Thursday, May 24, 2012

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.  

Thursday, May 17, 2012

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.


Wednesday, May 2, 2012

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.