The Veganism Thread

[WrightJnr]

Oops, ham is going back on the sandwich

That’s made me spit my milk out now and it’s gone on my bloody leather shoes! Stop it.

[Zub]

We’ve got a bad ass over here!

 

Emm, no, I'm not Vegan.

[Odinson]

Emm, no, I'm not Vegan.

Yeah, I figured as much.

[Odinson]

This. This is what I've been trying to put in words these past few pages:

 

“When the victim under consideration is a non-human animal — a member of another species — then suddenly the issue of slavery or exploitation becomes a matter of “opinion.” That is to say, our culture supports the unquestioned belief that human slavery and oppression is wrong based at least on the principle of justice for all, whereas animal slavery and oppression is simply a matter of opinion. It’s morally relative. And therein lies the problem. Therein lies our cultural bias of human supremacy. As long as we believe that just being a member of another species is a valid reason to exploit or discriminate, or to use that “inferior other” as our piece of property, then we accept the same flawed beliefs that rationalize exploitation based on religion, color, race, gender and sexual preference.”

 

-Robert Grillo

[Odinson]

This too from Grillo:

 

“Another misguided belief goes back to my earlier point about the denial of the animal as victim as well as the human as perpetrator. And it all too often leads us to the erroneous conclusion that eating animal products is a morally- neutral act, a personal choice, or some other variation on this theme.

 

There is a hidden judgment in the statement, “Don’t judge.” If you claim that people should not be judged for eating animal products, then you also are making the judgment that an animal’s entire lifetime of experiences is worth even less than satisfying some trivial, momentary taste sensation. Such a judgment stems from an entrenched prejudice against a handful of species that we just so happen to want to exploit and kill for food.

 

Once we become aware of this prejudice — and the ensuing injustice perpetrated against its victims — there is no personal, neutral or morally-relative position on eating animal products that we have no biological need to eat.

 

If animals matter even in the most superfluous sense, then we don’t violate their most basic right to life and liberty when we can so easily avoid it, such as in the case of veganism, where we can replace animal products with kinder and more nutritious alternatives.”

['Dale]

Activism is not for sissies.

 

All I can say to the mainstream-ers:

If you haven't tried anything in life, rather be lekka with those who did.

If you have tried it, then you'll be far more informed and have a credible opinion.

 

The matter of morality. Geez, that is a circular debate that won't go anywhere.

[Odinson]

The matter of morality. Geez, that is a circular debate that won't go anywhere.

Let’s be glad that the anti-Apartheid activists, Civil Rights Movement, the Suffragettes, etc. didn’t share this opinion. ✌????

['Dale]

Nada. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by 'Dale

['Dale]

Nothing.

Edited November 2, 2019 by 'Dale

[Mudsimus]

Let’s be glad that the anti-Apartheid activists, Civil Rights Movement, the Suffragettes, etc. didn’t share this opinion. ✌????

Comparing vegans to anti Apartheid activists and meat eaters to murderers and rapists. I just cant..???? Where do you get the time to come up with these gems?

[Odinson]

Comparing vegans to anti Apartheid activists and meat eaters to murderers and rapists. I just cant..???? Where do you get the time to come up with these gems?

Comparing social justice movements. Pretty obvious once you check your ego at the door.

[Zub]

This too from Grillo:

 

“Another misguided belief goes back to my earlier point about the denial of the animal as victim as well as the human as perpetrator. And it all too often leads us to the erroneous conclusion that eating animal products is a morally- neutral act, a personal choice, or some other variation on this theme.

 

There is a hidden judgment in the statement, “Don’t judge.” If you claim that people should not be judged for eating animal products, then you also are making the judgment that an animal’s entire lifetime of experiences is worth even less than satisfying some trivial, momentary taste sensation. Such a judgment stems from an entrenched prejudice against a handful of species that we just so happen to want to exploit and kill for food.

 

Once we become aware of this prejudice — and the ensuing injustice perpetrated against its victims — there is no personal, neutral or morally-relative position on eating animal products that we have no biological need to eat.

 

If animals matter even in the most superfluous sense, then we don’t violate their most basic right to life and liberty when we can so easily avoid it, such as in the case of veganism, where we can replace animal products with kinder and more nutritious alternatives.”

OK so how do we start getting predatory animals to start becoming vegans too. I mean the way they kill causes their prey to suffer for hours, sometimes days to wait until they die.They are so cruel toward their prey.

 

That's natural right and they way God intended, but veganism is above that, so those animals have to change, seeing that we're assimilating animals to humans now.

 

I wonder if lions will survive on a plant based diet.

[Mudsimus]

Comparing social justice movements. Pretty obvious once you check your ego at the door.

And comparing meat eaters to criminals?

 

Veganism is a fad diet not a social justice movement.

[Mudsimus]

 

I wonder if lions will survive on a plant based diet.

Well, without chemical assistance humans cant.

[Odinson]

And comparing meat eaters to criminals?

 

Veganism is a fad diet not a social justice movement.

You’re obviously digging your heels in and being purposefully obtuse, but for your benefit, I’ll explain it again.

 

The examples were used to highlight the inherent contradiction when claiming moral relativism in regards to animal exploitation.

 

Thus:

“Racism is a personal choice” - We reject that position.

“Sexism is a personal choice” - We reject that position.

“Homophobia is a personal choice” - We reject that position.

 

We don’t when it comes to animal exploitation. However, we should, because it is premised on the same flawed rationalisation as the above. It’s premised on the same arbitrary logic - take one characteristic of a group and use it as justification to exploit, be it race, religion or on this case species.

[Rocket-Boy]

My wife has a bakery/cake shop, behind it is a hairdresser.

The Hairdresser added a really big sign last week above my wife's sign about watching certain documentaries on Netflix like Cowspiracy etc. It has caused a fair amount of public annoyance and rambling on facebook pages for the business.

 

So after being verbally abused by the person who put the sign up for asking them to take it down something became very apparent: some people are just argumentative asses who require some kind of platform to express that.