Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[PaoloSanchez]

Yep. Bringing up the slave trade is a sure fire way to get people on side and create a reasonable debate on the issue

Well I don't believe it to be an unreasonable comparison, in fact I think there are quite a few similarities between folks defending the slave trade back in the day and the meat, egg and dairy industry's attempts to defend their practices which some see as unethical.

A small sample of talking points from this BBC Ethics guide to illustrate this point :-

BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

"A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery. None of them would find much favour today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable."

================================================
"It's natural that some people are slaves"

vs​

"It's natural that animals are there for us to eat and exploit"
--
"Slaves are inferior beings"

vs​

"Animals are inferior beings"
- which means we can do whatever the fuck we want with them and not feel bad about it
--
"Slavery is good for slaves"

vs​

"Animal farming is good for animals"
- if it wasn't for farming they wouldn't be alive, they should be damn grateful
--
"Slavery would be too difficult to abolish"

vs​

"Nearly every one eats meat or drinks milk, you can't stop it, resistance is futile."
--
"Slaves are essential to certain industries"

vs​

"Those 'extremist' vegans are a potential threat to the meat and dairy industries, they need to be stopped."
--
"Slavery is acceptable in this culture"

vs​

"Eating meat and dairy is a normal part of everyday life, you can't change that fact"
--
"Slavery is legal"

vs​

"Animal exploitation is legal"
- it sure is, but is it ethical?
================================================
See, they're not so different after all.

I can understand why some people might be uncomfortable with the comparison and are reluctant to recognise the obvious ethical similarities.

As far as having a "reasonable debate" goes, well there's nothing stopping either you or anybody that is genuinely interested in starting one.

 

[spanglechick]

Well I don't believe it to be an unreasonable comparison, in fact I think there are quite a few similarities between folks defending the slave trade back in the day and the meat, egg and dairy industry's attempts to defend their practices which some see as unethical.

A small sample of talking points from this BBC Ethics guide to illustrate this point :-

BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

"A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery. None of them would find much favour today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable."

================================================
"It's natural that some people are slaves"

vs​

"It's natural that animals are there for us to eat and exploit"
--
"Slaves are inferior beings"

vs​

"Animals are inferior beings"
- which means we can do whatever the fuck we want with them and not feel bad about it
--
"Slavery is good for slaves"

vs​

"Animal farming is good for animals"
- if it wasn't for farming they wouldn't be alive, they should be damn grateful
--
"Slavery would be too difficult to abolish"

vs​

"Nearly every one eats meat or drinks milk, you can't stop it, resistance is futile."
--
"Slaves are essential to certain industries"

vs​

"Those 'extremist' vegans are a potential threat to the meat and dairy industries, they need to be stopped."
--
"Slavery is acceptable in this culture"

vs​

"Eating meat and dairy is a normal part of everyday life, you can't change that fact"
--
"Slavery is legal"

vs​

"Animal exploitation is legal"
- it sure is, but is it ethical?
================================================
See, they're not so different after all.

I can understand why some people might be uncomfortable with the comparison and are reluctant to recognise the obvious ethical similarities.

As far as having a "reasonable debate" goes, well there's nothing stopping either you or anybody that is genuinely interested in starting one.

That's enormously trivialising to the horrors of the slave trade.

Slaves were (and are) people. Our own species. Human rights and laws of murder etc don't apply to non-human animals. To compare the suffering of slaves to that of cattle, or poultry etc, is pretty offensive.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

That's enormously trivialising to the horrors of the slave trade.

Slaves were (and are) people. Our own species. Human rights and laws of murder etc don't apply to non-human animals. To compare the suffering of slaves to that of cattle, or poultry etc, is pretty offensive.

It's more than "pretty offensive", it's utterly appalling.

 

[hash tag]

This would turn me against going vegan. A dish from an award winning London resturant, apparently; A whole roasted parsnip!
"whole, slow roasted parsnip in an aromatic liquorice broth topped with a parsnip and mint puree, parsnip crisps and crisp mint leaves"
Could I survive on that? Would I want to?

 

[Silas Loom]

That sounds quite nice.

 

[Spymaster]

That sounds quite nice.

As a side dish

 

[Silas Loom]

As a side dish

Or as one of several courses. Or as a mid-afternoon snack. I'd give you £3.70 for a slow-roasted parsnip right now.

 

[hash tag]

liquorice broth! Liquorice is poison. which is probably why it is good for constipation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well I don't believe it to be an unreasonable comparison, in fact I think there are quite a few similarities between folks defending the slave trade back in the day and the meat, egg and dairy industry's attempts to defend their practices which some see as unethical.

A small sample of talking points from this BBC Ethics guide to illustrate this point :-

BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

"A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery. None of them would find much favour today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable."

================================================
"It's natural that some people are slaves"

vs​

"It's natural that animals are there for us to eat and exploit"
--
"Slaves are inferior beings"

vs​

"Animals are inferior beings"
- which means we can do whatever the fuck we want with them and not feel bad about it
--
"Slavery is good for slaves"

vs​

"Animal farming is good for animals"
- if it wasn't for farming they wouldn't be alive, they should be damn grateful
--
"Slavery would be too difficult to abolish"

vs​

"Nearly every one eats meat or drinks milk, you can't stop it, resistance is futile."
--
"Slaves are essential to certain industries"

vs​

"Those 'extremist' vegans are a potential threat to the meat and dairy industries, they need to be stopped."
--
"Slavery is acceptable in this culture"

vs​

"Eating meat and dairy is a normal part of everyday life, you can't change that fact"
--
"Slavery is legal"

vs​

"Animal exploitation is legal"
- it sure is, but is it ethical?
================================================
See, they're not so different after all.

I can understand why some people might be uncomfortable with the comparison and are reluctant to recognise the obvious ethical similarities.

As far as having a "reasonable debate" goes, well there's nothing stopping either you or anybody that is genuinely interested in starting one.

Ah, you really do love nothing more than a barn-full of hay to mess around in, don't you? You've built a whole row of straw men there, just as you have done throughout this thread. Rather than engaging with the things people actually say, you cannot resist a put-down of a silly caricature of what they're saying.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

This would turn me against going vegan. A dish from an award winning London resturant, apparently; A whole roasted parsnip!
"whole, slow roasted parsnip in an aromatic liquorice broth topped with a parsnip and mint puree, parsnip crisps and crisp mint leaves"
Could I survive on that? Would I want to?


View attachment 119349

Could you survive on that? Probably not. Is it the only vegan food available? Probably not.

(ps, I'm not a big fan of liquorice either...never liked Bassets Allsorts cos of the liquorice)

 

[spanglechick]

This would turn me against going vegan. A dish from an award winning London resturant, apparently; A whole roasted parsnip!
"whole, slow roasted parsnip in an aromatic liquorice broth topped with a parsnip and mint puree, parsnip crisps and crisp mint leaves"
Could I survive on that? Would I want to?


View attachment 119349

It's a starter/tasting dish. It's not your dinner.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Ah, you really do love nothing more than a barn-full of hay to mess around in, don't you? You've built a whole row of straw men there, just as you have done throughout this thread. Rather than engaging with the things people actually say, you cannot resist a put-down of a silly caricature of what they're saying.

Sigh.

I'm not even sure why you are getting involved here tbh. You've flounced off several times already with your bogus and non-specific claims that I'm somehow not engaging properly. I'm not sure what "rules of engagement" that you're operating under, however as I've said on a number of occasions, you are under no obligation to read or respond to anything that I've written if you find it's not to your liking.
I'm happy with what I've posted however I am open to any criticisms if you can manage to articulate them in a cordial manner which you appear to have some difficulty with.

The comparison to the attitudes to slavery are entirely reasonable as far as I'm concerned. If others disagree then that's up to them, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it. If people are going to start claiming that such an opinion is offensive then imo that is just silly and bordering on hysteria, and not something I can take at all seriously, which is why I haven't bothered with further responses to them so far.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If people are going to start claiming that such an opinion is offensive then imo that is just silly and bordering on hysteria, and not something I can take at all seriously, which is why I haven't bothered with further responses to them so far.

That's very convenient for you. One of your consistent (and false) claims has been that others have been avoiding the difficult questions, yet here you are doing exactly that, branding Spanglechick's response, for instance, as hysteria, when it is nothing of the kind.

 

[NoXion]

If dairy farming is akin to slavery, then building things must be akin to colonialism or ethnic cleansing or something like that.

After all, it's hardly as if the vast majority of buildings were ever constructed with the consent of the wildlife that used to live there.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

That's very convenient for you. One of your consistent (and false) claims has been that others have been avoiding the difficult questions, yet here you are doing exactly that, branding Spanglechick's response, for instance, as hysteria, when it is nothing of the kind.

I have no idea wtf you're rattling on about now tbh. What PRECISELY is your beef? What question have I avoided?

I DO believe that claiming that it is offensive to compare the attitudes of those who supported slavery to those who support animal exploitation IS bordering on hysteria, especially when the terms "enormously trivialising" and "utterly appalling" are thrown into the mix ffs. If you disagree and believe it's nothing of the kind then that's up to you, like I said I'm not going to lose sleep over it and I'll make no apology for my perfectly valid opinion.

Tell you what, next time you bump into Alice Walker, a person that possibly has more credibility on the subject of slavery than anyone in this thread, perhaps you can also point out to her that her views on the comparison between slavery and animal exploitation "enormously trivialises" the horrors of the slave trade :-

The Dreaded Comparison
foreword by Alice Walker

...the similarities between the enslavement of black people in the past (and by implication the enslavement of other enslaved peoples) and the enslavement of animals past and present. It is a comparison that, even for those of us who recognize its validity, is a difficult one to face. Especially so if we are the descendants of slaves. Or of slave owners. Or of both. Especially so if we are also responsible in some way for the present treatment of animals. Especially so if we, for instance, participate in or profit from animal research...or if we own animals of if we eat animals or if we are content to know that animals are shut up safely in zoos. In short, if we are complicit in the enslavement and destruction, to which is to say we are at this juncture in history, The Master.
.
.
.
The Dreaded comparison between the pain felt by human animals who are abused and the pain felt by non human animals who are abused and recognising it as the same pain. The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women for men.

 

[SpookyFrank]

To compare the suffering of slaves to that of cattle, or poultry etc, is pretty offensive.

Viva's latest campaign has a picture of dairy cows with the hashtag #metoo that has been used by victims of sexual harassment and abuse.

I can only assume from this that these people don't care about animals nearly so much as they hate humans.

I don't care what axe you're grinding, trying to hijack the suffering of others is a shit way to go about it. And they know this full well. They're not trying to improve the lot of animals, they just want to punish people. And like cunts throughout history they've figured out that targetting vulnerable people is the best way to maximise the hurt you cause.

 

[NoXion]

Viva's latest campaign has a picture of dairy cows with the hashtag #metoo that has been used by victims of sexual harassment and abuse.

I can only assume from this that these people don't care about animals nearly so much as they hate humans.

I don't care what axe you're grinding, trying to hijack the suffering of others is a shit way to go about it. And they know this full well. They're not trying to improve the lot of animals, they just want to punish people. And like cunts throughout history they've figured out that targetting vulnerable people is the best way to maximise the hurt you cause.

Who are Viva?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Who are Viva?

Vegan pressure group. They've got form for this kind of shitcuntery.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons.

This sounds nice, but it's meaningless twaddle. The animals of the world (which include us) exist because we have evolved to exist, not 'for our own reasons' at all. And many have evolved specifically to kill other animals, while others have evolved strategies to prosper in the presence of predation, all co-evolving within a larger ecosystem whose balance is also part of the story of evolution. It's an absurd, romantic, anti-scientific sentiment.

 

[ddraig]

 

[Spymaster]

Who are Viva?

Viva! Homepage

 

[PaoloSanchez]

One of the reasons that I find it hard to take you at all seriously, aside from your frequent emotional outbursts, tantrums and flouncing, is your precise and surgical extraction of ONE sentence from the whole post and to then used that sentence out of context to base your reply on. Yet another one of your deceptive sleight of hand moves presumably an attempt to mask your distinct lack of argument...

This sounds nice, but it's meaningless twaddle. The animals of the world (which include us) exist because we have evolved to exist, not 'for our own reasons' at all.

The only person writing meaningless twaddle here is you. The sentence following the one you conveniently extracted sums it up quite nicely..."They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women for men."

And many have evolved specifically to kill other animals, while others have evolved strategies to prosper in the presence of predation, all co-evolving within a larger ecosystem whose balance is also part of the story of evolution. It's an absurd, romantic, anti-scientific sentiment.

...yeah, some animals kill other animals, so it's ok for us to do it too. That load of old cobblers.

So you've conveniently focused on "science and evolution" while carefully avoiding the philosophical and moral aspect which was at the heart and core of Alice Walkers foreword.

Humans supposedly have moral agency, it is one of the things that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom, and the thing that makes (some of) us "civilised". Our higher level of intelligence and our moral agency should mean that we behave in a MORE responsible and compassionate manner and not use their behaviour as a yardstick to measure how we should behave. It's not just about evolution.

Those who wish to defend their entitlement the benefits that come with abusing animals will of course scratch around looking for all sorts of ways to be offended by comparisons to the same kind abuse that humans inflict on each other. Getting offended is a rather convenient trick used to try and shut down any opinion that you don't like or can't properly argue against, and I'm not falling for it. Alice Walker was spot on in her comparison and gets the seal of approval from me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Where did I say that 'animals are made for humans'? I didn't. Nobody on this thread has said such a thing.

I don't accept that humans are the only animals with moral agency, fwiw. But there is a big discussion to be had concerning our moral agency and what we should do with it. That discussion can't be had with you, though, because you continue to attack positions nobody on this thread has taken. Nobody. Not a single poster has said that 'animals are made for humans.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Where did I say that 'animals are made for humans'? I didn't. Nobody on this thread has said such a thing.

...and neither did I claim that you did. If you are one of those condones the unnecessary use and abuse of animals for mere human pleasure, taste, culture, habit and convenience then you don't need to say it explicitly because your beliefs and actions will do the talking for you and it becomes self evident.

I don't accept that humans are the only animals with moral agency, fwiw. But there is a big discussion to be had concerning our moral agency and what we should do with it. That discussion can't be had with you, though, because you continue to attack positions nobody on this thread has taken.

Well regardless of whether moral agency is exclusive to humans or not, if we have it, we have at least some obligation to use it.

Some of us make use of that there moral agency to recognise that it is wrong to abuse animals in the same way we use it to recognise that it is wrong to abuse fellow human animals. That comparison does not at all diminish or trivialise the abuse that humans sometimes inflict on each other.

As far as who you can have this discussion with, lol, well you are clearly over emotional and unable to keep your composure and conduct yourself in a civilized manner, and that is the real limiting factor to your participation in these discussions. I have no problem discussion this topic with anybody (yes even you) that is able to behave reasonably and not resort to abusive outbursts and other nonsense

 

[littlebabyjesus]

...and neither did I claim that you did. If you are one of those condones the unnecessary use and abuse of animals for mere human pleasure, taste, culture, habit and convenience then you don't need to say it explicitly because your beliefs and actions will do the talking for you and it becomes self evident.

Hang on. You haven't claimed that I said such a thing, but you now claim that my attitudes make it self-evident that I think it? That's classic PS logic.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Those who wish to defend their entitlement the benefits that come with abusing animals will of course scratch around looking for all sorts of ways to be offended by comparisons to the same kind abuse that humans inflict on each other. Getting offended is a rather convenient trick used to try and shut down any opinion that you don't like or can't properly argue against, and I'm not falling for it. Alice Walker was spot on in her comparison and gets the seal of approval from me.

It's not the comparison people are upset about. It's the way that comparison is being made at the expense of human victims of abuse. There's a clear subtext to it which is, if you drink milk you're as bad as the person who raped you. This isn't a moral or intellectual case being made, it's an emotive one and it's targetted at vulnerable people.

 

[SpookyFrank]

As far as who you can have this discussion with, lol, well you are clearly over emotional and unable to keep your composure and conduct yourself in a civilized manner, and that is the real limiting factor to your participation in these discussions.

Classic trick. Spout deliberately provocative shit designed to upset people then criticise people for getting upset. I see you mate, I fucking see you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

See also claiming that someone is upset or emotional when they are nothing of the sort.

 

[SpookyFrank]

See also claiming that someone is upset or emotional when they are nothing of the sort.

All techniques beloved of abusive people, oddly enough.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And while we're at it, jumping on the fact that someone's lost patience and used a naughty word in response to some piece of passive-aggressive drivel.