No right or wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress of animal rights movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal rights advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witch hunt

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

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

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

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

Hatred of diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

HavvHav

HavvHav

HavvHav

Imaginary claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demonizing people

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

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

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

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