No graphic images: But Why? (ignorance is bliss)

We all breathe a sigh of relief: this post isn’t going to unsettle us in any way. There will be nothing to churn our stomachs.

It’s always nice to see at the top of an animal rights post that there will be no graphic images, and if there are graphic images included it’s also nice to have that little warning: “WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES”, so that we can make the decision not to look. 

  This is something that I’ve been criticized very heavily for in the past: sharing graphic, unsettling images or video clips on social media. Generally speaking people will just let me be sharing my animal rights message (or “propaganda” as some of them call it, much to my annoyance. I must make a note to write about why that is inaccurate) but there are two things people just won’t put up with: graphic images and aggressive posts. I’ve even made an effort to not include any graphic images in my blog, because I was afraid that no one would read it if I did. And that got me thinking, why will people not read it, or watch the content? Why do people prefer to know when there are graphic images, so they can choose to look away? And I’m genuinely asking here, because if your stance really is that the animals are treated fairly and then killed humanely, and there is genuinely nothing wrong with what’s going on, why does it make you turn your head to see what is going on? Surely these images are humane, they’re fair and there’s nothing painful or horrible about what is going on in them? … Right? Even people who are fine with viewing that content admit they would prefer not to see it everywhere, or get annoyed whenever it crops up without warning, but why should you need warning if it’s all fine and dandy what’s going on?

The problem with this irritating stance is that it gives people the freedom to dismiss animal rights arguments as invalid. People believe what they see, and it seems if they don’t see in depth the cruelty of the animal agriculture industry, it doesn’t exist. So long as all you see is the happy cows and pigs they show you in adverts, that’s all that exists, to the point where people will believe a cartoon character telling them animals farmed for meat are happy over an actual experienced researcher with all the facts, and that researcher may find it hard to dispute this position, because they’ve been handicapped by the fact that they’re unable to show the actual evidence they have because no one wants to see it. And that’s fine, if you don’t want to look at distressing images and video clips I can perfectly understand that. I don’t enjoy them either.
But going on to argue there is no cruelty in the industry and that vegans are spreading lies and propaganda and it’s not really like that isn’t fine. It’s not logical or sensible to dismiss evidence you haven’t even paid attention to.

For me personally, I find a lot of people seem to think if I had more compelling arguments I might be a bit more successful, but the fact is everyone expects the animal rights movement to fight for their cause with one hand tied behind their back. It’s very easy to say there is no cruelty in the industry when you’ve banned showing the evidence! When posts get flagged for having the slaughter of a cow or a pig, and people complain and ask for it to be taken down when there is “distressing” footage of a chicken being bullied or a cow being milked, how can anyone be expected to know about the cruelty of the industry they are supporting?  Everyone is up in arms when the artificial insemination of a cow is called rape, but when we try to show you what it looks like the images are taken down, removed and complained about because they’re too vulgar and graphic: a bit like you expect images of rape to be.  But because we can’t show our reasons for calling it that, the point is refuted as unfair and offensive.

It’s no surprise that no one will recognize our points as valid when we’re not even allowed to give our evidence. People can easily throw out weak arguments such as: “that kind of thing doesn’t happen in this country” and “I only buy humane, free-range, so what I get is okay” when all our options for proving them wrong have been taken from us and labeled as graphic content. No one will even take a look at an article or video literally showing them what their “humane” meat is, but they’re still happy to support it.

If you’re going to talk about “humane” and “free-range” and support it and argue for it, logically you should know what it contains; you should know what the context is behind it. And I’m not talking about knowing what the words mean, I’m talking about understanding how and why “humane” is different to “non-humane” meat and animal products, and having the evidence to back it up.  Do you know how a pig is killed with non-humane methods? Do you know how a pig is killed with your so-called “humane” methods? What’s the difference? Take me through the process.
Of course, no one ever can. They sometimes offer idle comments like “it’s when the animal doesn’t know it’s going to be killed” or “it’s when the animal can’t feel it”. One person even offered the ridiculous suggestion that “when an animal does realise what’s happening in the slaughterhouse it’s taken out into the field to calm down for a bit”. All of these things, anyone who has genuinely looked into the actual process behind the slaughter will be able to tell you, are completely incorrect.  And the irony of it is, there isn’t even a label on most of the products these people buy claiming that the product is “humanely killed”. I’ve honestly never seen that on a meat product in England. It’s just something that seemingly rational people have decided is true, even though there is no reason to think it, making it irrational.

Did you know, for example, that there is an organization called the “Humane Slaughter Association” that deals with making sure the process really is humane? Most people who use the argument of “humane” killing don’t, and yet it will turn up on the first page of google results for searches like “is my meat humane?” “What is humane killing?” and other similar searches, proving that none of them have really looked into it. And though they like to throw out terms like “humane” when you ask them to explain what that means their answers give you clues that they don’t really know what it means.

So I ask you to stop criticizing the graphic content posted by animal rights activists and ask yourself, is it the person you’ve got a problem with, or the picture? If an action captured in an image distresses you, you need to act to stop the action, not the image. And if you avoid graphic content, you should avoid the byproducts of that content: meat. Dead animals. The thing to remember is that the graphic content you turn your eyes away from is real. It's images of things that are really happening, it's not some really realistic painting animal activists have drawn for fun. It's from inside the slaughterhouses and the farms that you support when you buy animal products. Be reasonable, be rational, be vegan.

(Like me. Hi.)
 (I feel like I should state that the majority of the pictures in these blogs are not my own creation. I tend to just google phrases from the blog and fit in the most fitting, most eye-catching or most amusing image. So disclaimer: for the record, they're not mine. Except this one of me at the end here.)

Debate: Do meat-eaters deserve to live?

If you’re into the ever-growing youtube scene, you’ve probably heard of Freelee the Banana Girl, who is one of the most famous vegan youtubers on the internet, with almost five hundred thousand subscribers on youtube. Freelee is known for being controversial, and she recently posed the question: “do non-vegans deserve to live?”
And there was an outcry against her answer. And even more of an outcry against the fact that a lot of people in the veganism movement came out as agreeing with Freelee on this! It resulted in people calling veganism a cult, comparing us to the Nazis and Isis.
Now, personally I don’t agree with Freelee’s answer, HOWEVER I do think that people misunderstand what her and other vegans in the movement are saying when it comes to this, so I’ll start off by explaining before I go into my side of the debate.

First off, this is a philosophical question: this means that it is purely hypothetical and has no bearing on the actual actions of the people posing it. Though Freelee and many others may be of the opinion that SOME non-vegans do not deserve to live, they are not going out there and trying to kill them. They wouldn’t be vegan if they did: Veganism means not exploiting or causing suffering to other beings, and humans are also other beings.

Now, secondly, you may have noticed I said Freelee and others think SOME non-vegans don’t deserve to live, not all. That’s the other important gem of information people seem to overlook on this subject: If you actually go and watch her video, and those of the others saying similar things, no one is saying everyone who eats meat should immediately die.
What is actually being said is that if someone has been made aware of the suffering that goes on in the animal agriculture industry, has seen the pain their choices cause, and yet decides not to make the change and continues to eat meat and dairy and knowingly contribute to that suffering, they are not deserving of life.
The whole debate is based on the ethical belief that if you deliberately end the life of another, you deserve to lose yours: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. If someone commits a murder, they deserve to die. (It’s not that new of a concept. I mean, it’s even in the Bible.) Now, this idea does not state that if someone unknowingly causes harm to another they deserve to die: i.e. if someone commits manslaughter -maybe hits someone with their car by accident, or something to that effect- they don’t deserve to die, because they had no intention of ending a life. The moral basis of this is that if you deliberately end a life, or cause the end of a life knowingly, you should lose your life.

I think that the people who say this make some valid points, however now for my side of things:
This argument is basically an age-old argument relabeled and made relevant to the veganism argument. And the argument is, do you agree with the death penalty?

Some countries still have the death penalty, and those that don’t probably used to, until people protested that it was wrong. But a lot of people thought it was a good idea, and some people still do. I’ve even heard non-vegans talk about bringing back the death penalty for animal abusers when it comes to people who beat and kill dogs and cats, which is really mind-bogglingly hypocritical.

My stance on the matter is that the death penalty should not exist, anywhere, ever. It never should have. We cannot justify making judgment on who can live and who should die, and no one is qualified to say who is deserving of life. That’s where the whole problem came from in the first place! Humans deciding they can choose who and what gets to live and what doesn’t. It’s the basis of the meat industry, it’s the basis of much of the oppression and war and killing that goes on in the world. In fact, it’s really the basis of all killing in the world.

I don’t think a pedophile or a mass-murderer or a thief or any type of criminal deserves to die. (I’ll come back to that point later, as it will probably intrigue a lot of people). That's not to say I don't think they need to be taught a lesson, or that they don't deserve some sort of punishment. I just don't think we should kill them. And I don’t think meat-eaters do either. In my eyes, laws exist to protect people, not to punish them. Even if the laws themselves even claim to be for punishment, they exist to prevent people from doing wrong, and therefore protecting the rest of society from them. If someone has already done something wrong, we put them in prison, and I think that’s the right thing to do, but not because I believe they deserve to be locked up: I’m not qualified to make that judgment. I believe they need to be locked up so that they are safely tucked away and can’t harm anyone else, and when they come out hopefully they will have learned the consequences are not worth it, and will not commit the crime again. That’s the real purpose of it. And ending a life should be done only in the efforts of preserving more life, not as some strange form of justice or for any other reason. If it came to it, I would fight back against someone trying to kill my friend or my family member. And I support anyone who does the same, even if it ends in the death of the attacker. But I wouldn’t for one moment suggest that the attacker deserved to die, only that the killer had no choice in the matter and that the means justified the end result: protecting the innocent and preserving other life.

By this logic I would say that steps need to be taken to stop society from killing animals. If I had my way, we would have the same protective and preventive measures put in place to preserve harm to other species. The meat industry needs to stop, and people have no right to end the lives of other beings for their own benefit. But any measures put in place to prevent people from doing that would never be to punish the people, but to protect the innocent victims. And were we to implement the changes leading us to a vegan future, I wouldn’t then want all the butchers, hunters and factory-farm workers of the world to be put to death. Death only inspires more death, and that’s not what the veganism movement is about. We want positive change. Because things do need to change. People need to see the light, and there’s definitely something morally wrong with the people who have seen the pain going on in the world of animal agriculture, and have acknowledged the suffering, and choose not to stop contributing. I would myself go as far as to say there is something mentally wrong with them, in the same way as I think there is something mentally wrong with murderers and rapists. Hence why I said earlier that they don’t deserve to die: they need help, they need rehabilitation. They’re sick in the head. But I’m an optimist, and I will always believe people can change and get better. My opinion is the same with non-vegans. Everyone has the capacity to make the change. For the most part, people all have good inside them, and they just need that potential to be released. 

Now, back to justifying the argument for the people who do think meat-eaters are not deserving of life: this offended a lot of people out there. Most people seem to agree that it’s an insane notion, but it might not be so insane as you think.
If you think that mass-murderers deserve to die, that pedophiles and child-molesters don’t deserve life (a point I can very much understand), that people like Joseph Stalin deserved the death penalty; if you can see any valid argument for the death sentence, and think there is anyone on this planet who should drop dead, or at least understand the opinions of people who do believe this, then it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to see why vegans apply the same logic to meat-eaters.

Bear in mind that living a vegan life means giving value and worth to the lives of animals. We recognise them as sentient beings that are aware. They are also innocent victims. Many people think that dog molesters and puppy abusers deserve to die, and even those who wouldn’t say it are usually sickened by the sight of a canine-killer when they appear in the news. So it’s not that much of a stretch to say you at least understand why vegans class animals as deserving to live, and apply some rights to animals. We even know pigs are smarter than dogs and that all the main livestock creatures (cows, chickens, turkeys and pigs) are actually far more intelligent than we used to believe, so classing them as aware and saying they are allowed to live is entirely fair.
So if you apply the ethical principle that those who do unspeakable harm to and end the lives of humans deserve death, why is it such a difficult thing to understand the opinion of someone who applies the ethical principle that those who do unspeakable harm to animals and contribute to their suffering and death don’t deserve to live?

I don’t think I’m at all qualified to say who is and who isn’t deserving of life, but I’m at least intelligent enough to recognise the rational thought behind the debate. There are some valid points being made here, so at the end of the day what I’m saying here is: No, I don’t believe that meat-eaters deserve to die. But I also don’t think it’s at all fair to say those who do are acting like Nazis, or behaving like Isis. After all, actions speak louder than words, we’ve all told someone to drop dead or said something of the likes at some point but it doesn’t mean we will actually kill or harm that person, and the Nazis did inflict death upon a lot of people, as Islamic State are now. And when you’re going to draw those parallels: the gas chambers and concentration camps used by the Nazis were inspired by slaughterhouses if you track them back in their history, and the meat industry actively ends the lives of billions of animals on a weekly basis. Vegans live by a strict ethical code of no killing, so comparing them to murderous cults is illogical and irrational, and just makes us more likely to point out the hypocrisy in it. Not so nice when the tables are turned.

Keep living people.

 (I feel like I should state that the majority of the pictures in these blogs are not my own creation. I tend to just google phrases from the blog and fit in the most fitting, most eye-catching or most amusing image. So disclaimer: for the record, they're not mine. Except this one of me at the end here. Hi.)

Debate: Are vegans morally superior?

This is something that really grinds the gears of many of my meat-eating friends. They’ll always start the statement with “Not you, but so many vegans really get on my nerves with their self-righteous, morally-superior attitude that they’re better than everyone else because they choose not to eat meat”. 

And this is not a conclusion non-vegans have come to on their own. I was out with a group of hunt monitors recently, and we were being heckled by some hunt supporters. The hunt supporters got into an argument with one of our members, and one of the supporters asked what she really thought the difference was between us and them. She replied “We’re morally superior!” (Because of our choice not to harm animals and our actions to try and protect them). This seemed to amuse the hunt supporters, and they asked me something that no one had actually thought to ask me before: “Do YOU think you’re morally superior?”

 Which brought on an interesting thought process. On the face of it, I’ve never liked to think of myself as morally superior to people in general, but when I think about it, I’d be offended if someone suggested I was on the same moral level as Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, I must acknowledge I think I am superior to Osama Bin Laden. And when I think about why I believe that, I realise this thought process must be applied to everyone. If I condemn the actions of someone as being wrong (using Osama Bin Laden as an example) I therefore believe I am morally superior to them. It is as simple as that.

The real issue is that people don’t seem to understand what morally superior actually means, and people really don’t like the sound of the word superior. It makes you think of “better”… Since that’s exactly what it means. But people don’t like that. No one can call themselves better than anyone else, it’s just not right. But we acknowledge that some people are better or worse than others. Unless you maintain that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone has the same morality as Kim Il Sung, the infamous North Korean dictator. Yea, doesn’t sound so nice when you put it like that, does it? So it’s not fair to say you’re better than anyone, but if you don’t acknowledge you are better than anyone, you’re basically agreeing that you are dirt. And that’s not particularly something we want to do either.

Morality is the principle of discerning the distinction between right and wrong. If you believe an action is wrong, then it is immoral. If it is right, then it is moral. Seems pretty basic.

And everyone seems to be able to grasp that vegans are vegan because they believe it is wrong to harm animals for your own gain. Regardless of whether you agree with it, generally people understand that this is what it’s all about.

So, if people are able to comprehend that being vegan is about deciding that exploiting other species is wrong making the decision not to, and if we all understand that morality is the line between what is right and what is wrong, why is it so hard to understand that IF you are an ethical vegan you must automatically believe that eating meat is wrong, and that doing it is immoral, therefore being vegan is morally superior. That’s kind of the whole reason we’re doing it!

It strikes me as odd that people would, knowing this, get offended that vegans think of themselves as morally superior. “Oh, those vegans! Always on their high horse!” (Again, for clarification true vegans don’t ride horses, but more on that later) “Why do they have to go around acting like they’re better than everyone else!” Is it really so hard to understand that if a vegan believed they weren’t better than others and being vegan doesn’t make you morally superior, it would mean they see nothing wrong with eating meat and would no longer be vegan?

The only logical conclusion I can come to is people honestly don’t understand what the term “morally superior” actually means, and are just getting offended because their pride is hurt by the idea anyone might think they’re better than them. Now, I will always preach humility and a humble nature, but people in today’s society seem unable to acknowledge moral superiority, which leads to an inability to change. So I’ll just quickly spell it out for you: Yes. Some people are morally superior to you. No matter how good you feel about yourself, the chances are somewhere in the world there is someone who is a nicer and more thoughtful person. And if you live a lifestyle that supports the suffering, exploitation and death of other beings that are proven to feel, then you are on a level of morality lower to someone who doesn’t. 

If you still don’t get it, here’s another parallel to be drawn: You, if you are the standard, non-homicidal person, who hasn’t committed a murder or string of murders, most likely view yourself as morally superior to serial killers. Why? Because they have chosen to kill people, and you’ve never done that. That makes you a better person, and you don’t feel guilty for thinking it, because it’s just logical.
This is exactly how a lot of vegans view the situation. They also don’t kill people, but they don’t support the death of animals in addition to not killing people, which puts them again on a slightly higher level of moral superiority. By this line of thinking, a vegan serial killer may very likely be viewed as morally inferior to your standard meat-eater, but when just judging dietary lifestyle choices, if you have two people identical in every way, but one eats meat and one doesn’t, logically, by a standard code of ethics, the one who doesn’t must be morally superior.  In the same way, two serial killers who have murdered the same amount of people, one of whom is an animal abuser and one of whom runs an animal sanctuary, even though I think we can all agree they’re probably both horrible people, the one who also abuses animals is more than likely just a tad more horrible. No one is totally and utterly moral or immoral, we’re all more shades of grey, but if you subscribe to a standard code of ethics it is only reasonable to acknowledge there is always room for improvement: if everyone believes everyone to be on the same moral level, then no good deed is truly a good deed, and no bad deed is truly a bad deed. Everything shares the same moral consequences, and pushing someone in front of a bus makes you no better or worse a person than pushing someone out of the way of a bus.

I originally went vegan because I came to the conclusion that I WASN’T morally superior to other species, and that my worth was not more than their own, and I believe the only way to truly inspire and live a selfless, moral and ethical existence is to be humble, and though I don’t always follow through on that, I try not to boast myself as morally superior to my friends and family: it’s not such a good way of keeping them around and therefore not such a good way of influencing them towards your lifestyle. But in truth if I didn’t think being vegan made me in some way morally superior, it would mean I didn’t think eating meat was wrong and I’d still be doing it. That’s not to say I think my family and friends who still eat meat are total immoral beings (they’re scum! Scum scum scum! Spit), but I do believe that their actions are immoral, and when it comes to diet and lifestyle choices, I therefore must logically dictate that I live a more morally superior lifestyle. A person who knows the suffering the animal industry causes and chooses not to change their ways must be seen as morally inferior to someone who sees the suffering and takes action to not contribute towards it.
Now, I try my best not to class myself as personally morally superior to others. I’ve done things I’m not proud of and acted selfishly. But the one thing I feel most guilty about is eating meat and dairy and contributing to animal suffering for the first nineteen years of my life, and I am very much of the belief that being vegan is morally superior to not being vegan. And if you don’t agree, ask yourself this:
Do you think of someone who is kind to animals as superior to someone who doesn’t?
Would you frown upon someone beating a cat in the street?
Have you ever read an article about a man who physically abused a pet dog and judged him? Or saw a picture in the news of a hunter killing off an endangers species and thought how terrible it was?

Do you believe animals can feel pain?

If any of these are even slightly true, then you acknowledge that not harming animals is better than harming them, and even if you don’t realise it, technically speaking you believe someone who doesn’t eat meat is morally superior to someone who does. I’m not saying that you want to be vegan, or that you believe everyone should stop eating meat. I’m just saying that on some level, you acknowledge that there is a moral superiority in choosing not to do it.

So, to sum this whole thing up in one sentence: being vegan is morally superior to not being vegan. That’s not to say 100% of vegans are morally superior to 100% of meat-eaters, but one lifestyle clearly has the moral superiority, and on first impression I will always look more favourably on vegans than I do on meat-eaters, as I look more favourably on people who don’t try to murder me than people who do. 

Do I think meat-eaters are all bad people? Of course not. I just think a lot of people have yet to make the connection. But I pray and I hope every single day that they do soon, because unfortunately lives are being lost while they stay in the dark.

(I feel like I should state that the majority of the pictures in these blogs are not my own creation. I tend to just google phrases from the blog and fit in the most fitting, most eye-catching or most amusing image. So disclaimer: for the record, they're not mine. Except this one of me at the end here. Hi.)

Debate: Should meat-eaters respect the views of vegans?

(relevant definition of respect in this context: 

 

"have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).

"I respected his views"

synonyms:

show consideration for, show regard for, take into consideration, take into account, make allowances for, take cognizance of, observe, pay heed/attention to, bear in mind, be mindful of, be heedful of, remember; archaicregard "at least they respect your privacy".")

 

My last blog post was my side of the debate of “should vegans respect the views of meat-eaters”. I decided it was only apt that this next post be the reverse of that debate:

Should meat-eaters respect the views of vegans?

Now out of context I think it’s very fair to say that meat-eaters should respect and therefore act respectfully towards vegans, however having just written a rather long post as to why vegans have no obligation to respect meat-eaters (and indeed shouldn’t, as it goes against the entire ethos of veganism), it seems only fair I explain WHY I think that the reverse is different.

Now in the other post I stated how meat-eaters are harming life that vegans hold dear. Having already given animals some higher value that the rest of society denies them, vegans have to watch everyone else use and harm them. But they definitely don’t have to be respectful of it. In many cases they exercise their right to protest it. Vegans (back to those of the activist variety) feel some sense of obligation towards the animals being harmed and killed for the gain of the rest of our species, and so have no cause to respect those harming them, and should feel no guilt in trying to sway them towards stopping.
But do meat-eaters have cause to respect the people criticizing and seeking to undermine and put an end to their way of life? The answer may not seem so clear-cut here, but I think it is.

First off, as I established before, unless I missed something massive when I was eating meat (maybe someone forgot to send me the memo), meat-eating is not a religious or moral code, it just comes from tradition and sensory pleasure. As a society, we don’t tend to weigh preference the same as moral beliefs. Piled on top of that, there’s all the ways in which the animal agriculture industry is causing harm. In brief summary, in case you haven’t picked up on them, here are the main three things the aforementioned industry harms:

Animals – Obviously, this is the easy one. There are all the animals that are killed, abused and exploited: literally billions of casualties every year. Whether or not you think it is right or at least okay for us to do so, we can all acknowledge the simple fact that they are dying, and therefore count as something the industry harms. So yea. Enough said on that.

The planet – This one has been coming up a lot more in the news recently, and with the climate change talks in Paris it’s finally getting some of the focus it deserves, but a lot of people still aren’t aware of it. Animal agriculture is the leading contributor to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in the modern world (that’s right, it even dwarfs all forms of transportation combined!). It is also the leading cause of oceanic dead zones, deforestation and species extinction. Needless to say, our insatiable hunger for animal products has done a great deal of damage to the environment of the planet we live on. As it is, we are putting a massive strain on the ecosystem, and all experts concur that we cannot keep meat consumption going at the rate it is. It is vastly unsustainable.

Humans – Last but not least, ourselves. Now we’ve always known that a diet high in animal products increases risk of heart disease, osteoporosis and strokes, however more and more we are discovering additional heath risks to an omnivore’s diet. Just last year, the World Health Organization released a report detailing how red and processed meats are carcinogenic (causers of cancer). And we’re not talking mild carcinogens here; we’re talking on the same level as cigarettes.  We’re hearing about the problems of dairy, and you can even find studies detailing the health issues with eggs. Not to mention the fact that for a long time there have been many studies proving that plant-based (vegetarian and vegan) groups (Buddhists, Rastafarians, etc.) on average live longer and healthier lives than meat and dairy eaters. The proof out there is undeniable, and we must conclude that a plant-based diet is healthier for the human race, with the only evidence people seem to be able to offer against it being fragile arguments like “look, we have two slightly pointed teeth” (seriously everyone, the canine teeth argument was shattered a long looooong time ago, stop throwing it back at us like it’s clever because it’s really not).  Not to mention, the food alone that we have to produce to feed billions of cattle, chickens and pigs could easily solve world hunger several times over if we stopped producing that livestock and sent the food elsewhere (tens to hundreds of billions of livestock, seven billion people. You do the math). And that’s not even considering the resources used throughout the rest of the process. A worldwide plant-based diet could save a lot of people.

So, a balanced vegan diet is better for us, and going vegan has greatly positive impacts on animals and the planet. People, animals, and the planet: your three basic arguments against eating meat (and using animal products in general). I think it’s pretty clear why we don’t respect people who are harming people, the planet and multiple other species.

One of the things that we respect in celebrities and famous figures is when they show an act of kindness in dedicating their resources, in the form of time, publicity or money, to those in more need. It’s often front-page news, and people give them a large amount of appraisal for it.

Vegan activists are pushing to do that with food resources. Meat-eating society is stopping them.

When you think of the most highly respected figures throughout history, they are usually the most intelligent, but also the most kind and compassionate, the most noble and just. Adolf Hitler was an incredibly intelligent man, but we don’t respect him because he lacked kindness. It is the people who have had positive impacts on the world around us that we respect. Now, I’m aware we’re talking about respect in a different context, but this kind of thing is important to keep in mind.

When asking vegans to respect meat-eating as just another valid lifestyle that happens to be different to their own, you are asking them to respect the choice to kill billions of creatures, torture and exploit even more, cause a large amount of damage to the planet and the Eco-system, and use up valuable resources that could save a large number of human lives. They are asking us to take into consideration and make allowances for their choice to sacrifice others.

When vegans/vegan activists ask the rest of society to respect them and their beliefs and actions and lifestyle, they are asking society to respect their choice not to cause harm, and to work to save lives, and also their choice to try and convince others to live a more compassionate lifestyle. They are asking everyone to show consideration for their sacrifice in the name of preserving life.

 

Now, it may seem like vegan activists are often being preachy, acting morally superior and stuck on a high horse (side-note: vegans don’t ride horses) or putting themselves on a pedestal, but the fact of the matter is, if living a lifestyle that causes less harm and damage is not a better, more compassionate and yes, morally superior lifestyle, then nothing is. Morality is about right and wrong, and although I will always believe it is best to always be humble, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging when you are doing something good, and acknowledging when someone else is doing something bad. Having the courage to tell people that their lifestyle is causing harm is, in my eyes, worthy of respect.  Any group in history who was stood up to an oppressor of another, despite the ridicule of the rest of society is a hero to me, and generally speaking, eventually the history books and the rest of society acknowledges them as such as well and gives them the respect they deserve. I’d have hoped that in such a modern, advanced society as we have today, we could acknowledge and respect an activist group for standing up against what they perceive to be wrong whilst they are still actually around, whether or not you think they can actually make a difference.

So, in conclusion: yes. Meat-eaters should respect vegans. Even if you are not ready to make such a sacrifice yourself and give up animal products, it is only fair that you respect those that have, and acknowledge that it is a positive decision.  With the way the planet is going, you better hope more people have the strength and wisdom to make the change, even if you personally can’t. I know I’m praying for it.

(The blog is over now. I hope I didn't offend. Good day.)

Debate: Should vegans respect the views of meat-eaters?

 (relevant definition of respect in this context: 

 

"have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).

"I respected his views"

synonyms:

show consideration for, show regard for, take into consideration, take into account, make allowances for, take cognizance of, observe, pay heed/attention to, bear in mind, be mindful of, be heedful of, remember; archaicregard "at least they respect your privacy".")

So, blog post number two, and it’s time to get into some dangerous territory. I’m not certain of the wisdom in plunging in at the deep end with such a touchy issue, but this is definitely something that has to be said.

I have a large number of meat-eaters in my life. They’re in my family. I’m friends with them. I work with them and currently I’m even dating one. And they all seem to concur that they respect my lifestyle and what I’ve been working towards in going vegan, but I should respect them as they continue to eat meat.

For the most part I live in harmony with them. I make an effort not to start any arguments on the subject and occasionally hold my tongue when they say or do things I disagree with. However, I feel that in doing so I’ve accidentally misled some of them into believing that I respect their lifestyle in the same way they claim to respect mine. The cold truth is that I don’t.

Shock horror! Gossipy gossip. Let’s dive deeper into this; because I promise you, I’m not being harsh. There is a very logical sense of reasoning behind this.

So, the number one thing I hear from the majority of level-headed members of our meat-eating society (level-headed respectively to other meat-eaters) when it comes to serious, genuine debate on the topic of animal rights, is this seemingly very reasonable quote:

“It’s fine if you want to be vegan but you shouldn’t force it on everyone else. Respect my views and I will respect yours.”

This is said in multiple different ways, but the general message behind it seems to be “you live your life and I’ll live mine”, or put it even more simply: “Agree to disagree”.

Seems fair enough, right? Everyone has their own point of view, they’re entitled to their own lifestyle, and we are all equally deserving of respect. To treat them any differently just because they eat different food to you would be discrimination and prejudice, and unjustified.

So we agree. Vegans shouldn’t be so hard on omnivores.

Unfortunately, that’s not how society works. (In all honesty, that’s not unfortunate at all, it’s really very VERY fortunate, and I’ll explain why).

Now the very easy point I can make here is the fact that meat-eating is not a religious, moral, philosophical or ethical belief-system. People don’t base their lives around it, don’t have deep emotional connections to it and don’t have a moral or personal problem with people who don’t agree with it. No, seriously? Do any genuinely rational people get offended when they see someone go for the salad instead of the steak? And have you ever felt actually guilty because you had a day where you didn’t eat meat? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous! You don’t eat meat for some higher, selfless reason! You just like it (and possibly have been deluded into thinking it’s part of a balanced, healthy diet). I did too.

Now, all you meat-heads out there, before you start judging me for judging you, step into a vegan’s shoes for a second, and let me explain why expecting us to respect your lifestyle would be hypocritical from our perspective.

To start off with, I will provide a simple metaphor for the situation. There are two children building toy houses. One child knocks down the house of the other child for seemingly no reason. We call this bullying (okay, I didn’t mean for this to sound patronising but I’ve started it now so I’m going with it). But, say one of the children had built his house on top of an unsuspecting pet hamster, and the bricks were crushing that hamster. The hamster is in obvious pain, possibly close to death, so the second child knocks down the house of the other, freeing the hamster. This is no longer an act of bullying, because it wasn’t done maliciously, but out of concern and compassion. The same action may go unpunished and even rewarded because it had an entirely different motive. This, I believe, is relevant to the animal rights debate, and hopefully this will become clear by the time we’re done here.

Now, there is no denying that a meat-eating diet causes suffering and death to animals. And, as I think I quite aptly stated above, the reason for that is really just a selfish desire for it.

The vegan lifestyle, however, is generally based around animal rights, and reducing the amount of harm your lifestyle causes to other creatures as much as possible. These things don’t give a pleasant taste sensation, in fact they don’t appeal to any of the five basic senses. It’s not about what the individual personally wants. No, they made a conscious decision to put that aside when they went vegan. Do you really think we get some strange sense of selfish pleasure from giving up fine steak, burgers, cheese and bacon? No, by Ockham’s Razor we must conclude that it is a selfless decision based on what is best for others. When you acknowledge this, expecting a vegan animal rights supporter to respect your views to use animals is basically equivalent to expecting human equal rights supporters to respect slave traders and racists (stay with me here). In the same way you can’t expect a feminist to respect the views of a sexist, expecting a vegans to respect meat-eaters is a bit of an oxymoron.  All these groups of people exploit other groups for their own gain, based simply on what they get from it. Now, I’m not saying that being a meat-eater is the same as being a racist; that is in no way the comparison I am trying to draw you to. No.

What I AM saying is that when a lifestyle is based entirely around saving and protecting something, be it a species, a set of people, or even a moral guideline, expecting the members of said group to respect those contributing to the destruction of what they hold dear is more than a little insensitive. And comparing a moral and ethical code to a selfish set of actions based solely on a sensation of pleasure is just not rational. One is focused on what is good for the planet and everything on it, and one is solely focused on an individual.
I could even go to a more obscure level with the comparisons and say it’s like expecting a person to respect the wild animal currently eating their child. Vegans have made an emotional connection with the rest of the animal kingdom, and so there is a definite emotional connection with the slab of meat on your dinner plate. The negative impact on the lives of the animals, the state of the planet, and the emotional state of your fellow people (the vegans) all pile up on the scales, and all meat-eaters have resting on their end is their personal want for the momentary pleasure of taste.

 And the scales don’t tip. Because regardless of the ins and outs of the vegan versus meat-eater argument, there is not a single person out there that can say they eat meat for the benefit of others. It’s about what you want, and there has never been cause or reason in our society to respect people for self-centered behaviour. In the same way you tell criminals to respect the law but don’t tell the cops to respect the criminals, the parallel comes across the vegans. Certain actions, such as abuse and mistreatment of others, diminish your right to respect. And not to ignore the dangers of comparing meat-eaters to criminals and vegans to police, I belie here is where it’s important to recognise who is oppressing who, who is causing harm to who. Criminals generally act with their own self-interest and don’t take note of the negative impact they have on others. The police make it their job to protect the interests of others. Regardless of your own stance on animal rights, it’s not logical to expect the defenders of any group to respect the abusers.

Vegans, especially those of the activist variety, dedicate a lot of their time and effort to trying to change the way things are because they believe the way things are causes a great deal of harm.  For the most part, they have had an awakening; an epiphany, if you will. At some point, all vegans have decided that eating meat is wrong, eating dairy is wrong, and if they did so before they were wrong to do so. Acknowledging that your own actions were wrong is a prime example of selfless behaviour, being that you don’t generally gain anything from it. Using myself as an example, over a period of time I realised that my lifestyle had been harming the animals I had claimed I loved, and that I had been contradicting myself by eating meat. Think about it like this: For someone to make such a radical change, cutting out a large part of their lifestyle and going through tremendous effort to change things as basic and fundamental as what they eat on a daily basis, and even what they wear, they much truly and wholeheartedly believe that they were wrong. Now, if you judge yourself by standards as strict as that, and truly believe you are wrong to eat meat (which we are all entitled to think: As stated at the beginning of the article, you can think what you want about yourself and do what you want with your own life decisions), it would simply be illogical to think it’s okay for others to do it.

Now, earlier on I compared expecting vegans to respect meat-eaters to expecting feminists to respect sexists and human-rights activists to respect racists. Note that I was very careful not to say “women to respect sexists” or “ethnic minorities to respect racists”. That’s because I’ve danced this dance before, and one of the arguments I’ve heard back to the point I’ve been making is: “meat-eaters aren’t harming you! Racists are harming ethnic minorities and sexists are oppressing women!” To this person I say fair enough. But do you, as a white male (as this person happened to be) respect sexists, slave traffickers, rapists, homophobes and racists? Do you think their views are deserving of respect? The answer, of course, is no. You don’t have to be a member of the oppressed group to stand up for them and state that the ill treatment of them is wrong. You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist, you don’t have to be gay to support gay rights (I should know, I’m a fond supporter of both those causes, and to the best of my knowledge I’m not a homosexual woman, though I guess I have been wrong before).

The bottom line is that animal rights activists (vegans and the likes) have dedicated their efforts to making the world a better place for other species. Expecting us to respect you when you want to eat bacon and eggs goes against everything we believe.

Which brings me back to the beginning of this post. (rewind rewind) “I live in harmony with them. I make an effort not to start any arguments on the subject and occasionally hold my tongue when they say or do things I disagree with.”

Yea. That bit.
So, it may seem contradictory to my cause to say that I often don’t protest their lifestyle, and I can see the logic in why this may come across as respecting them, and letting them live their lives as they choose without judgment from myself, but in all honesty, the reason I make an effort to not argue (I say make an effort, arguments do happen. I’m a passionate person) and sit by and watch them eat meat even though it tortures me to do so (I’m not being overly dramatic, I generally feel knots in my chest every time my best friend or my girlfriend or my cute, innocent younger sister takes a bite out of an animal. It really does hurt on an emotional level) is that I don’t believe shouting at them and telling them they are wrong will help the situation. It certainly wouldn’t have worked on me. Putting people on the defensive is not an effective tactic when you want them to see your point of view. But living your life peacefully, showing kindness and compassion in everything you do, and practicing what you preach makes people intrigued, it makes people like you and it means they’re more likely to listen to you. Now, I’ve had my fair share of arguments and debates, and from time to time I’ve let myself slip and gone on a rant (particularly when people seem to be looking to start an argument with me) but I’ve learned that the people I have had an impact on, who I’ve managed to steer towards a vegan, vegetarian or at least reducetarian, flexitarian or pescatarian diet, have been the ones that I’ve let come to me. Instead of approaching them and telling them how they should live their lives, I’ve waited for them to ask me about it, and they’ve seen the words I preach and they’ve listened to me, and their curiosity into my new lifestyle has made a positive change. But to imply that I ever respected their meat-eating diet would be wrong. I respect people for their actions: If you do something I perceive to be good, I will respect you for it. And I will say, I do respect my friends and family. But I respect them for their positive influences: when they’ve shown compassion in helping me through a tough time, or shown strength and perseverance in their own trials; when they’ve given to charity; when they’ve acted out of selflessness and love, and logical, independent thought. But I cannot respect their meat-eating, for the torture and the death it causes, just like I’m sure they wouldn’t respect my decision if I decided to break into someone’s house, or attack a stranger in the street. The real point I'm trying to make here I guess is what respect is really about, and that you can be friends with people and value them without respecting certain aspects of them. It's not about not respecting the individual people, it's about not respecting the choice to harm sentient beings. If we respect people for the things we perceive to be wrong, then respect no longer has any meaning. 

 (The post is over now. That's just a picture of me. Hi again.)

Veganissimo: My Vegan Story

This blog is meant as an intellectual, fact-based resource for information on how to life the most logically compassionate and positive lifestyle that benefits people, the planet, and all life upon it. First, I thought I'd start off with my story:

veganissimo \ve-gan-iss-i-mo\
1. n : one who is vegan to the highest possible standard
2. adj : the most vegan

Reuben Proctor and Lars Thomsen coined the term in their book ‘Veganissimo - A to Z’, which describes itself on the cover as “A Comprehensive Guide to Identifying and Avoiding Ingredients of Animal Origin in Everyday Products”. It was the first book I purchased when I became interested in veganism, and from an intellectual standpoint is possibly one of the most useful tools for a newly starting vegan. This nearly pocket-sized book is a handy guide to identifying animal ingredients in food, cosmetics, and a whole array of other products you might not have even thought about. Veganism can seem like a very daunting prospect at first, but the one thing Proctor and Thomsen accomplished for me was proving that in actuality, there’s not all that much to it.

(If you're interested in the "Veganissimo" book mentioned above, give it a go) 

I’m the kind of person who likes to know what they’re getting into. I’ve always known what I believed on a philosophical and moral level: that good things come to good people. I was raised a good Christian boy with a strong moral compass, not to mention the fact that I grew up around some a very intellectual group of friends, which constantly pushed me to be thoughtful and mindful in what I did: everything I said at any moment could be at risk of critical analysis from any given person.
Like I said, I knew what I believed and I was firm in it. I had thought it all through, or so I believed. I knew that all people deserved rights, and that “live and let live” was possibly the most important thing ever said. But in truth, there was still a massive blind spot in my ethical code. This I cannot blame myself for, as it exists in most people’s lives and always has. It is not a blind spot for any individual person, but more a blind spot for society. Bar a few, it’s a blind spot to the whole human race.

And that is Animal Rights. Pooh! Booh! Down with the vegan! He likes dogs more than people! (Don’t we all?)
No, but seriously. Animal Rights is the gap for us all, as it was for me. Looking back, I should’ve seen it sooner. I was the kind of kid who felt guilty every time he stepped on a snail, and would sooner take a spider outside than let someone crush it. I thought it was cruel when my brother set out traps for bees and wasps so they couldn’t sting or irritate him, and I’d cry if a beloved pet died in a movie or a storybook.
That’s not to say I didn’t have that attitude towards people too. But I wasn’t contributing to the death of people with my daily choices. Again, it’s not something I can blame myself for, and consequentially I don’t feel I can blame any other individual for it either, because the reason that I hadn’t noticed the hypocrisy of calling myself an animal lover whilst continuing to eat meat and dairy was simple: No one had pointed it out to me yet. Now that’s not to say I’d never been faced with the animal rights movement, or that I didn’t know what a vegan was. It was just that no one had ever sat me down and had a conversation with me about it. All the vegetarians in my life kept relatively to themselves about it. My childhood best friend was a vegetarian for a good many years. He turned after he saw a truck of pigs being carted off for slaughter, and decided that he couldn’t eat that. He turned back to meat again years later when he saw fast-food van and fancied a hot dog. And that was that. But he never spoke about it, and neither did any of the others I knew. I’m not certain I would’ve listened: I vaguely remembered seeing footage of animals being killed in slaughterhouses, but I also remember thinking that I couldn’t really change that, and that it was just how things were. Everyone did it. And I never really let myself register that those were living beings, and that then they weren’t living beings. I didn’t let myself register it because it was too horrible to register. So I just… switched off.

Cue the end of my childhood: I turn eighteen. I’ve changed a lot as a person. And I meet a girl at a party: A vegan girl, who I decide I like very much. Enter romance, enter relationship, montage of sappy stuff. Whatever. Anyway, this girl was a vegan, but she wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination an activist. And that’s a distinction I think is very important.
Let me break it down: the people you see protesting in the streets waving signs yelling “MEAT IS MURDER!” or chaining themselves to a rail of fur coats, or on TV breaking into slaughterhouses, or pressing their opinion on people over social media through blogs and vlogs, the angry, militant, arms-in-the-air vegans that have become one of the few vegan stereotypes; they’re activists. Not only have they decided they don’t want to contribute to animal suffering in their lives, they also have made it their duty to act to stop animal suffering in it’s totality: on top of going vegan themselves, they have set out to convince everyone around them to go vegan as well. Sometimes, these people can be a bit of an acquired taste. But that’s how it always is when you’re a minority group fighting for a Personally, they’re my heroes.

The rest of ‘the vegans’ generally speaking fall into a second group: The… not-activists? I guess for the sake of putting a word to it, we could call them pacifists, but that’s just for lack of a better word. These people often unfairly get lumped in with the activist lot, and although I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, a lot of people have some gripe with activist vegans, and unfairly take it out on the other vegans who are just trying to quietly live their lives and don’t want to cause any trouble. In all actuality, having met an awful lot of vegans, I think most of us fall into the second group. The first group just happens to be bolder and louder and so get all the attention.

I probably veer towards the first group (the activists). I certainly like to think I’m in that group: actively out there making a difference.
But back to the point, this girl I was dating was more in the second group, in that I never saw her try and convince anyone to go vegan, or argue with anyone about animal rights. She never lectured me on the subject, she just was vegan herself, and she was healthy, and the food she ate was delicious, and when I was around her I felt it was only polite to eat what she ate. I couldn’t even bring myself to eat meat on a day I was going to see her, because it felt wrong. And much to my surprise, I never felt I was missing out. If anything, I wondered where these foods had been all my life! I asked myself why I’d turned my nose up at hummus and avocados, and why I’d never thought to try a veggie burger instead of a beef one, just out of curiosity. Because I was never on the defensive, because we never argued and I never felt like she was attacking my lifestyle, the only doubts expressed towards my meat-eating lifestyle were from my own head. And all the arguments I made against those doubts crumbled, because I was arguing with myself.

Initially, in all honesty, I went vegetarian for her. But in the long run, that just opened the floodgates to more questions. I’m not the kind of person to just jump into a massive lifestyle change, and so I research, and I think, and I come to a logical decision, factoring in all the evidence, as to what is the right thing to do. In this way, veganism for me was a logical choice, made through a logical thought process. A thought process brought on by questions: 

Why had I eaten meat? Because I like it. Did I like the alternatives? Yes.

Did I like animals? Yes. Did they deserve to live? Yes.

So why had I eaten meat? Because my family has always eaten meat.
Do I base other decisions in my life on what my family does? No, I like to think I make my own decisions. I’m an independent adult.

So why had I eaten meat? Because it’s part of a balanced, healthy diet. It didn’t take much research to knock that argument out of the water. Carcinogens, heart disease, blood clots, osteoporosis. 

So why had I eaten meat? Religion. I was a Christian; God said meat was there for us to eat. That was its purpose.
“Thou shalt not kill” was not the only verse that shattered that argument.

So why had I eaten meat? It tastes good. I like it. Is that worth a life to me? No. I don’t want to see myself as that selfish.

So why had I eaten meat?
The conclusion this lead me to was the only valid option left: Ignorance.

But why veganism? What’s wrong with dairy, eggs, and honey?

Being single again, I only had myself to answer these questions, so I turned to the internet, and started really researching the topic. And I came across Gary Yourofsky, and “The Best Speech You Will Ever Hear!”. And it truly was the best speech I’d ever heard. It shattered my world-view, and suddenly I went through the same thought process for dairy, eggs, honey, leather, wool, fur, silk, beeswax, hunting, animal tested cosmetics, horse-riding, fishing and so many other things as I had for meat, and I came to the same conclusion: Animal lives matter to me.

I was recently talking with a very old friend on the topic of veganism. I say talking, but really that’s just a polite word for debating, which is a polite word for arguing. So, I was talking with an old friend on the subject, who noted that in person I came across as very passionate about the subject, but on facebook, when it was all written down, suddenly my argument was intellectual; based in facts, with sources and statistics an the whole works.  And he suggested that an intellectual, factual resource explaining all sorts about the vegan movement and WHY it is what it is could be very useful. One that used sources and evidence-based knowledge.

Now, any true vegan out there will point out there are many sources. And they would be right. I would be happy to point you all in the direction of Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, and Earthlings; the bitesize vegan, Gary Yourofsky’s lectures, and other such resources on youtube; books like Veganissimo A to Z; websites like nutritionfacts.org; and Google, where you will find a whole number of studies detailing why veganism is the best lifestyle for human beings, for animals and for the planet, and why meat and dairy are bad. But can one more resource really hurt?

So here I am, trying out a blog that will be all about how to live the best, most compassionate and positive lifestyle, to the greatest extreme possible. Let’s hope I can convince some people out there that veganism isn’t all about being angry at the world and judging people, but in actual fact is a logical and pleasant lifestyle. 

 (yea, that's me again. Hi.)