Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[PaoloSanchez]

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 targeted at vulnerable people.

How is the comparison to slavery at the expense of human victims? You contrived subtext is as hysterical as some of the stuff posted earlier by your fellow detractors. "if you drink milk you're as bad as the person who raped you"...really? What a load of nonsense. That has never been said or implied and is just yet another gross exaggeration used to justify bogus fake outrage as a substitute for a decent argument.

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

Again, more garbage. Folks claiming to be upset on behalf on the slaves, is a bit like one of Klinsmans swan dives in the penalty area when no one fkin touched him. Simulation, deserving of at least a yellow card. Nothing that I posted was "deliberately provocative" or "designed to upset" and those are cheap shot accusations that you cannot substantiate. Anybody that really does believe that to be the case is free to try and report the offending "disruptive" posts to the moderators and see what they make of it.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

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

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.

lol, now your trying to make excuses for your poor conduct.
As I have stated several times when you've had hissy fits earlier in the thread, you are under no obligation to read or reply to any of my posts. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to quote me when I've already made it clear that I'm not interested. If my opinion bothers you that much then feel free to put me on ignore if you are really not able to control yourself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

H

Folks claiming to be upset on behalf on the slaves.

And there you go again. Nobody has done that. Nobody.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

And there you go again. Nobody has done that. Nobody.

Oh yes they have. Perhaps you need to make an adjustment to that selective vision of yours.

Anyway, if you've nothing but sniping. I'm going to end my interaction with you here. If you can manage to engage without all of the side issue nit picking rubbish then perhaps I might change my mind.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

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.

The fuck are you on about? How does that target vulnerable people? What utter nonsense.

 

[veganomics]

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.

Peter Tatchell quoted from that book in his Human Rights Are Animals Rights speech :-

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Peter Tatchell quoted from that book in his Human Rights Are Animals Rights speech :-

Indeed, I've seen that speech and thought it was quite good, although from what I can remember of it, his delivery was a bit "slow", but the content was ok.

 

[veganomics]

Indeed, I've seen that speech and thought it was quite good, although from what I can remember of it, his delivery was a bit "slow", but the content was ok.

I quite liked his speech but I hear what you say about his measured delivery, I didn't bother me much though or take anything away from that he said.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Animal rights and human rights are and always will be two different kinds of thing.

If a farmer's crops are being decimated by rabbits, the farmer will find a way to kill the rabbits. If a house is infested with rats, the residents will find a way to kill the rats. The animals are just doing what they do, but they're in the way of us doing what we want to do, so they die.

Within the conception of universal human rights, there can be no comparable situation. It is not allowable under any circumstances to kill other humans because they're in the way of something you want to do. You must engage with them and find a solution that respects their wishes and needs.

The idea that one is directly comparable to the other is facile.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I quite like the look of that parsnip.

 

[xenon]

Are milk drinkers morally equivolent to slavers or not?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Are milk drinkers morally equivolent to slavers or not?

Oh no. They're much, much worse.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Again, more garbage. Folks claiming to be upset on behalf on the slaves, is a bit like one of Klinsmans swan dives in the penalty area when no one fkin touched him. Simulation, deserving of at least a yellow card.

You can't see any reason people might still be upset about slavery?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I quite liked his speech but I hear what you say about his measured delivery, I didn't bother me much though or take anything away from that he said.

I listened to it a few months back and vaguely remember liking it but I can't remember too much about it, I'll have another listen to it sometime. I've been watching videos from the "Ask Yourself" youtube channel. No punches pulled full of logic, reason and sharp intellect. Later on I'll post one of his better videos with links to all the good bits.

 

[Spymaster]

Can't wait

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The power of the conception of human rights is its absolute nature. If you're going to claim that an equivalent kind of rights could be afforded to other animals, you either need to elevate animal rights to an absolute nature (maybe something Jainist-like, wearing a cloth over your mouth so that you don't accidentally breathe in any flies) or you need to remove the absolute nature of human rights. So which is it? A Jainist-like absolutism or an erosion of the absolute character of human rights?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

You can't see any reason people might still be upset about slavery?

When a leading authority and spokesperson on the subject of slavery and other justice issues, with more credibility than anybody in this thread can make the comparison without getting upset, I'm not going to lose sleep over some poor antagonistic forumers feigning injury and distress and pretending to be concerned in an attempt to score cheap points.

The "dreaded comparison" that she makes does not trivialise slavery at all. It does attempt to elevate the status of animals so that they are not seen as mere unfeeling objects that we are free to do what we please with, similar to how slaves were bought and sold as mere objects.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah, appeal to authority. Another fave.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The "dreaded comparison" that she makes does not trivialise slavery at all. It does attempt to elevate the status of animals so that they are not seen as mere unfeeling objects that we are free to do what we please with, similar to how slaves were bought and sold as mere objects.

You see this is the point where you piss people off. You're conflating human slaves with cattle. Given that the abolition of slavery depended in large part on the awareness that people are not the same as cattle, can you see why this shit might upset people?

You can't say cattle are like people without saying people are like cattle. That's not something anyone with a shred of basic tact or awareness of human history should do if they want people to take their moral pronouncements seriously.

A cow is not a person. A cow is a cow. There's no reason a cow needs to be anything other than a cow, or the suffering that cow endures needs to be anything other than what it is, for you to make a moral argument that this suffering should end.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

You see this is the point where you piss people off. You're conflating human slaves with cattle. Given that the abolition of slavery depended in large part on the awareness that people are not the same as cattle, can you see why this shit might upset people?

Well if folks are so attached to their beliefs that they are unwilling to hear other points of view and opinions without getting "pissed off" and upset then that's their problem, and it's not the way to properly conduct yourself in a civilised discussion. If I happen to express an opinion or argument that you disagree with, then feel free to counter it with your own "better" argument and reasoning. If there is still no agreement and there is an impasse, then leave it there, agree to disagree, and move on. The problem with some of you lot is that you are unable to tolerate an opinion that is different and won't rest until someone agrees with you, getting all mardy custard. lbj is a perfect example of that chasing me around the thread in relentless pursuit at every opportunity like a stalker with attempted "gotchas" and stupid hypothetical scenarios and side issues, and getting abusive if I happen to disagree with him. cba with that nonsense any more.

You can't say cattle are like people without saying people are like cattle. That's not something anyone with a shred of basic tact or awareness of human history should do if they want people to take their moral pronouncements seriously.

A cow is not a person. A cow is a cow. There's no reason a cow needs to be anything other than a cow, or the suffering that cow endures needs to be anything other than what it is, for you to make a moral argument that this suffering should end.

You also have a habit of misrepresenting what I've said with strawmen (something which lbj frequently accuses me of but also does himself). I did NOT say that humans are the same as cattle. The whole point of the comparison was that human slaves were treated like how cattle slaves are currently treated, and that some people are of the view (myself included) that cattle should not be treated like that and should be afforded higher standard of living of care which includes their right not to be killed and eaten when there is no need for us to do so.

That is NOT the same as saying human = cow ffs.

Of course, folks who don't want to see anything wrong with exploiting animals, because they like the taste, will want to hang on to the current status quo of cows being "lesser" beings which means that they don't have to feel any remorse or guilt towards when confronted with the poor treatment of these innocent creatures. This is not a million miles away from the views that slave owners had of their "property" who were also seen lesser beings who were treated badly. They even had science to back up their belief that black people weren't really properly human.


In hindsight and with our more evolved morals many of us look back at that time with horror and disgust. Those of us that believe that the way we currently treat cattle and other animals is horrible and disgusting look forward to a future when the majority think the same of today's behaviour.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

“Cattle slaves”

You utter fucking twat.

 

[xenon]

Dreaded comparison. Oh no I have been found out.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In hindsight and with our more evolved morals many of us look back at that time with horror and disgust. Those of us that believe that the way we currently treat cattle and other animals is horrible and disgusting look forward to a future when the majority think the same of today's behaviour.

The only flaw in your argument is that the 'science' you quote was wrong. I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to demonstrate with it, tbh. That one day people will realise that cows are actually just like humans?

Yet again, you fail to engage with me and plenty of others on here who have not for one second tried to deny that cows and other non-human animals are sentient beings.

 

[xenon]

I once killed some ants. That is Holocaust.

 

[ddraig]

Pile on yay!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People replying to a post. How dare they!

 

[xenon]

Pile on yay!

Yes I have received the secret message we must all attack now. Oh shit.?! I have given the way the secret plan again.

I've just come back from the pub, and I have just eaten a bean burger. No lie. I'm a bit drunk. I'm going to bed soon. That's how threads work.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Intro to "anti-vegan arguments are weak" video...

We live in a world where speciesism and animal exploitation are deeply embedded. Animal use was part of our society long before complex moral structures arose. Whole cultures and civilisations without serious debate on the moral legitimacy of animal use. As human society grew in size and complexity, so did the institution of animal exploitation. Now after millennia of this growth we find animals in just about everything, from blood adhesive in plywood, to animal fat in gummy candy, their skins wrap our chairs, their desiccated bones filter our sugar, and if you’re in the right part of the world, their bile might be in your toothpaste. Streets are plastered with ads telling you to ingest slabs of their muscles, TV families sit down to eat their carcasses, their body parts are a common sight at grocery stores and it’s very likely that your entire lineage is an unbroken chain of animal eaters.

This is a climate of intense indoctrination. The difficulty of seeing through this veil of normalcy to the intrinsic wrong of animal exploitation is analogous to the difficulty that our predecessors faced in seeing through the veil of normalcy surrounding slavery. The sheer degree of cognitive dissonance caused by thinking about animals and morality at the same time is too much for many people, so they find ways to avoid bringing veganism into focus. This age-old psychopathic indoctrination is the reason why someone as smart as Dawkins can still have severely impaired perception of reality when it comes to animals. Worst of all these people can remain ignorant and persist in moral psychosis because at present there is a strong taboo around criticizing animal use.

Well I’m sure at this point you’ve inferred my view. I see this view as even more absurd than the view around criticizing religion and in dire need of shattering. This takes us to the core of the video. Flesh eaters usually try to defend their violent ways with a mile-high wall of pseudo logic. I’m sure you’ve seen it deployed:-

• Plants are sentient
• Vegans are condescending
• It’s natural
• I need animal products to be healthy
• Live and let live
• Wild animals don’t care about you why should you care about them
• Etc

What we’re looking at here is a dense cluster of pathetically weak argumentation driven by fear of change and indoctrinated delusion. These arguments are usually deployed in rapid fire one after another ad nauseum until the vegan grows tired and gives up. Well I've taken the time to write down as many of these arguments as I can think of, split them into categories based on common flaws, and now I'm going to eviscerate them one by one for your pleasure, demonstrating as the title of the video says that anti-vegan arguments are weak.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

PaoloSanchez Outline for us what it is that we are missing about what it is to be a cow that is analogous to the idea that slave owners diminished the humanity of their slaves in order to mistreat them. What is it that you know about cows that we are in denial about?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

blah blah blah

No, don't list a load of arguments that aren't being made on this thread. Address the points that are being made.