Saturday, December 17, 2011

Peaceful Abolitionist: You don't need money to make a difference

Peaceful Abolitionist: You don't need money to make a difference: It's that time of year again when those big animal welfare organisations are asking people to volunteer their time to go out and raise money...

Saturday, December 10, 2011

LGBT rights = Human rights



I thought for a while to write a post about human rights and finally I got the inspiration so I will publish this on Human Rights day, because it’s appropriate. LGBT rights are part of fundamental human rights. This post is going to about LGBT rights and how it’s idiotic and hateful to oppose it.

I cannot understand how you can discriminate against anyone. And discriminations are form of violence. They should be actively opposed. People hide against their religion and claim that their god hates and discriminates, they just follow orders. Due to the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of your god, when you say god hates something, which means that you hate that.
"You can tell you've created god in your own image when it turns out that god hates all the same people you do". ~ Anne Lamatt

If your beliefs discriminate or deny rights to any sentient beings, your belief mustn’t be respected and must be opposed. You cannot find common ground with people who hate or have no desire to change.  
People who oppose LBGT rights deny to huge number of people equal rights on the basis our holy book says it’s wrong or it’s not natural. Those books are written in times when we knew so little about the world and they contain some horrible things. And you want to use books who justify rape and killing as your example. You are making a mistake when you equate being natural with being good. Other animals are doing stuff which we considered wrong like rape etc. And do you consider rape, because it happens in nature, to be good. By the way homosexuality is so ╩║unnatural╩║ http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

It’s idiotic to oppose something which doesn’t concern or affect you in any way. You won’t lose any right if they get rights. So why oppose it.  And it’s hateful to deny same rights which you have to other humans.
Some argue if same-sex marriage is legalized, pedophilia will follow.  You thinking process don’t make any sense. You are comparing same-sex marriage with one of the most hideous things known to mankind. Think again, this time, use your brain.

Do opponents of same-sex marriage under traditional marriage consider a marriage of two unequal parties, when one is owner of other, when she is just a breeding material whose place is in kitchen, or the newest traditional marriage of two equal parties? Marriage is a contract, union of two people in love. That covers same-sex couples. Or do you argue that they cannot be in love.

I am very passionate about human rights. We are all animals. And I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all animals are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. On which side of history you want to be, on the right side fighting for equality, or on the side of hatred, immorality. 




Sunday, December 4, 2011

Inability of single issue campaigns to work


SICs are favorite and frequent tool of animal activist. But they don’t work. They can work in human rights because human animals are not considered property unlike other animals. Yes, use of other animals is pervasive and it will probably take a very long time to end. Some argue because of that we need to in the mine time use them, to help other sentient beings. Do they help? Banning production of fur in one country doesn’t save those sentient beings used for fur if the demand for that animal product is there. They will be transferred to a country where production of fur is allowed. Same thing applies with banning of sale of fur in any city. You, know there are other cities.

We come to one the main problem which I have with SICs is that they send confusing and inconsistent messages that some use is worse than other. General public can be confused by messages like Fur is murder, Meat is murder as those are the only animal products which require suffering and death of other animals.  

One reason behind SICs is that general public cannot take or understand the big picture that all use of other animals is wrong and we need to go after one use at the time. That’s an elitist stand. How could you understood and became a vegan. Are you assuming that you are smarter or better in some way than other people? But the abolitionists are the ones who are called elitist. That doesn’t make sense. I am not accusing animal activist who use SICs of being elitist, I am just trying to understand how we are called elitist when we advocate veganism, unequivocally and claim that people can understand the vegan message, but you are not called that.

Some SICs ask people who just sign petition and support that campaign. Those people don’t kill seals, whales, dolphins, etc. so they won’t be affected if killing those other animal is stopped. Because of that they can support those campaigns. And they can go home and eat/wear animal products thinking that they done something for the other animals, but in fact they done nothing.

Let’s take for example ban on slaughtering of horses in US. That didn’t stopped killing of those sentient beings, they were just taken in Mexico and killed there. And they endured more suffering because they had to be transported to those countries. I am in no way supporting killing of horses or any sentient beings like some so called animal rights organization. That campaign actually had done nothing good for the horses. But I cannot understand why people again are campaigning for that ban.

One of the longest running SICs is a campaign against vivisection. Surprise, surprise it’s not working. In England use of other animals is up http://bit.ly/nOzUpF

Vivisection is a voodoo science. It’s unreliable and dangerous to us and it brings unimaginable suffering to other animals. If we relied upon animal testing we would have killed millions of people. We wouldn’t have drugs like penicillin, digitalis, cortisone, morphine, aspirin, chloroform, insulin etc. Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to humans. How can some people discard scientific facts to prolong inflicting suffering and killing of other animals in pointless experiments?

And do we have evidence that weflarism and SICs decrease use of other animals. No, we don’t. But we have evidence that use of other animals is increasing http://bit.ly/vqZdPM it seems that SICs aren’t working.

Will you continue to use SICs or promote veganism, unequivocally? Choice is yours.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Some misconceptions about veganism


There are many misconceptions about veganism. Although the term vegan was coined in the 1940's there are still people who don’t know what's veganism is about. The general public cannot take all the blame. Some of that blame is divided amongst leaders of big welfarist organizations who purposely mislead general public about what veganism is really about and so called vegans who insert their personal agenda into veganism. 

Let’s begin with something which is considered to be controversial, honey.  But there is nothing controversial about that animal product. One of that definition of veganism specifically names honey as something which vegans don’t eat. Here's that definition: “A way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and it's derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.”  Question whatever honey is vegan or not is solved a long time ago. Maybe some think of being vegan as some badge of honor. But it's not; it’s the bare minimum of what we owe to other sentient beings.  I don’t like when someone is attacked for eating honey while calling themselves vegan. But I happy to find out there a vegans who don’t eat honey. It’s crazy, but when I am searching for some recipe on line, often there is honey in it.  People say but there is little bit of honey in that food. So, you admit eating of animal product, intentionally. I don’t care how someone is calling themselves, but if deteriorates the term if you don’t adhere to the definition.  You can call me militant or member of a vegan police if that will make you feel better for putting violence in your mouth.

Now we come to being vegan is being an elitist. What is elitist in veganism? Veganism sees no hierarchy among sentient beings. Being non-vegan is an elitist stand. Non-vegans divide other animals into categories based on the usefulness to them.

How can veganism be a sacrifice, in other words, how can you sacrifice something which you aren’t entitled in the first place. You have no right to use other animals at all. You may find that veganism is a sacrifice, but other animals have a different opinion.

Here's one misconception which isn’t completely baseless: veganism is a cult. I have written about that in my blog but I will repeat. Some continuously say we shouldn’t criticize each other’s or have some discussions about controversial topics, because something bad can happen like learning new things. In a cult there isn’t room for discussions or critique. Those people would like to be in a cult, to let others think for them.  I don’t blame non-vegans entirely for believing that veganism is a cult, those opponents of critical thinking make veganism look like a cult.

Monday, November 7, 2011

End of factory farming


I heard about revolutionary campaign which will "help" nonhuman animal so much. It doesn’t matter that problem isn’t how we treat the other animal that we use, the problem is that we use them at all. And if that campaign is successful it would just change the way how other animals are exploited.

You may ask but other animals will suffer less if factory farming is abolished. That’s questionable. And how do you know that they will suffer less. And any suffering which we inflict on other animals is unnecessary. End result of all farming, small or factory is the same, torture and death.

It’s often asked of animal exploiters to give more room to farm animals or to change how they kill other animals. So many campaigns are asking for something which exploiters will give anyway. But why the resist. You know, why. Because can you imagine large producers of animal products to just accept propositions of welfarist groups. Majority of demands by welfarist organizations are in favor of the industry because they increase the efficiency of exploitation of other sentient beings. Some exploitation is inefficient. Welfarists attack those inefficient practices demanding efficient practices. Crazy, right. That’s so going to help the other animals. 

When they started factory farming they didn’t know that putting large numbers of other animals in one place, not allowing them to move, will lead to stress, diseases. They are treating those diseases with drugs which lead to drug-resistant bacterias. And some of those bacterias can transfer to humans. By giving more room to other animals they can decrease level of stress.

Do you know why they stun other animals before they kill them? Not because they are concern with suffering of that person, rather than it may injury the worker if he works with large other animals, or that poor sentient being will injury herself while experiencing excruciating pain, fighting for the next breath.

In unlikely event that one country bans factory farming, it cannot stop the import of animal products from other country where factory farming isn’t banned due to many free-trade agreements.

I don’t understand why we need to help the industry by asking for more efficient exploitation. Welfarists say we need to do something now. But who those so called victories take years and years to implement. I though we need to do something now. And we can do something now which really helps all sentient beings, it’s called unequivocal vegan advocacy.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Boycotting other countries



I see often from animal activists say that we need to boycott certain countries because of cruelty or they kill certain nonhuman animals. One question needs to be asked to those people who ask for boycotting these countries where do you live, on some planet which doesn’t use other animals, or do you live on this planet.  If you want to be consistent with boycotting because of cruelty or killing of nonhuman animals, you cannot live on this planet due to the fact that use of nonhuman animals is ubiquitous and all use involves abuse. And is there a country where animal products aren’t used, no. These boycotts imply that some nonhuman animals value more than others, but all animals are equal.

It’s called for boycott of China due to killings of dogs and cats etc.; Japan for killing of whales and dolphins. So using/killing of dogs, cats, whales and dolphins isn’t ok, but it’s ok to use/kill other nonhuman animals. You aren’t being consistent if you think that all animal are equal but you call for boycott of those countries for those reasons. How can non-vegans be against use of cats, dogs etc. but have nothing against use of other nonhuman animals? That’s breathtaking inconsistency.

Some say I think all use of other animals is wrong but I support those boycotts. Those campaigns don’t say that all use is wrong; they imply that particular use is wrong. Why don’t promote what you think. And it doesn’t matter what you personally think about use of other animals. What does matter is what general public sees when you advocate for those campaigns.  And people are doing those campaigns instead of veganism education. Why? Maybe because people cannot handle the truth of inherent immorality of all use of nonhuman animals, right. No, they can handle the truth. Doing unequivocal vegan advocacy helps all animals.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Fur

Why there are animal activists who tend to lie about animal products which people wear by presenting fur as an only one which requires suffering and death. And they advocate for inconsistent and sexist campaigns like I'd rather go naked than wear fur. Would Rosa Parks have said I'd rather go naked than sit in the rear side of the bus. No, she wouldn’t. I asked myself why animal activists are doing those campaigns. And I haven’t come to any good explanation of those campaigns.

Why you are vegan, if you talk mostly about fur. Is leather, wool and silk good. Then why you don’t wear them. I assume that you don’t wear them or think it’s acceptable to do that. You choice not to tell people reasons why you don’t wear them. What that will accomplish. It creates confusion amongst general public. They will think that we shouldn’t use nonhuman animals only for fur. But you have a solution for that, right. You assume that they cannot think for themselves and they need baby steps. I wonder what you would do after they accept that we shouldn’t use other animals for fur. What's your plan? Would you tell them I lied to you before, I think that all use of nonhuman animals is immoral; I thought you had an IQ of the rock and needed to be feed little teaspoons of the truth. Why you don’t respect the people and present them with all the facts about animal products to a person a let them decide for themselves.

And what’s about name calling, only directed towards women. I am not saying that name calling towards man would be ok. But why only women. And why only when they wear fur. One supermodel had to explain why she wore fur. I found out that she wears leather, wool and silk. Why she was criticized for wearing only fur, but not for wearing other animal products.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Against vegetarianism but not against vegetarians


Some vegans defend vegetarianism and put veganism and vegetarianism together as like they are the same thing. Vegetarianism, a belief that’s ok to use nonhuman animals. And veganism is against use of nonhuman animals. See, they are not the same thing.  But when you point out the obvious or you say something about milk or eggs you are automatically attacking the vegetarians.

How can any vegan defend the immorality? Cows and chickens are equally important like any nonhuman animal. And you can say that vegetarianism is a gateway to veganism as many times as you want, but repetitions will not make that the truth. There are people who are vegetarians for decades and they didn’t go vegan and there are more vegetarians than vegans. Reality disproves your claims.

It’s interesting that some vegans and vegetarians can call people who consume animal products names, but say something about dairy products and eggs, you have crossed the line. In minds of some people we are on the same side. We cannot say the truth because that makes vegetarians uneasy. And it doesn’t matter that cows are being raped and their children are taken away and killed. Male chicks are being killed because they are no use to the industry, they don’t lay eggs. What do you think happens to hens when they are unable to lay eggs? They are killed.

Use of nonhuman animals is inherently immoral and in today’s world cannot be justified. We must work for the better future and that future starts with veganism.

Words of encouragement to vegetarians, you claim that you care for the nonhuman animals and yet you consume animal products. That’s inconsistent. You can be vegan. To me it’s easy and when you know it’s not about you, it’s about nonhuman animals, it becomes easier.

I suppose that vegetarians and some vegans will find this post offensive because I talked about something which is forbidden, cruelty inherent in dairy and eggs(all use of nonhuman animals involve abuse). And I forgot who is our enemy, meat-eaters, because apparently animal flesh is only animal product which involve suffering and death.


Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Discussion and criticism as a bad things


You often read in discussions about some topic where is a lot of disagreements that we shouldn’t fight and those discussions are form of infighting and some people will by reading those discussions be deter from going vegan. Those people aren’t interested in exchanging ideas, because bad things can happen like people changing their views. That’s horrible news for welfarists because they rely on people who choice to turn off their brains and not think for themselves.  I don’t understand how can accept something without critically thinking it about.  You need to look and pros and cons of everything.

First of all, that’s called a discussion, not a fight. And how that’s infighting, due to the fact we aren’t all on the same side. Not all animal activists are vegan or promote veganism. To me it’s hard to comprehend how someone can advocate for rights of nonhuman animals and not be vegan.

I don’t understand how people by reading discussion will decide not to go vegan. Critical thinking is one of the most important tools in life. People need to critically think about their actions towards nonhuman animals, they need to come to a conclusion that those actions were immoral and if they care about not just nonhuman animals but also human animals, veganism is the answer. So how critical thinking will deter people from going vegan.

Critique is to some people something horrible. Is often said you shouldn’t criticize something. Than how we will know whatever something is true if we cannot criticize it. And if it’s forbidden to criticize something, that thing is probably not true.

To a movement who needs to get people to think, to freely exchange ideas without painting them as divisive or purist, there are people who would like nothing more than to use to turn off our brains and aide exploiters of other sentient beings. Don’t worry, they will think for use. They did an excellent job so far by helping industry who uses nonhuman animals.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Dreams of some people


Over and over again welfarists leave the most important thing in their question "would you like to have more room to move or being killed while being unconscious etc.", and the most important thing is not being killed, enslaved, used. Deliberately leaving out what it’s all about only serves to make welfarist reform somehow helpful to nonhuman animals. That’s misleading. If welfarist reforms are helping nonhuman animals then they shouldn’t have to make stuff up in order to make them helpful. It’s unrealistic to think that welfarist reforms lead to abolition of nonhuman use.  What matter is what you do, not just what you think? And using it appears that welfarists have no interest in animal liberation only in regulating of use.

If people care about nonhuman animals having more room to move and you have promoted that as a good thing, people will not go vegan, they will eat those nonhuman animals that have more room to move. And making distinction between animal flesh and other animal product is a mantra of the welfarists.  If people are eating less animal flesh that doesn’t do anything for nonhuman animals, because unlike popular belief of welfarist there isn’t only one animal product that is bad.

If anyone is living in the dreams that’s welfarist. Wake up, reality waits.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Animal flesh

Some animal activists are pushing the unfounded notion that animal flesh is the worst animal product there is. That’s discouraging because those people are vegans. And I wonder what compel those activists to spread out that. There is no moral difference between animal products. All animal products demand suffering and death. I cannot understand why you need to tell people who want to help nonhuman animals that they should promote what you are, veganism. Why is that so hard with animal activist. And it’s expected to compromise otherwise you are painted as purist, divisive, you are not helping nonhuman animals, and you want them to suffer.  Promotion of bigger cages, different way of killing sentient beings, giving award to slaughterhouse designer cannot be considered a advocating for rights of sentient beings. Those actions are detrimental and not in the interest of nonhuman animals, but in the interest of exploiters.

Most famous campaign is meat-free Mondays. This is one of worst campaigns there is, because it sends a message that consuming other animal products is ok. Better name for that campaign is senseless Mondays. Its goal is that people not consume only one animal product for a day. And it seems that it doesn’t matter that people are consuming other animal products. Don’t tell me this campaign is a step to veganism, due to the fact that veganism isn’t mentions. I don’t consider one day things as something positive, because it gives people an impression by not doing one thing for a day, that they are done with good deeds and that entitles that to do whatever they want on other days.

If you are thinking, by promoting veganism you will scare off some people and that you should promote vegetarianism or "happy" animal products, don’t compromise, we are here to change things, to help those who cannot. But we aren’t here to aide exploiters of other sentient beings. Only vegans are making a real difference for the nonhuman animals. So how promotion of anything less will help them. 

Monday, July 11, 2011

Doing something for the nonhuman animals now


By being vegan and advocating for veganism and adoption of companion nonhuman animals, you are saving sentient beings now. Domestication of nonhuman animal is one of sickest things that humankind ever done. And we have a strong moral obligation to take care of them. So if you can, adopt nonhuman animals, they will make your life wonderful and livable in this sick world.



Veganism isn’t just a diet, its more than a lifestyle, it’s a commitment to nonviolence. Some claim that vegan diet is hard, it’s usually not, it can be, but it’s usually very easy.  Reading labels on food isn’t hard when you think what’s at stake, life of a sentient being who as you, wants to live and not suffer.  It’s interesting that people who complain the most that vegan diet is hard are from the West, were you have so many alternatives to regular, violent "food" to people to adjust not eating animal products. And people, who are in the West, have plants, right? Where I live there aren’t so many vegan cheeses and I haven’t found any vegan ice-creams. I would like to try those foods, but it’s not about me or my pleasure, it’s about them, nonhuman animals. I don’t mind making my own buckwheat pate, tofu(you can buy tofu, but it’s cheaper to make) or ice-cream(I only made ice-cream from frozen bananas, so if anybody have good recipe for vegan ice-cream, please let me know) etc.


People sometimes say you can’t be a 100% vegan. What that suppose the mean? Does that mean if I cannot be perfect at something, I shouldn’t do that at all? If I cannot be 100% vegan, I will strive to avoid all animal products. Veganism isn’t about perfection; it’s about what we can at least do. We aren’t saints or martyrs, we are regular people who care about sentient beings.


Non-vegans say nonhuman animals are killed during harvest. That’s interesting, because those people don’t care about other sentient beings, otherwise they would be vegans. Large amount of crops are used to feed billions of nonhuman animals. We do our best not to participate in violence and we cannot influence what happens during harvest. Once vegan population is significantly higher, we can demand that people don’t kill sentient beings during harvest.


It’s said that some people won’t go vegan and we need to promote vegetarianism or "happy" animal products. Promotion of anything but veganism is promotion of violence. Vegetarianism isn’t morally defensible position, because all animal products involve suffering. Can someone find a single thing that all people on this planet agree? I claim that you can’t. People don’t need to be feed teaspoons of truth, most of them can understand and their hearts and minds need to be open to inherent immorality of use of nonhuman animals.


Do we need to promote steps to veganism? No, promotions of steps are bad and detrimental idea. But that doesn’t mean that you must go vegan at once. If someone hear the vegan message and can’t go vegan at once, he will make plans to do that. Most important thing is that person heard the vegan message and he will choice steps to veganism. When you tell somebody not to eat and wear some animal products and they agree, how are you going to tell them after that they shouldn’t eat/wear all other animal products? You just told them not to eat/wear some animal products. And some wonder why general public thinks that animal activist have a hidden agenda. If promotion of steps leads to veganism, why there are more vegetarians than vegans? Evidences are against promotion of steps.

You have a power to decide not to directly participate in exploitation of other sentient beings. Do the right thing, go vegan.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Buckwheat pate


Ingredients

300 grams of buckwheat
3 stalks of leeks or garlic
150 grams of mustard
2 or 3 tablespoons of parsley
2 or 3 tablespoons of oregano
2 tablespoons of onion powder
Pepper
Salt
Curry

What you do:

First you have to do is to wash buckwheat. Then drain water from buckwheat. Add washed buckwheat with water in the pot. The ratio of buckwheat and water is one part per 3. Cook the buckwheat in the water on low heat until softened. And cook leeks in the pan until softened. Leave cooked buckwheat and leeks to cool. I discovered it’s better not to cool it too much, because then it’s harder to blend. Mix the buckwheat with leeks and use blender to blend it. If it’s too hard to blend, add little water. Put that mixture in the pot and add mustard and other spices. Use mixer to mix it all. Put buckwheat pate in container and cover it with little sunflower oil to last longer.

It’s delicious and cheap to make

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

1+1+1≠4


                   Welfare + Welfare + Welfare ≠ Rights 

How will approach which states that there is nothing wrong with use of nonhuman animals lead to animal rights. More welfare usually means more efficient exploitation of nonhuman animals. Animal rights and animal welfare are two opposite approaches, welfarist approach wants to regulate use, rights approach wants to end it and usually one thing doesn’t lead to the opposite. If that’s true, promotion of racism will lead to anti-racism. And we know that’s not going to happen.
Welfarists say we can use nonhuman animals for our interests. But there are still people who claim that welfare can lead to abolition. They even say that we don’t have evidences to say that more welfare will not lead to rights. Well, we have welfare for two centuries and evidences accumulated along the way. Most important evidence is that we use more nonhuman animals than ever .So animal welfare didn’t bring us closer to ending animal use. You may ask why. Perhaps, because that isn’t their goal. Is it really hard to comprehend that advocating for rights will lead to animal rights?
I am optimistic that we will stop using other sentient beings, but it will take time, possible in this case a long time, because animal use is so pervasive and eating/wearing animal product is considered as normal as breathing and it may never happen but unequivocal vegan education will result in more vegans, therefore lesser number of nonhuman animal will be used. We, vegans owe to nonhuman animals to advocate for their rights.