Discrimination of atheists

The discussing about atheism and theism in relation to animal rights has restarted. Maybe now they will stay in reality and use facts instead misleading other vegans and therefore protecting their influence in the movement. But don’t get your hopes up. Abolitionist movement, religious one is becoming more and more entrenched in fantasy.

I unlike some atheists (yes, the rumors are true, we, atheist don’t hold the same views) hold the view that atheism, taken as simple rejection of belief in any deity has no links to animal rights. We cannot know what that deity or deities if they exist think or wants us to do. If you extend atheism to be a rejection of certain deity that’s based on religious texts of one religion then atheism can have links to animal rights. I don’t extend atheism like that and believe it or not, I don’t like writing about religion vs. atheism when comes to animal rights, I would rather write about difference between two abolitionist movements and weflarist movement or moral imperative of veganism, but continual attacks on atheist vegans for maybe getting religious/spiritual non-vegans to be more open to idea of veganism, compels me to write about this. When majority of vegans are atheists it’s not good idea to alienate your base. 

You have to be extremely arrogant, ignorant or both to claim that atheist who are abolitionists too are the ones who discriminate against religious abolitionist vegans when in fact religious abolitionist vegans who bash atheism and discriminate against abolitionist atheist vegans by banning atheist’s posts on their pages, posts that don’t insult anyone, only challenge their ideas. Francione and his followers can repeat their mantra that you don’t have to be religious or spiritual to have moral concern about other animals as much as they want, but yet his or his fateful followers bashing of one side, atheism has shown that they have picked their side. 

I don’t know anyone who has said that you have to be atheist to be abolitionists. They confuse being critical of religion, in other words not liming critical thinking with saying you have to be atheist to be abolitionist. And they are making stuff up in albescence of evidence. That’s sad, really. Religious abolitionist vegans who bash atheism are the problem, not us. They are the ones who make me and others write about this topic instead of educating people about veganism. They are hindering the progression of the movement by suppressing critical thought. If someone writes critically about religion that doesn’t mean you should start the inquisition towards atheists. 

In the discussing about atheism and animal rights there were no atheists as far as I know supporting the right wing ideas. Present the evidence, the posts where atheist abolitionist vegan supported war or other forms of violence. And religious vegans see atheism and religion as same thing because they apply characteristics of religion to atheism, relicense on dogmas and leadership. There is no dogmas or leadership in atheism. Atheism is not organized system of beliefs. So they take position of one atheist who they despise the most, Hitchens to be a position of all atheists. Now you have a problem. You have taken ideas of one atheist to be accepted by all atheists. Hitchens' writings are not dogmas. He is not a pope of atheists. Atheists don’t accept ideas on basis of authority or influence. Everything must go throw rigors filter of critical thought.

If we are confused group, what makes you, a people who claim to reject all forms of discrimination, but discriminate against atheists, by not allowing us to be heard and misleading people by fabricating positions that majority of us don’t hold.

For the end, yes, I am militant atheist who by the way don’t like that term and use freethinker instead, who rejects violence and I think that violence can only be used to defend yourself and others when other avenues of defense are exhausted.

Power play of elitists

Why people who are vegans are so against unequivocal vegan advocacy. You would think that being a vegan would make a person advocate for veganism. But no, that would be consistent, moral and right. And advocacy of those people share no morality or consistency with animal rights philosophy.

The reason why some vegans, sadly their numbers are not small, oppose advocating veganism, critical thinking. They want to preserve power over you and they are elitists, they think that they are better than you. In order to preserve power they have to limit your exposure to new information. Information is the power. Giving only information that is in favor of their goals they assure their status remains the same. They aren’t doing anything new, all power figures tend to control what information you receive so they can remain in power. 

But they have a problem with controlling flow of information, the internet. Anybody on the internet can say whatever they want. There is lot of stupid things on the web. That is not of concern of elitists. Internet has an other side, the good one, where people exchange new ideas, discuss them, accept or reject ideas. We come to their real problem of maintaining power, how can they limit flow of new ideas on internet where free speech is the rule (with exception of countries afraid of their citizens). They have a few tools as their disposal.  First one is there are better things to do than (think critically) than engage in discussions, learn new stuff, defend your position. You have a problem with defending your position, if your position, welfarist, has no facts, evidence to support it's claim of helping other animals. So what those elitists do when you have no facts to support you claims, tell you that discussions are bad things. Critical thinking that awful thing that should be avoided at all cost it’s the only thing that has a power of stripping them of their power. Why would you use your brain when they will use it for you and decide what’s good for you and what information you can receive? It’s not like that you and them both capable of deciding for yourselves, the value of new information.

Their mantra is there is no evidence that welfarism is counterproductive to ending use of other animals. Of course we don’t have evidences, besides the fact that use of other sentient being is increasing and we have welfarism for centuries and their campaigns for decades that haven’t brought us any closer to abolition of animal use. They think by repeating the same bullshit over and over again that will somehow become the fact.

The next thing they say is there is no debate over two opposing views; they are two sides of the same issue, therefore ignoring reality and once again facts. Two opposing views are abolitionist approach and welfarist. Many advocates and I wrote about differences between those views before. One, the abolitionist one seeks to abolish use of other sentient beings and welfarist wants reform that use with no intention of ending use. How can they be different tactics of the same approach? To some people you are a bully if you express an opinion that different from elitists without intention of harm. Do they know that calling that bullying they are distorting the meaning of a word which is highly dangerous. Bullying kills so many people and calling a different opinion without sinister intention a bullying is disgusting. They put on the same plain critical thinking and psychological and physical abuse.

Another mantra is that we should all get along; it doesn’t matter if we are doing opposing things. That begs the question how we are going to all get along when some advocate for murder and rape of sentient beings but others advocate for veganism. Yes, vegans who promote animal use say that they want to see use of other animals be gone, but they are doing the opposite thing, they promote thing they clam to want abolished. You can claim that you want to see use of other sentient beings abolished but because other people can’t read minds they only see your promotion of use of other animals. And that’s the problem. Unless you can develop and teach other people method of mind reading, you should stop promoting use and promote veganism unequivocally.

Big thing that some elitist have against other vegans is, you will never guess, promotion of veganism. We shouldn’t do that because some people may listen and decide to become vegan and apparently that’s bad. Instead they propose promotion of vegetarianism, ʺhappyʺ animal products that may or not leads to veganism. If people cannot go vegan at once, they can devise a plan, steps to achieve veganism. The idea that people need to be feed teaspoons of morality resides on notion that people are too stupid to understand facts about nature of use of other animals.

I know that’s insane idea for some that people are quite capable for thinking critically, for deciding what’s moral, what’s not. We, who welcome free exchange of ideas, just need to present new information, information of immorality of use of other sentient beings and let people make a decision.

Psychotic cult that kills other animals

Most beloved organization among so many animal activists, PETA kills other animals, opposes shelters that don’t kill other sentient beings, rarely promotes veganism, supports killings of other animals etc. I named few reasons why I not just oppose PETA, I want to see them gone. They are not animal rights organization, rather than welfarist organization that doesn’t promote animal rights.

It’s not very encouraging to see so many animal activists embrace that psychotic cult and promote their campaigns whose purpose is to promote PETA, to make profits and satisfy their sick urges. Those campaigns are not meant to help other animals. They can claim as long as they want that helping other animals is their goal, reality says otherwise. Progress of animal rights movement cannot happen if organizations like PETA run the show. How can you increase number of vegans if PETA says it’s ok to go vegetarian, in other words it's ok to rape and murder sentient beings for your own pleasure. Is there anything more insane than torturing and killing sentient beings for your own selfish desires? You have no need for animal products for food, clothes, no reason to use other sentient beings. What’s left if take away pleasure, you are left with delusions and insanity as reasons to use other animals.

Let’s go back to the topic. One of the main reasons why I oppose PETA is that they kill other healthy animals (they call it euthanasia, but it's murder) and defend it by saying they are no bad homes in heaven. They use delusions to make their case. They couldn’t go further from reality if they wanted.  http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8651

PETA takes in thousands of cats, dogs, sometimes other animals for purpose of adoption and most of them end up killed by PETA, "lucky" ones are taken to kill shelters, because they oppose not killing other animals. Healthy other animals are killed. You would think that organizations that claims to be an animal rights be for fundamental right of a sentient being, right to live. Without that right other rights are meaningless. But no, PETA loves to kill other sentient beings. They even say it out loud ʺwe do not advocate 'right to life' for animalsʺ ~ Ingrid Newkirk.  Another quote from psychopath in chief "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself...I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day."

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8608

What animal advocates do, they express their support for PETA, therefore supporting killing and torturing other animals. PETA supporter have blood on their hands. Some of the defense of PETA is idiotic. It goes like they done so much for animals and what have you done lately. Nothing much, promoted unequivocally veganism and adoption but I haven’t taken other animals and injected them with poison. It does seem that not only I, but lot of other animal rights activists are not doing much for other animals because we are not killing them. This goes beyond painfully. How can you claim that ending lives of healthy sentient beings helps them? Second must used arguments for defending PETA is also stupid and illogical too PETA is not a shelter, then why in hell they take in other animals for purpose of adoption and kill them. Would you support an organization that says it wants to help homeless people but instead kills them? And would you say the same thing in their defense. One thing that can explain why PETA supporters and employers support horrifying atrocities against other animals is they are a cult led by psychopaths. No one in the right mind would propose killing healthy other animals as a way of helping them. New information, counter-arguments cannot penetrate their cult minds. Everything that contradicts what PETA's says is lie. I suggest that PETA establish a religion. They have a head start, dogma, followers who don’t like to use their brains. If they establish and religion they would have more followers and they can defend their actions by demanding respect for their religion. Defenders of PETA say that facts about PETA's killings of others animals is coming from CCF, Center for Consumer Freedom, but they ignore the fact that PETA reports to State of Virginia, from that comes their killing rates and from their own admission.

Results for 2011

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PETA.2011.pdf

Opposing no-kill shelters is another sick thing that PETA does. How can you call yourself an animal rights organization and promote killings of other sentient beings. That doesn’t make sense. PETA sent a gift basket to shelters officials for what, can you guess, because they made a decision to start killing other animals. Unfortunately for PETA and their supporters that shelter didn’t start killing, but instead they remain a no-kill shelter.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10210

They even are oppose to feeding starving stray other sentient beings. That’s awful thing to do, to give away food that you don’t need to a starving other animals. What kind of person can do such thing? How can you help other animals by giving them food, PETA would like you to catch other sentient beings and bring them to PETA who will kill them. 

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/08/24/a-beautiful-cat-meets-real-life.aspx
http://catdefender.blogspot.com/2011/10/peta-traps-and-kills-cat-and-then.html

PETA rarely promotes veganism, but when they do, they do it in twisted way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/petas-shark-attack-ad_n_987791.html

They are right to rarely promote veganism because veganism has lose ties with animals rights, it’s not like that veganism is a foundation of animal rights. PETA and other weflarist organizations send the message that if you cannot be vegan, go vegetarian. And if you cannot do that, don’t eat one animal product on Monday. And write us the check if you cannot be a vegetarian for one day, we will help the other animals. They didn’t even set bar for helping other animals, the bar keeps moving.

PETA also supports killings of other nonhuman animals.

http://www.peta.org/features/the-case-for-controlled-atmosphere-killing.aspx

I guess they have to advocate for killing of other animals to remain consistent with their work and ʺanimal rightsʺ philosophy of not advocating right to live for other animals. I saw a petition sometimes ago about the saving chickens by killing them with a different method. How can you save a healthy other sentient beings by ending his life, I don’t know, lot of thing that PETA and their supporters do is not sane.

For sake of other animals PETA must be gone. They are a cult led by psychopaths whose mission is to kill other animals as many as they can to satisfy their twisted urges. And they will continue their atrocities against other sentient beings as long as they are people who give them money and support them. If a PETA supporter says to you PETA has done more for the other animals than you, you can respond by saying that’s not an insult but a compliment, the best one I can get as real animal rights advocate. 

Religion in animal rights movement

I know that by writing this post about this forbidden topic and I am opening a can of … peas. But I think it’s important to discuss it. Before I state my opinion on this subject, I have to say that I respect religious people and I don’t consider them stupid, bad people or anything else degrading, I just don’t respect religion. Now I would be impressed if you take my opposition of one of most successful tool of controlling people to claim that I hate or don’t respect religious people. It happens all time when you voice your opposition to religion.

I have seen an effort to suppress discussion of religion in animal rights movement. Some even say we shouldn’t discuss it. Why should we leave out that? Religion plays an integral part in the lives of many people, majority of them not vegans and they frequently use their religion to defend use of the other animals. Leaving out discussion of religion would cripple our advocacy.

Maybe some people won’t discuss people because of fear of driving religious people away. I am not suggesting when talking to religious people you automatically criticize his religion. When talking to people about veganism, I never did that. You know why? Because they didn’t use religious arguments. Often people ask me what I eat or is it hard not to eat animal products. We haven’t come to the discussion of the philosophy of veganism. But when we do, if they use religious arguments, I will not hesitate to refute those arguments. 

I was thinking is the possibility of driving people away a sufficient reason to declare religion immune from criticism. But there is no reason to declare any idea immune to criticism. Salman Rushdie said it better “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” Anything can drive non-vegans away. The mere fact that you are a vegan can spoke them or the claim that there is no moral difference between killing a human animal or non-human animal. What’s going to be? Are we going to select some ideas open to criticism and other not in other words to declare that critical thinking is not welcomed in animal rights movement or we will discuss all ideas. It’s not like we need people to critically think about their action towards other animals. 

You may argue that religious vegans are more progressive that religious non-vegans. They support women’s, LGBTIQ rights etc. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t criticize religion. Vegans who are religious cherry-pick their religious books as religious non-vegans. Both ignore parts of their books which doesn’t support their word views.

I avoid talking about people, I rather talk about ideas, but now I have to do it. In discussions I have seen that religious people don’t like any criticism of religion even a joke about religion is off limit. Any criticism of their religion isn’t welcomed. Religious people tend to be insecure spoiled individuals with whom you must be careful and not say anything that may offend them like expressing your opinion about religion because they love to stay in their bubble that logic and reason cannot usually penetrate. They are personification of ignorance and proud of it.

I must say it again I didn’t wrote this post to declare open season on religious people, or to claim that we need to go after religious people every time when talking to religious non-vegan. My point is that discussion of religion and it′s critiques are sometimes required, because of its importance. And I see nothing positive in surrendering critical thinking, it impedes progress of society.

No right or wrong

I want to write about one of the most troubling aspects on animal advocacy is the claim that everything helps, there is no wrong action, any type of advocacy helps. That begs the question if everything helps and under everything is nothing, does that mean that doing nothing helps. Does not being vegan help other sentient beings?

If everything helps there is no right or wrong. Moral truths don’t exist under that proposition. I know this is a crazy proposition, but if there is right or wrong that mean that some actions are wrong. We can and must say that some type of advocacy isn’t right. Being painted as elitists or divisive shouldn’t deter us from claiming that some actions are wrong, immoral and counter-productive.

What is at stake, fate of countless sentient beings outweighs the insults, name calling taken by supporters of one type of advocacy. Some will say with some many other animals beings used, tortured we must do whatever possible to help them. Not everything will help. There are wrong and right actions to be taken.

Wrong actions/advocacies have been taken for decades, centuries. You may say how I dare to claim that some action/advocacy is wrong. It’s easy; it’s called freedom of speech and critical thinking. You can try it sometimes; it’s good for the mind. If I accept your claim that there is no wrong actions that advocates can take, how I will paint an actions which hasn’t produce results or can’t produce it at all or is counter-productive like a claim that humans are cancer. By the way you also are saying that you are also a cancer.

Let’s take single issue campaigns that so many advocates are doing, for a long time. Have they, SICs brought us close to equality of sentient beings. No, more other animals are used than ever. Have they at least brought results in their narrow focus campaigns? No, people still wear fur. Ok, they are not wrong but they failed miserably. We have a different opinion about rightness or wrongness of an action. You opinion about those things is drowning in subjectivity.

Welfarists have a crazy claim that welfarism will bring us closer to rights of other animals. One little thing can interfere with that claim. And that is that welfarism is based on immoral notion that other sentient beings are ours to be used, but we shouldn’t impose suffering over what is required to produce animal products. Basing notion of welfarism can, but I don’t want to sound too much judgmental, create a problem if you accept the idea that other animals must have rights and advocate for that. Advocating for different methods of killing sentient beings, bigger cages will how bring us closer to rights, by magic. Don’t get me started with but we have no evidence that welfarism doesn’t work when comes to animal rights. You are serious. Welfarism is 2 century old. How many more years have to pass without results before you see it won’t and can’t bring rights?

If all types of advocacy help why there are no more vegans. There should be more vegans, if every action helps. But there are not. And I read that we cannot know that some actions won’t help. Actually we can. Telling someone that people who wear fur should be raped doesn’t help. “Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. ” ~ Gary Yourofsky.

Calling people names, insulting them, promotion of vegetarianism aren’t helping. I was told that every bit counts. If a non-vegan today eats less animal products or doesn’t wear leather or other animal products, is he helping other animals? Under immoral every bit counts approach he is. It doesn’t matter that by not being vegan he is hurting other animals. Being vegan is at least what we can do, if we claim that we care about other animals.

Progress of animal rights movement

Veganism movement is progressing extremely slowly, slower than it should. Culprit is prevailing method of educating people. People are said by animal activists to go vegan, but if they can’t, they can go vegetarian. And if they cannot be vegetarian, they are said that they can ʺhelpʺ other animals by not eating one animal product for one day. But if they cannot even do that they are said to donate to speciesist campaigns or organization that kill other animals like PETA.

They are basically watering down the message so they can declare victory when some business switch to more efficient way of killing other animals and that they can say how many people are ʺhelpingʺ other animals because of them.

Religion is being used in vegan education. That’s not very good tactic because animal rights movement resides on objectivity that other animals are sentient beings that shouldn’t be used at all. Bringing subjective things like religion in animal rights movement destroys movement’s objectivity and rationality and makes veganism about people not other animals. If you make veganism about the people, people will become the center point of veganism, not the other animals.

Why use religion to further the cause of animal rights when the religion is one of the most ferment defender of animal use. Beliefs not based on evidence are not very usefully when advocating for things which are based on evidence and those beliefs are dangerous. By presenting some with religious arguments for veganism like one interpretation of some verses from his religious book you are making his veganism reside on shaky grounds. Another interpretation of that versus can make move him away from veganism.

Presenting people with objective arguments like sentience of other animals or that we don’t need to use other animals followed by ethical or health reasons. With objectivity you make his veganism reside on firm grounds. By saying his veganism I am not saying that everybody has his own definition of veganism. That would render veganism meaningless.

Some of you will think again with the criticism. Why, is critical thinking a bad thing? If you think this criticism is unfair, how you explain extremely low numbers of vegans in the world. Something must be wrong. I am arguing that methods used by vegans are not bringing the good results. Those methods must be abandoned and vegans should advocate for veganism unequivocally.

Animal rights advocate

I am going to say something which will probably insult, or anger some people and I have to stress that isn’t my intention at all. Expressing my opinions is my intention and I will continue to do so regardless of people’s reactions. And I am not writing this post to establish higher moral ground. I don’t believe that I hold higher moral ground by advocating veganism. You just have to think logically and you will probably come to the same conclusion.

If you use welfarist campaigns in your advocacy like advocating for different methods of killing other animals, you are not an animal rights activist, but welfarist and I am not using that term as an insult. That will probably seem too harsh to some of you. Usual response to advocating veganism is that we need to do something now, ignoring that advocating veganism does something now, it creates more vegans. Advocating for welfarist measures which take decades to implement does nothing now. Let′s go to the human rights movement. Would you say it's logical and sane to advocate racism to end racism? That campaign couldn’t succeed. Why, because racism cannot end racism. But some claim that welfarist approach which doesn’t want to end use of other animals will end that use. That’s insane. If you would advocate racism to end racism you would called racist. Same reasoning isn’t applied to animal advocates. You want to be called an animal rights advocate without actually advocating for rights. And you would probably get angry if you said that to you. Just to make myself clear I am not saying that weflarists are racists.

Social change as this one, use of other animals which is seen as normal as you get will not come quickly or ever come. You have to ask yourself if end of use of our fellow sentient beings will never end why not use welfarist campaigns to improve the treatment of other animals. Those campaigns cannot help due to the several facts, the industry will only accept those measures which increase their profits and target of those campaigns are practices like current method of killing chickens (You know what is that method but I cannot write that, it makes me sick) which will be gone because the new proposed methods are more profitable.

And abuse in animal use cannot be abolished because all use involves abuse. And any campaign you devised in attempt to improve their treatment will fail way short in recognizing their fundamental right of not being used by humans. On the other hand if the use of other animals can be ended it would be better to send a message that the problem is use not the treatment and advocate veganism. Either way by advocating veganism, there will be more vegans, less other animals will be used. I believe that use of other sentient beings can be ended, but we need coherent message.

When you advocate for rights of other animals, for abolition of use of other animals, for veganism unequivocally you are an animal rights advocate. You are speaking your mind to other people and don’t care if you are labeled radical. Some will say I want that end of use too. Because other people are not mind readers you have to say to people and act accordingly otherwise they will think you have no problem with use, only with treatment. You cannot blame the people for that. They are just listening to you.

So many positive things would come from follow from people doing unequivocal veganism advocacy and speaking with one voice that use of other animals is the problem not the treatment and that use must be abolished not reformed. More people will become vegans who will help others became vegan too. General public will no longer think of us as people with hidden agendas.

I forgot to say that not being animal rights advocate doesn’t take away your care for other animals, you just to follow those intentions and advocate for rights, for veganism.

Witch hunt

I want to talk about disturbing, sick trend in animal rights movement and that’s a call for the death of certain groups of non-vegans. 

When a non-vegan kills or hurts a companion other animals, some animal activists begin advocating for his death or suffering, forgetting that non-vegan is also a sentient being entitled to fundamental right of all sentient beings, rights to live which cannot be taken away because he has done something immoral. Now, some of you will state that I am defending that person, who is usually called derogatory names like monster etc. I am not defending that person or his actions, I am claiming that killing/harming that non-vegan is also immoral as his actions towards other animals were. Sentient being has a right to live regardless of his actions.

Usually when a non-vegan kills/harms companion other animal is called names and a campaign for his demise is undertaken. Why is that? You don’t often hear calls of death of non-vegan just because he is not a vegan or he has killed/harmed other nonhuman animal, not companion one. Why they are so inconsistent in their campaigning. I think I said that but I will repeat what is the moral difference between actions of a non-vegan who kills companion nonhuman animals and other group of non-vegans. I would presume that vegans would know answer of that questions. But why aren’t they showing it.

And what those vegans are trying to accomplish with those campaigns. What good could possible come from those immoral, despicable campaigns? If some vegans continue doing those actions the image of the animal rights activists would be tarnish for good, that would prevent us to educate the general public about animal rights and contribute to making any possibility of a social change be lost forever. And is it a good strategy to advocate for death of human animals when you trying to educate them, to open their minds and hearts to a change.  

Hatred of diversity

Nobody has ever made any sound argument against gay rights or ever will. I argue there is no sound argument against gay rights. Arguments against gay rights come from hate, fear, ignorance, stupidity. As a vegan I advocate for all animals rights human and nonhuman. LGBTIQ people must get equal rights, rights to get married, adopt children etc. 

I live in the country in where Pride Parade couldn’t be organized, where LGBTIQ people are still second class citizens. I know in most countries they are second class of people. They are being denied equal rights because they different from most people. In some places people vote to ban gay marriage, to deny rights of gay people. That’s called tyranny of majority. Rights are not voted for, they are given. And it’s dangerous to start now to vote for people’s rights. People didn’t vote for women’s, African Americans rights etc. But people want to start now to vote for someone else’s rights, when they have their rights. It’s like I have my rights, screw you others who don’t have same rights. They want to assure that only they have rights, not the minorities, so they stand for immorality.

They have an audacity to advocate against gay rights, against advancement of human rights. Sometimes they invoke their favorite excuse, god, who said that marriage is between a one man and one woman.  Some religious people use that argument, but forgetting that there are some nasty things written in the Bible. If you accept that archaic definition of marriage, why you reject a polygamous marriage, it’s in the Bible I checked and you have to kill someone who works on the Sabbath. What will you do when your wife isn’t a virgin on the wedding night? Bible says she should be killed. But you don’t follow those rules, only those that benefit you. People will say that’s the Old Testament. Ok, but you cannot argue that I using the wrong part of the Bible to make my case, when you also are using arguments from the Old Testament to say that homosexuality is wrong. What did Jesus said about homosexuality. And did he say he will judge people, not you.

Most people don’t live according to the Bible. They accept some rules that benefit them, and reject others. But they want to use arguments from thousands years ago, where people are so tolerant to argue for insanity, that people don’t get same rights.

And now we came to the favorite argument homosexuality is no natural. Can I suppose that you are writing that on the natural internet or natural mobile phone, using natural keyboard, siting on natural chair which you picked from the garden. I see you are using so many natural things. It’s good because otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

Marriage was always between a man and the women some argue. No, what about polygamous marriage and marriage between a man and many wives, his slaves. Women in the patriarchal marriage were property of their husbands, breeding material for more followers of their religion. Marriage also was a way of increasing your territory in medieval times. Where was love in those marriages? But you are willing to stop some people who are in love to get married. You are not advocating for protection of marriage, you are advocating for hatred and discrimination. I find that disgusting.

HavvHav

HavvHav

HavvHav

Imaginary claims

There’s a continues effort from some vegans to attribute Sam Harris’s or Christopher Hitchens's views of not just religion, but everything they say, to everybody who finds them inspirational, in other words if you agree with something they say, you are automatically agreeing with everything for which they stand for. It seems it doesn’t matter that you can agree with some of the views, like views on religion and disagree with other things they say.

And it’s funny that vegans who find Chris Hedges inspirational don’t get the same treatment.  When they post Chris’s views, they don’t get attributed with everything he says to them. I can play that game. Am I to assume that a vegans who post some Chris′s views agree with non-veganism, because Chris is not vegan? What would happen if someone says that? It would be an outcry. But yet again the same thing is done to people who agree with some of Sam’s and Hitchens's views. Only difference is one is religious, one is not.  

It seems that only if you find some views of a non-religious person inspirational, you are automatically agreeing with everything that persons claim. But if you agree with some views of a religious person you are not automatically agreeing with everything that person says. Can you spot the difference?

I don’t share Hitchens's views on war and violence. And I can find his views on religion inspirational and not agree with his other views. Not just disagree with his other views; I can easily reject those views, the non-religious ones. Violence is not cause of huge number of problems and violence won’t solve them.

This is a part of bigger problem. And problem is that abolitionist approach is becoming a haven for religion and anti-science views. Science is same as religion according to those people. It doesn’t matter that science changes it′s views when new evidences appear, but religion doesn’t, it just change it′s interpretations. And if some religious person does something immoral, like kill a person, that’s not a religion, it’s a fanaticism. But when he does something moral, that’s automatically attributed to his religion. Why only good things done by religious person are attributed to his religion, but not the bad things.

A claim that if you agree with some views of person, you agree with all his views, is not based on evidences, but on personal resentment towards rejection of religion.

The abolitionist approach is heading in a bad direction, it has and will drive some people away, people who are not religious.

Demonizing people

I have noticed that some animal activist demonize some people, people who wear fur, vivisectors, hunters, or people with whom they disagree on tactics. Name calling, demonizing people is counter-productive and not helpful in efforts to educate the general public. Those actions make us look mean. How can you possible claim that those thing are good, they don’t belong in education toolkit.

Let’s take hunters for example, because I have read many activist posting things against them like death threats etc. By the way it’s immoral to advocate for anyone’s death. What’s the moral difference between hunters and other non-vegans? Hunters kill other animals by themselves, other non-vegans buy animal products in the store. Have you seen a moral difference? There is none. All non-vegans kill other animals and to separate and demonized one group because of their methods of acquiring animal products is different drives away of the main problem, which is animal use.

I know that reading and watching videos about atrocities committed against other animals makes you mad. It makes me mad too. And I sometimes say some bad things against people who are doing those things, which I regret later. After bad words are said I realize that I was wrong because all animal use requires abuse and I have seen one portion of that abuse and if I focus on one form of use/abuse, people will think that use is wrong, not all use. In time I learn to control myself but yet again inconsistent thing are said sometimes.

Best thing you can do is to channel your anger into something positive, use it to educate people, to say to them that those awful things which they see on videos are common practice. And if those awful things are not done, using other animals is abuse by itself. Other animals are not ours to use in any way.

Raw cream cheese of sunflower seeds

Ingredients:

200 grams of raw shelled sunflower seeds

2 lemons

Spices like pepper, salt etc.

1 glove

Preparation:

Soak sunflower seeds overnight in twice as much water. Pour off the water and wash the seeds on the following way: gently rub the seeds between the palms to remove the skin which will come to the surface. Repeat that process several times to remove the skin. Put seeds with lemon juice in the blender. Add little bit of water and grind that. Now add spices and grind it to a point where it looks creamy. Transfer sunflower seed cheese in the jar and leave it in the fridge. Recipe says that it lasts for few days