tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72603420931514160712024-03-14T06:24:05.757+01:00Abolish use of nonhuman animalsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-40794120646563476382013-09-23T17:44:00.001+02:002013-09-23T18:03:14.981+02:00Boycotting non-vegan companies that sell vegan products<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Often I read that vegans shouldn’t buy vegans products from
companies that also sell non-vegan products. People are saying that we should
boycott them. But what we should do, buy products from vegan companies when
there aren’t those companies in some countries or people don’t have the means
to buy products from those companies. And what about people who want to go
vegan who hear that it’s wrong to buy vegan
products from non-vegan companies but don’t have the means to buy those
products from vegan companies.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One company which is I won’t name is popular for selling vegan
products but they also sell animal products. We are being said that we
should boycott them. Why. Are we supporting
use/cruelty in the same way as non-vegans who are buying animal products, no,
because we in many cases don’t have a choice. Not all of us live in the countries
where there are vegan companies or have means to buy vegan products on-line. Non-vegans
have a choice to do the right thing, go vegan. That’s privilege speaking if you saying that
others who aren’t in your position do the things which you are doing. And that
is the one of the reasons why vegan movement isn’t progressing faster than it
should. Some assume that everyone is privileged as they are. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What those vegans are suggesting to people who are interested
in veganism, go vegan only if you can buy products from vegan companies. If
they happen to live in countries where are only non-vegan companies selling
vegan products, saying that you should boycott them send the message that you
can go vegan only if you privileged as some vegans are. And by the way the <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 16px;">definitions</span></span> of veganism don’t say that you shouldn’t buy vegan products from non-vegan
companies. One say “Veganism denotes a
philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and
use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the
environment.” Sometimes it isn’t practical or possible not to buy animal
products from non-vegan companies.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
Should you boycott stores that sell vegan and non-vegan products.
If the criteria for boycotting is supporting cruelty/use of other animals, you
should boycott those stores too and only buy from vegan stores. I heard that
one is in Germany. Can you when you go into store that sells animal and
non-animal products and buy vegan products say I don’t want my money to go to
buying animal products, salaries of non-vegan employees, pockets of non-vegan
owners who will buy animal products. Can you. I suspect that you can't. You are
supporting use of other animals/cruelty when you are vegan too and buying vegan
products, but you are supporting that indirectly and are doing the bare minimum
for the other sentient beings.<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t forget people who own non-vegan companies are
capitalist, so if its more profitable to sell vegan products and not to sell
non-vegan products, what you think they will do. They will sell whatever its profitable. There is
merit in saying if more vegans buy vegan products from those companies, they
will include more vegan products. They are just responding to the demand.
Advocating veganism creates more vegans, more demand for those companies who
will respond.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
I am not saying if you are in position where you can choice between vegan and non-vegan companies that you should buy vegan products from non-vegan companies, you should support vegan companies. I am saying that many vegans don’t have them means to buy vegan products from vegan companies or live where there are. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-36236341572653867632013-06-09T21:59:00.000+02:002013-06-09T21:59:11.579+02:00Standing together<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is an effort from some vegans that we vegans need to
stand together regardless of our differences, some huge and against very nature
of veganism and animal rights. It would be
great if we could stand together as a group advocating for all animals. But
sadly we cannot. I wonder will we ever can. How can we stand together if some
vegans reject basis claims of animals rights, those people reject fundamental
right of sentient being, right to live, reject veganism and the notion that the
problem is use of other animals, not the treatment. These differences can’t be overcome,
they are the foundation of animal rights. You see the problem with standing
together for animal rights with someone who rejects it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I read a while ago that if wouldn’t be good if we speak with
one message, can’t remember the exact words. Really, sending consistent message
to the people is apparently bad. It would be bad for PETA and other business would lose
money if vegans who would start advocating unequivocally for other animals, stop
doing speciesist single issue campaigns. Groups who advocate for human rights send one consistent
message, like racism is wrong, not some racism is ok. They are more and less successful
because they are consistent and they don’t compromise, why would they, they
know what are right, the know that they are fighting injustice. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why can we vegans be like human rights advocates? Don’t compromise
on the fundamentals, send one message that all animals have rights, that you
cannot use them. Only in animal rights movement you can be for rights of
sentient beings and use/killing of those sentient beings.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We too fight injustice, the injustice that some many don’t
even recognize, that makes it hard and the reason why some many vegans choice
to do SICs and advocating vegetarianism. It hard to fight against something
that so many non-vegans say it doesn’t exist. But it’s not impossible to
achieve our goals, a world without animals use. That may be pipe dream, but almost every social movement
started as such. We must strive to better ourselves and the world and its start
with individuals who choice to become vegan and with that passion advocate for veganism,
for all animals. Future may be already doomed, if people are content with
current state of the world. We can always be better and we can when we choose
to. I am not saying we need to be perfect or strive to be, I suggesting that we
can improve ourselves and the world.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I will not stand with vegans : who advocate for "saving"
other animals when in fact they advocate, therefore support killing other
sentient beings; who kill other animals and encourage other to do so; who write
death threats to people with whom they disagree; who demand worship and paint
other vegans who dare to question their sainthood as violent. But I will stand
with vegans who tirelessly advocate for all animals, for their rights, who are
saving other sentient beings by adopting and encourage others to do so if we
they can, who teach others how to be vegan.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I didn’t wrote this post to create divide among vegans, because
that would be impossible, we are already divided, not because someone’s desire
to create divide, but because of people who think this movement is about
advocates and not other sentient beings and I wanted to point out you can’t
stand with someone who reject fundamental principles of your positions. And
maybe¸ maybe some vegans who reject foundation of animal rights, veganism would
reconsider their position and start advocating for veganism, for all animals,
human and non-human. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-11226831349640705642012-11-26T14:32:00.001+01:002012-11-26T14:32:05.564+01:00Discrimination of atheists<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">. </span>Abolitionist movement, religious one is becoming more and more entrenched in fantasy.<br /><br /><div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.<br /><br /></div>
<div>
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.<br /><br /></div>
<div>
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.<br /><br /> </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-48735046101596837852012-10-27T22:18:00.000+02:002012-10-27T22:24:07.863+02:00Power play of elitists<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-2625042985418391782012-10-05T10:30:00.000+02:002013-09-24T12:36:49.935+02:00Psychotic cult that kills other animals<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s not very encouraging to see so many animal activists
embrace that psychotic cult<b> </b>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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <a href="http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8651">http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8651</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8608">http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8608</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Results for 2011<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PETA.2011.pdf">http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PETA.2011.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10210">http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10210</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/08/24/a-beautiful-cat-meets-real-life.aspx">http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/08/24/a-beautiful-cat-meets-real-life.aspx</a><br />
<a href="http://catdefender.blogspot.com/2011/10/peta-traps-and-kills-cat-and-then.html">http://catdefender.blogspot.com/2011/10/peta-traps-and-kills-cat-and-then.html</a><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
PETA rarely promotes veganism, but when they do, they do it
in twisted way.</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/petas-shark-attack-ad_n_987791.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/petas-shark-attack-ad_n_987791.html</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
PETA also supports killings of other nonhuman animals. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.peta.org/features/the-case-for-controlled-atmosphere-killing.aspx">http://www.peta.org/features/the-case-for-controlled-atmosphere-killing.aspx</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="MsoHyperlink">I guess they have to advocate for
killing of other animals to remain consistent with their work and </span><span class="MsoHyperlink">ʺ</span><span class="MsoHyperlink">animal rights</span><span class="MsoHyperlink">ʺ</span><span class="MsoHyperlink"> 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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="MsoHyperlink"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="MsoHyperlink"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-28114292784039747712012-09-10T17:02:00.000+02:002012-09-10T18:00:53.663+02:00Religion in animal rights movement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-81444274069117747562012-07-13T14:33:00.000+02:002012-07-13T14:33:50.689+02:00No right or wrong<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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? <br /><br /><div>
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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /> <br /> </div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-50685577226120744002012-07-09T19:20:00.002+02:002012-07-09T19:22:21.744+02:00Progress of animal rights movement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-10028688781969769012012-06-02T15:28:00.000+02:002012-11-27T16:36:00.994+01:00Animal rights advocate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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.<br /><br /><div>
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.<br /><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.<br /></div>
<div>
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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-23473104198092800862012-05-24T16:35:00.000+02:002012-05-24T16:35:27.444+02:00Witch hunt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-49459237534550675392012-05-17T10:25:00.000+02:002012-05-17T11:32:20.315+02:00Hatred of diversity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zcOiTn79Zto/T7S2fEpT2eI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/s9Uhk20GLjw/s1600/Web_372_IDAHO_logo3gscene_3+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zcOiTn79Zto/T7S2fEpT2eI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/s9Uhk20GLjw/s320/Web_372_IDAHO_logo3gscene_3+(1).jpg" width="262" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="display: none;">HavvHav</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="display: none;">HavvHav</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="display: none;">HavvHav</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-68130424880199828932012-05-02T16:32:00.000+02:002012-05-06T19:44:52.414+02:00Imaginary claims<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
The abolitionist approach is heading in a bad direction, it has
and will drive some people away, people who are not religious.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-13007105711514527772012-04-28T12:05:00.000+02:002012-04-28T12:05:22.322+02:00Demonizing people<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-40760207384874014322012-01-04T13:53:00.001+01:002013-09-24T12:34:44.892+02:00Raw cream cheese of sunflower seeds<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ingredients:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">200 grams of raw shelled sunflower seeds<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">2 lemons <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Spices like pepper, salt etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1 glove<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Preparation:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">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<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-16700138606567349482011-12-17T13:23:00.000+01:002011-12-17T13:23:11.765+01:00Peaceful Abolitionist: You don't need money to make a difference<a href="http://peacefulabolitionist.blogspot.com/2011/12/you-dont-need-money-to-make-difference.html?spref=bl">Peaceful Abolitionist: You don't need money to make a difference</a>: 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...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-79151084329514796822011-12-10T10:04:00.001+01:002011-12-10T10:15:16.567+01:00LGBT rights = Human rights<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">"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<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><u1:p></u1:p>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<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>ʺunnaturalʺ<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx">http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span> And it’s hateful to deny same
rights which you have to other humans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">Some
argue if same-sex marriage is legalized, pedophilia will follow. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;">I<span class="apple-style-span"> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-49939134729531663962011-12-04T16:02:00.001+01:002011-12-04T16:03:07.687+01:00Inability of single issue campaigns to work<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <a href="http://bit.ly/nOzUpF">http://bit.ly/nOzUpF</a> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <a href="http://bit.ly/vqZdPM">http://bit.ly/vqZdPM</a> it seems
that SICs aren’t working.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Will you continue to use SICs or promote veganism, unequivocally?
Choice is yours. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-73925071518345766062011-11-24T19:18:00.001+01:002011-11-24T19:19:54.303+01:00Some misconceptions about veganism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-9708829201404952252011-11-07T11:26:00.000+01:002011-11-07T11:26:33.063+01:00End of factory farming<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I heard
about revolutionary campaign which will </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">help</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> 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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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</span>
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">we can do something now which
really helps all sentient beings, it’s called unequivocal vegan advocacy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-58047917427204760022011-10-31T13:31:00.001+01:002011-10-31T13:31:22.960+01:00Boycotting other countries<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-16854065666527085942011-10-29T12:12:00.001+02:002011-10-29T12:12:36.467+02:00Fur<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-85733854612207177362011-09-12T19:03:00.000+02:002011-09-12T19:06:33.907+02:00Against vegetarianism but not against vegetarians<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-38886140030277001832011-08-16T12:13:00.000+02:002011-08-16T12:13:50.409+02:00Discussion and criticism as a bad things<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">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.<span> </span>I don’t understand how can accept something without critically thinking it about.<span> </span>You need to look and pros and cons of everything. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-18275327723875075442011-08-10T12:24:00.000+02:002011-08-10T12:24:15.007+02:00Dreams of some people<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">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.<span> </span>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.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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.<span> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If anyone is living in the dreams that’s welfarist. Wake up, reality waits.<o:p></o:p></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260342093151416071.post-28154978711368254752011-07-20T10:54:00.001+02:002011-07-20T11:05:13.284+02:00Animal flesh<div class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060204705643355043noreply@blogger.com0