Vegan reply to 'But I eat meat because we are predators'/it is natural

A person wrote:
"Soooo, we should defy nature and become herbivores just so other animals don't die by our hand, but by the hands (paws/hooves/claws/etc.) of other natural predators? "


Whether or not we can eat meat or not is irrelevant in a moral perspective. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it is right. We also have the capability to rape, and to commit other atrocities.

What matters is that animals have an interest in not being exploited for food, clothes, and other purposes. They don't want to be harmed, they don't want to be killed by us, and have no interest of getting their families destroyed. Using animals as resources/products/property always involves exploiting them and disrespecting their interests. We can thrive and be healthy on a plant only diet without animal products, we have plant alternatives for clothing, and we don't need to use animals for other purposes. So opt out of all animal exploitation. Act as you care about animals - and be vegan. Learn more at www.vegankit.com

Vegan reply to: But unless you live in a forest you can't call yourself a vegan

"Sometimes non vegans, and even vegans, will chastise you for promoting veganism. They will tell you that because you are using a computer or live in a house and animals probably were harmed in order to make those things that you have no right to criticize somebody for exploiting animals directly for food, clothing, entertainment etc. They will say unless you live in a forest and completely remove yourself from society you have no business advocating against someone else's behavior.

Not only is this argument illogical. It is also bigoted. It's simply speciesism.

Nobody would ever say we should not try to stop murderers because sometimes humans are accidentally killed in traffic. Nobody would ever say we should stop trying to eliminate modern day slavery because we live in a country built by slave labor- or even because we have things in our house (electronics, clothes) that were made by slaves.

Nobody would ever tell a feminist, an LGBTQ advocate or a civil rights advocate that they must live in a forest because otherwise they will be participating in a society that objectifies women, LGBTQ folks and non whites.

Nobody would say those things because human rights and the value of human life are a given in our society. Nonhuman rights and the value of nonhuman life are not. So when these people, especially so called vegans, say this nonsense to you just remember it's evidence of *their* prejudice and *their* unquestioned belief in human superiority. Nothing more."

- Chris Palmieri

But vegans use electricity, which destroy the environment and exploit people. Thus, I can eat animals.

Reply to: "But vegans use electricity, which destroy the environment and exploit people. Thus, I can eat animals."



I believe that the only way you can justify electronics given the environmental pollution and often exploitation involved to produce it,is using it in the following ways (not an all-covering list):


1/ Necessary in order for fighting exploitation towards humans and nonhumans.
2/ Necessary for your survival, e.g. you need it for your work.
3/ Staying in touch with people - necessary to accomplish 1/ and 2/.
4/ Studying and practising nonduality. I believe necessary in order for people to act from awareness instead of their separate self in all situations, and reaching a world without exploitation and harm: http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/home



Every electronical device has a limited life span. How many electronical devices have stopped working earlier than they needed to just because it was used for lots of entertainment and for other activities that we don't need; and how can we justify that people get exploited, just so that we can watch entertainment. We can't. Just like we can't justify attending circuses, zoos or paying for trafficking in order to get "entertained". I truly believe that this is something everyone need to consider in our culture which relies so much on entertainment, without considering what was required in order to produce the entertainment.

Exploitation involved in manufacturing a computer, many mobile phones, etc.: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/slavery-involved-in-producing.html

The exploitation involved in electronics is still of course not justified, it would just be used since it is needed to stop all exploitation in the world. The worse alternative morally would be just to ignore the violence and to not use internet effectively to stop all exploitation. In a world with no exploitation we wouldn’t need any electricity.

I believe we should strive to be able to live in a self-sustained community where we plant using vegan permaculture, minimize electricity use and get electricity from solar panels and heating from burning wood we cut down ourselves: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html

This is a sustainable way of living where we still can interact with the world and stop all exploitation involved in the world.

That being said: There is an enormous difference between using electricity in order to stop exploitation compared to using an animal in order to gain pleasure or convenience. If we choose to kill an animal for food despite that we are able to get our nutrition from plant foods, we are engaging in violence compared to the violence involved in dog fighting and bullfightig. While they may psychologically be different, there is no moral difference in gaining pleasure by watching a dog fight compared to gaining pleasure by eating a steak, drinking a glass of milk, eating an egg, buying leather or attending a circus show with animals.

Reply to more excuses: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/arguments-for-veganism-and-counter.html

Why not focus on human rights rather than animals being slaughtered?

A person wrote this to me: "A question. There's loads of people (humans...) that lives in very poor conditions, suffering from sickness, war e t c. Yet vegans tend to portrey veganism as the most important issue. Instead of putting all effort into not hurting animals and so forth, why not focus on problems that afflict the humanity?

I don't believe that veganism is the most important subject we're struggling with. This doesn't mean that I enjoy seeing pictures of animals being slaughtered. But rather the belief that a problem of more acute profile should be focused on more instense than animals.

Why not FOCUS on these problems, rather than animal being slaughtered?"

Thanks for your question!
What would you do if you saw someone abusing a dog or a cat on the street? Would you stop the abuse or would you think: ‘I don’t have time for this. I must go home and fight for human rights issues.”?

How can you say that the suffering of a dog is less important than the suffering of a human? Why would this be the case?
There is no moral difference between animal abuse and the exploitation of animals for food. There may be a psychological difference, but there is no moral difference. Exploitation is exploitation.

I truly believe that all injustices are interconnected. And consuming animal foods also exacerbates poverty, starvation and injustices in the world, destruction of the environment, enormous amount of health problems, etc. See e.g. this post and the provided links:
https://www.facebook.com/anders.branderud/posts/10202514031186660?stream_ref=10
Finally, I will end with a quote that I agree with:

“I don't believe in ranking evils. Indeed, I find it an absolutely absurd exercise. If someone asks me: "Is the slaughter of animals worse than the Holocaust?," I always reply: "Was Hitler's killing of Jews worse than his killing of non-Jewish Poles or Romanies?" If someone asks me: "Is racism worse than speciesism?," I always reply: "Is racism worse than sexism?" Anyway, I won't play the "ranking evils" game. I reject *all* forms of hatred, discrimination, and violence whether involving humans or nonhumans. Period.

I applaud the efforts of all those who devote themselves to the struggle for social justice and the rights of minorities, women, children, disabled people, the elderly, the poor, etc. The world is full of suffering and injustice. I support the efforts of anyone who seeks justice and who promotes peace and nonviolence.

I just ask them all to be vegans as they fight for justice in whatever context they do so. If, for example, you are working for children's rights, you still have to eat and wear clothes. So be vegan and consume non-animal foods and don't wear animal products. Encourage others to be vegan and practice nonviolence with respect to animals. You can do that whatever other rights movement you are involved in. I have made this point in my writing. For example, see”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/human-rights-and-animal-rights-perfect-together/#.UQU4hPLnd8E

Reply to 'But a vegan diet costs too much'

Regarding cost of the food:
"ADVENTURES IN THE "ELITISM" OF A VEGAN DIET

Sarah K. Woodcock did the following comparison:

organic vegan dinner:

organic white rice: .60 (based on $2.39 for 4 servings)
organic navy beans: $1.20 (based on $2.39 for 2 servings)
organic bananas: .50 (based on .99 per pound serving 2)
organic carrots: .25 (based on .99 per pound serving 4)

Total: $2.55

A Big Mac, fries, and coke would cost $6.10

And, as I have often said, and will say again now: There is *nothing* more elitist than believing that your palate pleasure can ever justify imposing suffering on, or taking the life of, another."
Quote from: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

Don’t let the animals suffer - go vegan

Do you believe it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals?
You will have a hard time finding any person who doesn’t agree with this statement. Are enjoyment, convenience, and tradition or habit good and legitimate reasons to harm animals? We oppose dog fights and bullfighting, and we oppose those who defend and participate in these activities because of that they enjoy them. We oppose people mistreating pets and don’t accept the excuse of convenience or lack of time. We understand that convenience isn’t a valid reason for killing an animal, with an interest of not being harmed and an interest of a continued existence.

We oppose these treatments of animals, but not the treatment of the more than 1000 billion of animals who are harmed and killed every year for meat (including fish), milk, eggs and other animal foods. Animals used for eggs and milk are killed at a young age when they are not productive enough for what they are used for.

Is the use of animals for food a good reason to harm and kill animals? Even extremely conservative health organizations, including American Dietic Association, acknowledge that we can live an optimally healthy life on a vegan diet [1]. Thus we have a choice when we are in the food store. We can choose to harm, use and kill animals in order to get nutrition through the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, honey and other animal foods; or we can buy and get our nutrition from vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and other foods from the ground, i.e. a vegan diet.

And the taste of animal foods, or that it is more convenient to consume them, or that they are a natural/traditional part of human history are no legitimate reasons for harming animals; and our trivial reason of palate pleasure/convenience/social acceptance can’t justify us to take from the animals their fundamental and essential interest of continuing to live. Just like that we would never accept these excuses when applied to using animals in dog fights and bullfighting. Gary Francione and Anne Charleton give, in their book Eat like you Care, rational answers to 30 common excuses that we often use to defend our inconsistency and moral schizophrenia in our relation to the animals.

I decided to live according to my values and to stop being an active part of inflicting unnecessary harm and death on animals, one year ago; I stopped consuming and using animals and their products and became a vegan. And I recommend everyone to do the same choice – to eat and live according to your values, eat and live as animals matter morally, and eat and live without oppressing and being violent towards defenseless and vulnerable sentient beings.

Please share! Sharing is caring.

Footnotes:

1: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html ; 2.www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

Learn more here: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/ and http://www.vegankit.com/

Reply to an excuse not to be vegan: 'The inuits can't be vegan?

When discussing veganism, some people start asking 'What about the inuits'?

 

Here are some good responses:

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Dave Watt: First of all, your assertion is false. The Inuits have a great deal of their food shipped in and have been doing so for some years now. Second, even if your assertion were true, it would, at best, make animal use excusable. It would not make animal use justifiable. Third, even if your assertion were true, itr would be completely irrelevant to the 99.99% of the population that chooses to eat animal foods.

Yesterday at 4:53pm · Like · 3

NZ Vegan May I suggest to Dave and Fjaton that they stop worrying about the Inuit people and start focusing on themselves.

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself" - Tolstoy said that.

If YOU care about animals, Dave and Fjaton, and YOU are experiencing some kind of troubled thoughts about what is happening to them, the first step is for YOU to stop doing it to them. If you didn't care then you wouldn't be here asking these questions.

 

Sarah K. Woodcock If I were an Inuit person, I would be offended that a caricature of my ethnicity was constantly being used as an excuse to justify the exploitation and murder of billions of sentient beings per year.

 

Sarah K. Woodcock Fjaton Lukos, did you know Professor Francione just published a book which addresses the sorts of questions you are asking? I highly recommend it:

www.EatLikeYouCareBook.com