when you say vegetarians are part of the problem. They are. If they actually gave a single shit about animals, they would not drink milk or consume dairy or eggs, which cause JUST AS MUCH HARM AS EATING MEAT DOES.

        But dipshits will be dipshits, and you are most certainly a dipshit (or wanker, as you prefer). Now PFO unless you have something intelligent to say. Thus far you have come up short.

      • Not really trying to engage you intellectually that much, I realised that there’s no point from your pompous responses to others who’ve tried so thought I’d just wind you up. Seems to be working so far. It’s been enjoyable.

        Still, you have skirted around my main point so I’ll ask it in a very straightforward way.

        If all vegetarians were to start eating meat would more, less or equal harm be caused to animals?

        And if you answer correctly, (more – unless you think vegetarians just eat a shit load of cheese to compensate), how can you argue that that’s as bad as eating meat??

        And please stop regurgitating ‘false dichotomy’ to sound intelligent, because it doesn’t, especially when used incorrectly.

        Answer that simple question and I’ll kindly fuck off.

    • FYI:

      A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

      Now get lost, asshole.

  56. You are incapable of engaging intellectually, that much is abundantly clear. You’re not winding me up–you are making yourself look like the clown you are.

    Let’s get one thing crystal clear: I have not “skirted around” anything. I have answered your question, multiple times. I will answer once more, because you seem to be intellectually challenged and unable to comprehend what you are reading. Then you will be completely and utterly ignored, as you are not worth the time it takes to type out a reply.

    If all vegetarians were to start eating meat, the exact same amount of harm would be done to animals. I have already explained this to you.

    I am not using “false dichotomy” incorrectly. It is unfortunate that you are not capable of understanding that and just keep churning out insults.

    This will be the last time I respond to you. Please fuck right off and don’t come back.

    • Well that’s clearly absurd as more animals would be mistreated / killed (i.e more harm caused to animals). This is something that is actually measurable as opposed to the pseudo intellectualism you espouse. As YOU are unable to grasp that simple concept I put it to you that you are the one who is intellectually challenged, blinded by your own zealotry.

      My issue with you is not that I necessarily disagree with everything you say. Veganism is clearly the most ethical choice, and yes, Ricky gervais is a fucking hypocrite, but there are shades of grey and your predilection to shit on anyone who suggests this is thoroughly unpleasant. Hence the bile coming your way.

      Also, do you have any actual evidence, quantitative or qualitative, which backs up your views? For example, non vegan celebrities’ animal appeals ‘do more harm than good’, vegetarians cause just as much harm etc. If not, your view is just based on unsubstantiated theory and is no more valid than anyone else’s so stop pretending it is.

      Anyway, I’m bored of you too so this is definitely my last post. If you PROVE me to be wrong, I’ll happily eat humble pie and take my hat off to you. If not, please stop pretending that you’re so intellectually enlightened because all you have to offer is an OPINION just like anyone else.

      • Just to add one final point. You accuse me of thinking in black and white thinking! Fucking hilarious! As I mentioned before I actually understand what a false dichotomy unlike you, little miss vegan or your not. Now I really know your fucking dumb!

      • No, I don’t accuse you of “thinking in black and white thinking”. I accuse you of not thinking at all. You conveniently forget about the deaths of the male calves and chicks that are useless to the industries that vegetarians insist on supporting in their selfishness and are killed for it.

      • There are no shades of grey. You’ve missed every single point I’ve been making. Vegetarianism is no more ethical than meat-eating, at all. Not in any way, shape or form. There aren’t “fewer animals suffering” if people continue to exploit them for milk, eggs, cheese, etc. And all those unwanted male calves become “veal”, and all the unwanted male chicks are ground up or suffocated–so fuck you for saying that is “less suffering”. Get off my page, you stupid creep.

      • @thejoylessvegan, there’s no use wasting your time arguing with people like this. Everyone has differing opinions any way and at the end of the day unless you’re vegan for totally moral reasons, people will find any excuse to justify the slaughter and suffering of animals. Some people excuse the suffering of some and neglect the abuse that happens to others i.e the dog meat trade compared with beef farms, one is seen as total cruelty and murder whilst the other is deemed acceptable for a steak on their plate or a burger. Likewise with the egg and dairy industries, people just don’t get it. Obviously I would rather people be vegetarian than meat eaters but I do agree, although they are lessening their impact on the suffering of animals (it can be a little hypocritical) when they are then still contributing to the suffering of chickens and cows in this ‘vegetarian’ industries.
        For now, each to their own I’m afraid. I think positive education on the matter is the best way forward and each day more and more people open their eyes to suffering of both humans and animals and the world will become a better place 🙂

      • I don’t see it as a waste of time. Thanks.

  57. This is a joke right? It has to be, “The Joyless Vegan”? Well, if you are joking, it’s horrible comedy, not the least bit funny. Maybe take a few tips from Gervais, who actually IS funny. If you’re serious, I think you should spend less time criticizing people you’ve never met & spend more time growing the fuck up.

    • What are you even talking about? What is a joke? Oh, I see–you are here to defend Gervais. I think you should spend a bit more time reading and thinking critically, rather than coming on here and attacking me without even having a single clue about what I’m saying. You have not even tried to engage intellectually–just attacking. So fuck you, you can grow the fuck up you intellectually challenged dimwit.

  58. He helps hundreds of animals every year through promoting charities and donating himself, what have you actually done to help these animals you pretend to care about? when you sit there taking the moral high ground just cause you don’t eat eggs, fuck off you cunt

    • LOL, what a stupid comment. “just cause you don’t eat eggs”….I’m vegan, dickhead. I don’t eat any animal products, so what is your point?

      What have I actually done? Oh, I don’t know, shit face. I’m vegan, which does a lot on its own. I also advocate, but not by being violent like Gary Yourofsky or a hypocrite like your beloved Gervais. There are other ways to advocate, which you’d know if you’d try reading sometime instead of worshipping your cult leaders. And is it really outlandish of me to expect that if Gervais is so against harming animals that maybe he should stop fucking EATING THEM?

      Now get lost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: