1
General Discussion / Re: flexitarians
« on: October 13, 2011, 05:53:43 AM »
I wonder if a chicken feels better when he knows it is a flexitarian who eats and not someone who already ate meat every day in the past week…
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
General Discussion / Re: flexitarians
« on: October 12, 2011, 03:16:13 AM »Here you won’t hear weakening of the movement? Are you kidding? This is where the movement is bashed from top to bottom, left to right. I don’t know of any place that considers less of the movement. Slideshow after slideshow, paragraph after paragraph they come down on the movement for being, anthropocentrist and speciesist, incapable of making any influence (and if you read Trends even strengthening some industries), they highly criticize legislation, veganism and even the use of the term rights itself.
And I am not sure they see themselves as part of the liberation movement to any degree at all.
I disagree. Obviously they are highly critic of the movement but all is an inside criticism. This is not media or street criticism superficially claiming that the movement is too extreme, or people saying that humans’ problems come first. These are activists who came from the movement and see other activists as potential ideological colleagues. Animal rights activists are their declared target audience as written on the cd. They know animal rights activists and criticize their world view based on knowledge and experience not myths and stigmas. They speak their language, know the guidelines and dilemmas, and generally share much more in common than in difference. Most importantly I believe there is no shadow of doubt that animals’ suffering is what motivated them while being in what they call the conventional movement which they were disappointed of, and that it is still their motive now, so I think that they are part of the movement even if they don’t see themselves as such. The moral principles are similar it is the pathway that is different. I know it sounds strange as the differences seem immeasurable but for me the O.O.S is still a liberation group.
3
Discussions about specific materials / Re: veggie hotdog eating contest
« on: March 15, 2010, 04:38:12 AM »
I saw it on PETA’s blog and I felt the same. I remember I did thought it is a reasonless food waste but I too didn’t go that deep thinking about the harms of each package, the miles the sausages and their ingredients did, the pesticides, the water and definitely not about the planet conquering (the genius "this land is my land" part…).
I thought it’s a pathetic mimicking of the mainstream western lifestyle, proving anything "regular" people (carnivores) do- vegans do too. I see almost no activists turning against this phenomenon, and some of them embrace it.
For to many vegans, veganism is merely a lifestyle. They avoid meat eggs milk and in the best of cases honey, but it doesn’t mean giving up the joys of mindless consumerism.
They can buy dermoid Biker Jackets, dermoid fashionable boots, vegan mule shoes, vegan lip gloss, fashionable handbag purse, faux leather wallets, vegan light candle and even beauty without cruelty eye mascara, all guilt free. But veganism was supposed to lead to a deeper examination of habits and to arouse more involvement, but it’s too much to ask for, it might put people off. There is no expectation for a turnaround in the way people, even vegans, view their relations with the environment, become conscious to each step in their every day lives.
I thought it’s a pathetic mimicking of the mainstream western lifestyle, proving anything "regular" people (carnivores) do- vegans do too. I see almost no activists turning against this phenomenon, and some of them embrace it.
For to many vegans, veganism is merely a lifestyle. They avoid meat eggs milk and in the best of cases honey, but it doesn’t mean giving up the joys of mindless consumerism.
They can buy dermoid Biker Jackets, dermoid fashionable boots, vegan mule shoes, vegan lip gloss, fashionable handbag purse, faux leather wallets, vegan light candle and even beauty without cruelty eye mascara, all guilt free. But veganism was supposed to lead to a deeper examination of habits and to arouse more involvement, but it’s too much to ask for, it might put people off. There is no expectation for a turnaround in the way people, even vegans, view their relations with the environment, become conscious to each step in their every day lives.
4
Discussions about specific materials / Leather wearing vegetarians
« on: January 31, 2010, 08:54:10 AM »
The well known differentiation people tend to make between leather and meat which is so hated by us animal rights activists and so popular among vegetarians, is an indication of the illogic and irrational way of thinking of humans. You all know the connection is unquestionably inseparable and you don’t have to be an erudite activist to understand it. Basic understanding of the principles of economy is sufficient.
As OOS wrote in the article about leather:
"Every part of the animal is used and sold in order to make the whole exploitation system more and more profitable."
"As opposed to common assumption, leather is not a by product of the meat industry. It’s primarily produced from cows, raised for both flesh and Milk, and from other exploited “farm animals” such as Pigs, Sheep, Horses, Lambs and Goats. Their skin represents around 50% of the animal's total value for humans, which makes it the most valuable part of the exploited creature. Leather is not the by product, it is the prime product."
"You can’t divide the meat industry from the leather industry, there are no two industries, they are both products of the same industry, only different body parts."
Still many vegetarians choose to separate between the two industries for several reasons. Some reasons have an internal logic like convenience which is morally horrible, maybe even the worst, but it makes sense and it doesn’t indicate on anything more than it is - convenient. And some lack any reason and internal logic, like that the animal is already dead anyway.
Vegetarians who supposedly oppose the killing disconnect it from their own leather consumption. There is no connection between the slaughterhouse horrors and the leather they wear.
Another famous argument which is very popular among vegetarians is that there is no need to be extreme. They usually argue it when being criticized for not being vegan, when there is another vegetarian around who tries to convince the others to become veggie and when they are criticized for using leather - some as the primal ingredient like leather shoes and many more justify products where leather is a rather minor ingredient like leather laces in a coat or leather coat gear in a car, by the no need to be extreme "argument".
They may convince themselves that it is negligible and us vegan-animal liberation activists will argue that there is no such thing as negligible but this is not my point, I am trying to point the vegetarians’ inconsistence arguments not immoral actions. Many vegetarians will not dare to eat mixed casserole if there is even the slightest piece of meat and many won’t eat something even if there is a chance that a piece of meat touched it. But they don’t have a problem with leather as long as it doesn’t feel like leather. They won’t wear leather pants or jacket but some leather in their shoe or a small leather embellishment in their cotton coat is fine again, as long as it is not too apparent and as long as they don’t feel it.
These are the self centered vegetarians. They will not criticize meat eaters but will criticize the one who tries to convert others to vegetarianism or them to veganism. It is as if they don’t mind that the massacre will continue as long as it is not in their name.
This inconsistent conception is derived among other reasons from the great emphasis laid on the killing. The fact that leather consumption finance the confinement and the living conditions and everything else involved in factory farming seems less important.
Of course buying leather is directly participating in the killing but as far as they are concerned the killing is for meat eater and they use products made out of animals that were already dead. They just don’t connect. They pay among the rest of the atrocities for the murder too but then say that the animal was already dead so it doesn’t matter anymore.
As OOS wrote in the article about leather:
"Every part of the animal is used and sold in order to make the whole exploitation system more and more profitable."
"As opposed to common assumption, leather is not a by product of the meat industry. It’s primarily produced from cows, raised for both flesh and Milk, and from other exploited “farm animals” such as Pigs, Sheep, Horses, Lambs and Goats. Their skin represents around 50% of the animal's total value for humans, which makes it the most valuable part of the exploited creature. Leather is not the by product, it is the prime product."
"You can’t divide the meat industry from the leather industry, there are no two industries, they are both products of the same industry, only different body parts."
Still many vegetarians choose to separate between the two industries for several reasons. Some reasons have an internal logic like convenience which is morally horrible, maybe even the worst, but it makes sense and it doesn’t indicate on anything more than it is - convenient. And some lack any reason and internal logic, like that the animal is already dead anyway.
Vegetarians who supposedly oppose the killing disconnect it from their own leather consumption. There is no connection between the slaughterhouse horrors and the leather they wear.
Another famous argument which is very popular among vegetarians is that there is no need to be extreme. They usually argue it when being criticized for not being vegan, when there is another vegetarian around who tries to convince the others to become veggie and when they are criticized for using leather - some as the primal ingredient like leather shoes and many more justify products where leather is a rather minor ingredient like leather laces in a coat or leather coat gear in a car, by the no need to be extreme "argument".
They may convince themselves that it is negligible and us vegan-animal liberation activists will argue that there is no such thing as negligible but this is not my point, I am trying to point the vegetarians’ inconsistence arguments not immoral actions. Many vegetarians will not dare to eat mixed casserole if there is even the slightest piece of meat and many won’t eat something even if there is a chance that a piece of meat touched it. But they don’t have a problem with leather as long as it doesn’t feel like leather. They won’t wear leather pants or jacket but some leather in their shoe or a small leather embellishment in their cotton coat is fine again, as long as it is not too apparent and as long as they don’t feel it.
These are the self centered vegetarians. They will not criticize meat eaters but will criticize the one who tries to convert others to vegetarianism or them to veganism. It is as if they don’t mind that the massacre will continue as long as it is not in their name.
This inconsistent conception is derived among other reasons from the great emphasis laid on the killing. The fact that leather consumption finance the confinement and the living conditions and everything else involved in factory farming seems less important.
Of course buying leather is directly participating in the killing but as far as they are concerned the killing is for meat eater and they use products made out of animals that were already dead. They just don’t connect. They pay among the rest of the atrocities for the murder too but then say that the animal was already dead so it doesn’t matter anymore.
Pages: [1]