On pet ownership


Here is a well-written essay on pet ownership and animal rights, by Gary Francione. Like the man or not, he’s right. Please read and consider what is said in this essay.

Leave a comment

“A Report from the ‘Intersectional Justice’ Conference”–Gary L. Francione (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/report-intersectional-justice-conference/)

I found this a very interesting read, as I have little respect for Corey Lee Wrenn and her followers, for various reasons. I am interested in the message of Abolitionist veganism, and I do NOT believe using the word “abolition” is “appropriating” the experiences of African-Americans. I also do not give a single shit if the Abolitionist vegan message, which I agree with 100%, comes from a white male. Whatever your thoughts about the man himself, Gary Francione’s theory of Abolitionist veganism is a sound one, and I have yet to see anyone actually convincingly argue against it. So until I see otherwise, I am going to advocate based on his theory.

A Report from the “Intersectional Justice” Conference
by Gary L. Francione
I have written about those who identify themselves as “intersectionalists” but who embrace a very speciesist position. I have also written about a recent conference on “intersectional justice.” The following essay is from Dr. Mark Causey, Lecturer in Philosophy and Liberal Studies at Georgia College and State University. Dr. Causey attended the “intersectional justice” conference. I have never met Dr. Causey and I do not know him other than in connection with his reaching out to tell me about this conference. He wrote the following essay, which I am posting in its entirety as exactly as he sent it to me. He made no changes in response to any observations I made.


I recently attended the Intersectional Justice Conference on Whidbey Island in Washington State. Based on the way the conference billed itself as dealing with the intersections of animal rights, human rights and justice issues, I naively assumed that it would deal with the intersections of animal rights, human rights, and justice issues. I soon learned the danger of making assumptions. The main focus of the conference seemed to be voicing the anger and rage that many of the speakers felt at their being marginalized within the animal rights (or “animal whites”) community. The Abolitionist Approach, which oddly enough doesn’t even consider itself part of the mainstream “animal rights” community in the first place, came in repeatedly for explicit and pointed criticism [well, criticism is not really the correct term because that would imply a substantive engagement with ideas which was not so much on offer here]. As far as I could gather there were at least 3 main complaints about the Abolitionist Approach:

1. Veganism as a moral baseline is too simplistic and assumes (white) privilege
2. Calling it “abolitionist” appropriates the lived history of the African-American experience and seems to assume that since legal slavery has ended that there are no lingering issues of systemic racism
3. Abolitionist veganism focuses too much on nonhumans!

I will attempt to address each of these in turn now.

1. Veganism as a moral baseline is too simplistic and assumes (white) privilege:

Indeed, it would seem from what I gathered that having any sort of universal or at least potentially universalizable moral principle, like veganism as a moral baseline, is a sign of patriarchal, white male privilege that takes its viewpoint as the universal and thus erases the perspectives of differently situated others [the truth of a proposition being determined more by who the speaker is than by what it is they say]. Telling someone to “go vegan” implies that they have money and access to vegan options. It is consumerist. The whole notion of “voting with our forks” implies buying power and privilege to vote. One speaker, I honestly don’t remember which one, was thanked, to much applause, for not asking us to all “go vegan.”

Now I certainly see the point that not everyone has equal access to fresh, wholesome fruits and vegetables [not to mention all the analog vegan products that so many falsely assume necessary for a vegan diet] based on where they live and their socio-economic circumstances. I also know that statistically the majority of those so disadvantaged are people of color. I absolutely agree that this is a fundamental human justice (food justice) issue that must be addressed and that vegans should be at the forefront of such efforts. As we were reminded, and I fully agree, that unlike natural deserts, “food deserts” don’t just happen. They are constructed by systems of discrimination both racial and economic. Now that is an intersectional issue. Enabling disadvantaged peoples to be able to go vegan would save animals’ lives as well as the lives of these humans who also disproportionately suffer from diet related diseases. But as Gary Francione has repeatedly explained, the necessity for some to eat animal products in order to be adequately nourished doesn’t mean that it is just to consume animals, it only means it is justifiable given the circumstances—unjust circumstances we should be working hard to change! It is possible, as Ellen Jaffe Jones has demonstrated, to eat vegan on $4 a day (the amount of the average SNAP allotment). We even learned at the conference about some amazing work being done in inner-city Baltimore to introduce people to vegan diets, so why not ask people to go vegan and then help them do it rather than ridicule the very notion? Eating a vegan diet [and I by no means want to imply that veganism is only about diet] in these circumstances then becomes a powerful means of non-violent social protest against a food system that is admittedly rigged against these communities. Indeed, the conference seemed at times an odd combination of people with solutions and people with complaints with the two never seeming to connect.

As to the notion that having any sort of universal or at least potentially universalizable moral principle, like veganism as a moral baseline, is a sign of patriarchal, white male privilege that takes its viewpoint as the universal and thus erases the perspectives of differently situated others—this is simple moral relativism. Now here’s the thing: I am a philosopher who has actually published on Nietzsche, one of the chief proponents of what he called “perspectivalism” and a darling of the critical theory crowd. Nietzsche was one of the chief practitioners of what Paul Ricoeur called the “hermeneutics of suspicion” which sees power dynamics and hegemony behind all claims to “truth” and even “morality.” But what I see in this criticism of veganism as a moral baseline is a speciesist power play that maintains our human hegemony over nonhuman others. It is a claim that whenever human rights interests conflict with nonhuman animal rights interests, the human interests always win. Nietzsche to one side, the very notion that we shouldn’t have moral absolutes is counterproductive to any justice struggle. The very fact that these speakers are complaining about the very real injustices they have experienced as non-dominant group members demonstrates that they have a universalizable concept of justice—it’s just that they apply it unevenly across the species-divide. I do not doubt for a moment that they care about animal justice nor wish to suggest that they are in any way insincere. Many of them have been vegan longer than I have and have done far more justice work than I have or perhaps ever will do. I am only suggesting that speciesist attitudes have created inconsistencies in their own positions. If animals matter at all morally, that is if they are members of the moral community as we all agree that they are, then our treatment of them is just as much a justice matter as our treatment of each other. We should never be doing things to them that we would consider unjust when done to another human.

2. Calling it “abolitionist” appropriates the lived history of the African-American experience and seems to assume that since legal slavery has ended that there are no lingering issues of systemic racism:

I was told at the conference that the term “abolition” implies that slavery and the racist attitudes that made it possible are simply a thing of the past. Done and dusted. Time to move on to liberate someone else now. Such an attitude ignores the persistence of slavery (albeit not legalized slavery, like that of the Immokalee tomato pickers) and the systemic racism. Despite the Abolitionist Approach’s 5th principle which clearly rejects all forms of human discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism, I was told that it is not enough to just say it. A fair point. I was told that veganism is not like some badge to be earned but something you have to do every day. It is more like a verb than a noun. Amen. So what are we arguing about?

The thing is, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, I have never seen where Gary Francione [who was called out by name in the conference] has ever denied that racism, sexism, heterosexism….. still exist and are still active justice issues. He explicitly states that, “We cannot say that we reject species as a morally objectionable criterion to discount or devalue the interests of nonhumans but that we do not have a position on whether race, sex, or sexual orientation/preference are morally objectionable criteria when used to discount or devalue human interests. Our opposition to speciesism requires that we oppose all discrimination.” Comparing human slavery and abolition to animal slavery and abolition, I am told, is to try to compare suffering. African-Americans were “animalized” and denied their proper recognition as full human beings, so to then compare their suffering to animal suffering simply repeats this dehumanization. But the intent here is not to compare suffering. We can’t. The intent is to highlight the systems of domination operative in both cases [here we all can agree on blaming the white males who set up this system and still profit from it]. Indeed, I would argue that speciesism is the original form of domination. That is why every subjugated group in the past, women, people of color, members of nondominant religions, and so on have always been “animalized” in the minds and depictions of the oppressors. Our domination of animals back at the beginning of domestication led to the domination of other humans as well (especially the appropriation of female bodies and reproductive capabilities). All humans still profit in various ways (but not all equally) from our continued domination of the nonhumans. I suspect the real complaint here is related to number 3 below: that abolitionist vegans spend too much time focused on nonhuman animals rather than human ones.

3. Abolitionist veganism focuses too much on nonhumans!

I suspect that much of what is behind this complaint is the notion that until we have solved all the human problems, the animals will just have to wait. Needless to say, that is hardly an intersectional approach. The idea seems to be that human justice simply matters more. That is speciesist. In terms of sheer quantity of suffering [oops, I was told not to use this comparison!]—trillions a year—animal suffering is on a scale that simply defies comprehension. This is not to compare the quality of the suffering, it is just a fact that humans have never been bred , slaughtered, imprisoned, enslaved, etc., on anywhere near the scale that we are currently doing to nonhumans. What I expected to hear at the conference was how attacking our speciesist exploitation of nonhuman animals would be actually striking at the root of all forms of oppression. That is what I thought would be the intersectional message here. Instead, the message seemed to be more a complaint that animal activists weren’t more engaged in the various struggles for human justice. But that seems to reinforce the idea that these are separate struggles rather than truly intersectional ones and that the human issues are more important and pressing than the animal ones. It also ignores the important differences between the abolitionist approach and other “animal rights” groups that explicitly reject the vegan moral baseline.

Mark Causey, M. Div., Ph.D.
Philosophy and Liberal Studies
Georgia College & State University

Leave a comment

Vegan Eating in New Orleans

I recently went on a short trip to New Orleans and was very pleased to be able to dine at a number of vegan/vegan-friendly restaurants.

I arrived in New Orleans in the evening, and after getting myself settled in my hotel on Canal Street, I headed out to Country Flame restaurant (www.countryflamerestaurant.com), which was about one or two blocks away from my hotel.  Country Flame is a very nice little place offering Latin American cuisine.  I ordered vegetarian fajitas with tostones (twice-fried plantain slices).  There was plenty of tasty food at a very reasonable price.  However, there aren’t a lot of vegan options, so I only ate here once.  Still, it was a good meal.

The next day, I took the St. Charles street car to the Garden District and wandered around looking at the amazing architecture of the enormous mansions there.  I worked up an appetite and headed over to Hi Volt Coffee (http://hivoltcoffee.com/), a wonderful little cafe at 1829 Sophie Wright Place.  I ordered the Super V sandwich, which consisted of cashew cheese, basil tomato, cucumber, sweet onion, lettuce, and chimichurri on baguette, and it was excellent!  I chased that with a vegan King Cake doughnut (complete with plastic baby as a garnish).  I highly recommend this place–it was one of my favourites on this trip!  It might not have an extensive vegan menu, but what is offered is very good.

I continued to wander and eventually ended up by Seed, an all-vegan restaurant in the Garden District (seedyourhealth.com).  Here I feasted on vegan gumbo–very tasty and a good portion–and beignets.  It was an excellent meal at a fair price, and I liked the interior of the restaurant.  It was great to eat in a place where I could order anything off the menu, and the menu had a good variety of food on offer.

My second day in New Orleans was spent touring Laura Plantation. I was very hungry after the tour and headed to the Green Goddess (www.greengoddessrestaurant.com) in Exchange Alley in the French Quarter.  Although it’s a tiny little place, it wasn’t busy when I was there so I was able to grab a seat. I had the Wasabi Lemongrass Tofu Musubi, which consisted of two grilled slices of local made lemongrass tofu brulléed with wasabi sugar over pressed Louisiana Purple rice wrapped with seaweed topped with pickled turnips, sweet soy, fried shallots, green onions, and sesame oil with mirliton slaw.  It was one of the best things I’ve ever tasted.  They also offer one vegan dessert: it’s a bananas foster dish flanked with scoops of coconut sorbet, which was very tasty but also a very large portion (so be prepared to share with someone!)  There aren’t a lot of vegan menu items, but there are a few and if the one I had is any indication, they are delicious.

After I moved to the Hotel Royal for the final three nights of my trip, I dined at the Louisiana Pizza Kitchen (www.lpkfrenchquarter.com) where I had a veganized Hunter’s Chicken pasta dish.  It consisted of angel hair pasta topped with vegan chicken in a rosemary marinara sauce.  It was a bit sweet and a lot delicious!  However, when I ordered it again on a different day, it was not the same–it was much, much spicier.  Different chef, I guess–it was kind of disappointing.  The first time I ate there, I also had a slice of vegan cheesecake.  It was great!  There was a slight peanut butter flavour and lots of chocolatey goodness, and it was a huge portion!  The next time I ate at the LPK, it was lunch and I had the black bean wrap and roasted red pepper soup (soup offerings change daily)–it was a generous portion and reasonably priced.  It was also very tasty!  There are several dishes that can be made vegan, and they are clearly marked on the menu, which was nice.

There were other restaurants/eateries that I wanted to try but didn’t get the chance to.  13 Monaghan on Frenchmen Street offers a BBQ po’boy I really wanted to try, and the Praline Connection has five different meatless dishes (variations of beans and rice).  Flora Gallery and Breads on Oak were two other places I had on my radar but didn’t get an opportunity to sample.  Oh, well, next time I guess   🙂

It’s nice to know there’s a vegan presence in New Orleans and that as a vegan traveller, there is somewhere in that city where I can sit down to a great vegan meal!




More on how Ricky Gervais is harming the animal rights movement

Here is a link to a YouTube video that shows a debate between Abolitionist vegans and welfarists:


tedious arguments with others

A person named martissimo has recently been babbling on my blog. This is my response to him, and I won’t be responding to him anymore. If others want to take him on, feel free. But be warned, dude loves to hear himself go on. I’m done.

The speciesist argument is basically based on engaging the reader emotionally more than intellectually.
No, it isn’t. While there is nothing wrong with engaging someone by appealing to their emotions, if you understood vegan/abolitionist animal rights theory, you’d know it’s not merely emotional. Gary Francione is one example of someone who engages the intellect. There are others.

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.
Not sure why it was “undermined”, but it most certainly is comparable to other forms of prejudice. They are all connected.

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.
As I already said in the comments, people may indeed treat their friends differently than strangers. We don’t accuse them of being “friendist” because that treatment doesn’t result in the brutal oppression of anyone who isn’t their friend. The analogy doesn’t really work. Speciesism certainly does not fall into the same category as “friendism”.

“[W]e 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.” Full disclosure: I don’t fully understand this babble, because it’s babble. What I do understand is that the moral obligation humans owe non-humans does not stem from our view of ourselves as a species. It stems from an understanding that other species value their own lives every bit as much as we do, and in the absence of any kind of necessity or justification, it is not moral to take their lives. That is what I understand, with no babble to distract me from it.

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.
His approach to his diet is like most people’s—it’s about his own convenience. While Gervais is happy to make scathing commentary about hunters, he is perfectly content to pay others to kill animals so he can eat them. He’s a hypocrite, as I’ve already stated.

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”?
Peter Singer does not lend academic merit to veganism. He is not vegan. He does not promote veganism. The welfarists quote him, so I don’t know why you keep referencing him. In regard to critiquing Singer’s work, have at it. But yes, I do find that generally, tackling things “academically” involves a tremendous amount of babble. I’d be much more interested in your reading and discussing any of Gary Francione’s work, as he is actually a vegan (an abolitionist vegan) and has relevance to discussion of animal rights and veganism where Singer’s does not.

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.
We are not omnivores. And it is not a “tenuous position” to “deny what we have been for millions of years” when what we have been is evolving. We are not cavemen. “We can prescribe new courses of action based on our ideological persuasions and ethics”—no shit. We’ve been doing that for millions of years, too. I’m having difficulty understanding what the point is that you are attempting to make. It seems like you are saying that while we certainly have the capacity to keep changing for the better, we shouldn’t because we are basically still what we were millions of years ago and that’s just so deeply embedded that we cannot overcome it. That is how I am reading that, because that is how you have written it. And it makes no sense at all.

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?
What “runs almost unfathomably deeper”? If you are talking about eating animals, then it is indeed all about culture. It is not a biological imperative, although people like you keep insisting that it is. It isn’t. I don’t eat animals, other vegans don’t—how are we overcoming this imperative while non-vegans aren’t? It’s not a biological imperative, or whatever you are trying to argue here. People eat animals because they like how they taste, because they always have, because they see nothing wrong with it, etc. That IS all cultural. We are conditioned to think like that via our culture. “Every species of animal on the planet is speciesist”—uh, wow. What does that even mean? If you mean, some animals will eat other animals, I hardly think that can be described as “speciesist”. More like “biological imperative”. Unlike humans, many other species of animals DO need to eat other animals to survive. I can’t control that, and it’s not relevant to what humans—who do NOT have a need to eat other animals–choose to do.

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.
Seriously? LOL. Yes, we are animals. Yes, we are no better and no worse. What is your point here? Regardless of what other animals are doing and why, humans have the choice to not cause unnecessary harm to other species. We are not morally “better” or “worse” (one life is not worth more than another), but we have evolved in such a way that we are capable of making choices guided by morality and ethics. And one of the main arguments I’ve heard against veganism is that “animals aren’t as intelligent as humans” or “animals don’t think and feel the way humans do”—so humans have very definitely set themselves up as “better” than all other animals and used that as a justification for doing some atrocious things to them. Either we are “better” or we aren’t. Pick one.

But really, it follows from that that we accept the animal that we are.
Meaning what, exactly? The one capable of exercising rational thought and living by morality and ethics, or the one that just shrugs and says “Well, I’m just an animal, no better than any other, so I’ll just go kill someone because that’s what animals do in brutal nature”? Like I said, pick one. The “animal that we are” is intelligent and capable of not needlessly bringing billions of sentient beings into existence for the sole purpose of killing them for no other reason than “they taste good”. And the funny thing about us human animals? When that is explained to us, most of us get it. We don’t want to cause needless harm and death to other sentient beings. We aren’t the “animals” you seem to be saying 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.
Except that killing animals does NOT “come naturally” to us. I am not sure why you are so bent on insisting that every human being is just biologically programmed to be a savage, violent killer. That is pretty fucked up, and also wrong.

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.
I disagree with you here. First, don’t conflate being speciesist with being an omnivore (which humans are not anyway). Second, speciesism is not “an evolutionary hangover”, whatever that even means. It’s the idea that humans have greater moral value than non-humans, which is fundamentally wrong. Speciesism is NOTHING 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.
…except it IS working. People already feel that non-human animals matter morally. With increasing amounts of vegan education happening, they are making the connection that their behaviours (like eating meat) are not consistent with the beliefs they ALREADY hold. The only thing being “reversed” is the culturally ingrained belief that humans need to exploit animals or that they have any right to.

Nor should it have to. Like nearly all ideology, veganism aspires to this childish and ironically paradoxical perfection.
LOL WUT? “[V]eganism aspires to this childish and ironically paradoxical perfection”. Uh, no, it doesn’t. No one has ever said anything about “perfection”. What are you meaning here? Vegans acknowledge that simply by existing and going about living, humans will harm non-humans. No one has ever said otherwise. if I go for a walk, I might step on an ant. But that is not a deliberate act of violence that stems from the belief that as a human, I am better than all other species and that somehow gives me the right to eat them or otherwise use them unnecessarily for no other reason than I can.

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.
Are you fucking kidding me? The “onus” is basic human decency. Just as I believe that I am trying to make the world a better place for other humans, I believe I am trying to make the world a better place for non-humans. And the onus for all of those things is BASIC HUMAN DECENCY. If you can’t see that, then I feel very, very sorry for you. Very.

You want to make ‘the world’ a more compassionate place?
No. In point of fact, I want to make the world a just place where we don’t kill someone just because we can.

The more I think about it, the more naive it sounds.
How sad for you. You have no sense of basic human decency, and that is just so very sad.

What part of you thinks that nature favours that intention, or values it?
What are you talking about? I don’t even comprehend your point here. Human society values “that intention”, and will benefit from it tremendously.

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?
Who the fuck cares, and what the fuck does that have to do with humans?

I could go on forever,
You seem to. I wish you would stop.

but you get the gist.
No, I’m afraid your point is not being made. It’s getting lost in all the babble. You just love to hear yourself, don’t you?

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.
And yet humans do value “being pleasant” and have the desire to do so. What the ever loving fuck is your point?

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.
Based on what? I don’t see the world as a “hellish war zone’ at all and I think that’s called hyperbole, actually. You are greatly exaggerating the state of things.

And we are just another primate. Literally, that’s all we are.
Thanks! I had no idea. I studied anthropology,minored in it actually, but I had no idea we were primates until you just told me. Thanks. And fuck off. We are also HUMANS and have evolved separately from other primates–some of us, anyway.

With all the corresponding brutality that shouldn’t be remotely surprising to anyone who understands what nature is like on this planet.
Oh shut up already about how horrendously deadly it is out there. You are just so very, very wrong.

If vegans can’t face this it’s not because we’re doing something ‘wrong’. Grow up, we’re not in a Disney movie!
You are really grating on my nerves. No one said anything about a Disney movie. Do you seriously think vegans believe that if we just want it enough, lions will one day lie down with lambs? Well, maybe the Christian ones do, but I’m not one of those. I am perfectly well aware of how nature works. What I am far more concerned about is how HUMANS work and how we don’t need to use and kill animals. I don’t care what lions do–I care what humans do.

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.
It’s not a “personal choice” when victims are involved. No reasonable abolitionist vegan believes that non-veganism is a “personal choice”. So clearly you don’t understand veganism at all.

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?

For the record, I do not get “butthurt” when someone disagrees with me. Given the very small number of people who are vegan, most people “disagree” with me. That’s life. What does irritate me, though, is when someone presents inane, incomprehensible arguments against veganism, and sorry if that isn’t what you are saying, but it’s sure coming across that way. It seems to me that your entire argument can be summarized with “Well, given that humans are primates, there is some sort of deeply embedded biological imperative to exploit animals needlessly. That imperative cannot be overcome because morality is silly.” That is honestly how I’m reading what you are saying, and maybe that makes me a mental gymnast or maybe that just means you aren’t communicating your ideas very clearly.

Peter Singer does not really warrant a place in any discussion of veganism. I am well aware the he is considered the “father” of the animal rights movement, but he is not, himself, a vegan. In fact, he’s a utilitarian, and the welfarists love him. So yeah, I’m not really keen on bringing him into any discussion of veganism.

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.

Clearly, you missed my post about Gary Y. Spoiler alert–I don’t watch him at all because I think he’s violent and dangerous. Thanks for the lolz, though.

I wanted to continue addressing your ridiculousness point by point, but I’m tired and out of time. Your arguments make no sense at all, and I am still confused as to whether you agree with veganism or not. Your last comment indicated that you were actually agreeing with me but I’m just too stupid to see it, but every single other thing you said was against veganism. Either way, I give no more shits about talking with you. If you continue to comment, you will be blocked. Goodbye.


Another post on vegan “purity”

As a vegan who thinks critically about various issues, I keep having others tell me that I had better be “perfect” myself before I “throw stones” at others from my “glass house”.

Here is why that is a bullshit thing to say.

No vegan has ever said that it is possible to be a “perfect” vegan and never harm a single animal throughout our entire existence. Yes, when vegans drive or take the bus, or hell, even walk, insects may be killed. Yes, some animals may be harmed or killed as we plow our fields to plant food for us to eat. And oh my god yes, I swat at mosquitos!

That is all true. No vegan is denying, or has denied, that.

So what? What is your point in saying this, nonvegans (or misguided vegans)?

There is no point. It’s a red herring, designed to derail any intelligent talk about veganism.

“Well, it’s impossible to ever be a ‘pure’ vegan, so I guess I’ll just either never even try to be vegan because if I can’t be pure why bother, or I’ll be a vegan but I will never, ever, ever dare to criticize the actions of another person because oh my god glass houses and stones.”

This is “pure” stupidity. I mean, what an idiotic argument.

There is a big, I mean HUGE, difference between accidentally harming some animals while trying to live, and intentionally bringing billions of sentient beings into existence for no other reason than to kill and eat them, needlessly. We do not need to eat—or wear, or otherwise use—animals. Do you understand that, nonvegans (or misguided vegans)?

There is a HUGE difference between hunting a sentient being for funsies and unavoidably having insects die on your windshield as you drive your car.

There is a HUGE difference between wearing leather or silk, wool, or down because fashion and inadvertently harming other beings while you harvest your crop of plants that will keep you fed.

There is a HUGE difference between using animals in rodeos, zoos, circuses, and aquariums to entertain humans and accidentally……..well, you get the point.  I hope.

Is that clear enough?

We DO need to eat to survive. So, we eat plants. Might some harm be caused while growing these plant crops for human consumption? Sure, it might. Although, I’d argue that as we shift the paradigm toward veganism, we’d come up with methods of growing and harvesting crops that minimize or eliminate harm to other species….but I digress.

We DO NOT need to eat animals, meaning there is no need for them to be brought into existence to suffer and end up on our plates. That is deliberate and unnecessary harm.

Can you see the difference?

If not, please refrain from posting here. If you can’t see the difference between those two things, you are not someone I can reason with and I do not wish to waste my time and energy on you.


A quick word about the “tone” of this blog

I have had a few people criticize me for my tone on this blog. This blog is where I come to post things that matter to me and that I feel need to be said. I am not a “spiritual” vegan so if you are looking for that sort of “gentle baby steps namaste” approach, you will not find it here, as I have stated in a previous post. If you start with attacks and insults, I see no reason to be particularly polite to you, though most days I actually do try. Other days, not so much. I guess it depends how much welfarist drivel I’ve encountered on any given day. If you display outstanding amounts of ignorance and an unwillingness to engage in reasoned discussion, I can’t be bothered to waste my time on you.

In short, I make no apologies for the “tone” of this blog. If you don’t like it, then don’t read it.

Not sure what else I can say about that.