Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

In general, I'm liking the direction that things appear to be heading. There are a lot of positive people around getting stuff done and as a result there is increasing awareness (along with a bit of resistance).
Indeed, things are on the up and there's been a lot of progress and a lot of things happening. I've missed out on a few conferences and gatherings this year which seemed to have been very well organised with a good line up of quality speakers and activists.
 
Surely the vegan equivalent of Malcolm X or MLK would be a non-human?

Because otherwise it's like white people claiming to speak for black people.
It's about the style of advocacy. Should it be all happy clappy, Kumbayah milord, only post recipes or a bit more strident and shouty and militant? Both MalcolmX and GY were at the more militant end of the spectrum.

As for the "white people claiming to speak for black people". Hmmm...well not quite, because now black people are able to speak for themselves...although in the US it took a while before they earned that right as they were not viewed as proper citizens, so white lawyers and abolitionists would have been instrumental in helping those who were not really in a position to help themselves. Similarly with animals, with them not being in a position to "speak for themselves", they need the assistance of benevolent humans to help take care of their interests and protect them from some of the worst human excesses and atrocities .
 
It's about the style of advocacy. Should it be all happy clappy, Kumbayah milord, only post recipes or a bit more strident and shouty and militant? Both MalcolmX and GY were at the more militant end of the spectrum.

As for the "white people claiming to speak for black people". Hmmm...well not quite, because now black people are able to speak for themselves...although in the US it took a while before they earned that right as they were not viewed as proper citizens, so white lawyers and abolitionists would have been instrumental in helping those who were not really in a position to help themselves. Similarly with animals, with them not being in a position to "speak for themselves", they need the assistance of benevolent humans to help take care of their interests and protect them from some of the worst human excesses and atrocities .
Not even close to true. You've just written the many black slaves or former slaves who fought slavery around the world out of history.
 
Not even close to true. You've just written the many black slaves or former slaves who fought slavery around the world out of history.
lol, what nonsense...
.although in the US it took a while before they earned that right as they were not viewed as proper citizens,
How is that writing them out of history? Saying that there were white people who helped black people to help themselves doesn't in any way diminish the roles of those blacks who fought slavery...

...that is unless you're somebody who's desperately searching for a gotcha.
 
It's about the style of advocacy. Should it be all happy clappy, Kumbayah milord, only post recipes or a bit more strident and shouty and militant? Both MalcolmX and GY were at the more militant end of the spectrum.

As for the "white people claiming to speak for black people". Hmmm...well not quite, because now black people are able to speak for themselves...although in the US it took a while before they earned that right as they were not viewed as proper citizens, so white lawyers and abolitionists would have been instrumental in helping those who were not really in a position to help themselves. Similarly with animals, with them not being in a position to "speak for themselves", they need the assistance of benevolent humans to help take care of their interests and protect them from some of the worst human excesses and atrocities .

Black people have always been able to speak for themselves, that's why you had escaped slaves telling their stories to those who would listen, even at the height of slavery. There's no equivalent to that for animal husbandry.
 
When it goes wrong and the burns turn septic they'll end up in hospital being treated at taxpayer's expense with medications and dressings which have all been tested on animals.

They've thought it through though, it's certainly not just a shameless publicity grab :thumbs:
 
Black people have always been able to speak for themselves, that's why you had escaped slaves telling their stories to those who would listen, even at the height of slavery. There's no equivalent to that for animal husbandry.
Again, not quite. Black people who were part of the transatlantic slave trade and their descendants may have always been in possession of vocal chords, but that does not mean that their voices were always heard or had any power to change much, otherwise they would not have been slaves in the first place. It would appear that in some parts of colonial world that any concerns that they may have voiced would have largely fallen on unsympathetic and deaf ears, especially amongst those who benefited from the huge profits. Believe it or not, there were white people who risked the wrath of members of their own race to further the cause, so some white people DID speak for black people and well done to them for doing so.

So the example I used was not outrageous or absurd at all. There are precedents of members of the powerful helping to fight for the powerless. Depending on the circumstances and personalities involved sometimes using more quiet and passive methods or more direct action/militant action.

Refusing Racism
The Abolitionists: The Abolition of Slavery Project
In March on Washington, white activists were largely overlooked but strategically essential

I presume one of the reasons for the naysayers in this thread scoffing at the concept of animal rights activists speaking on behalf of the welfare of animals is the idea that us humans are better than them and therefore can do with them whatever we want. They are just property for us to use and abuse., which is a similar kind of superiority complex mentality that was behind the slave trade.
 
I presume one of the reasons for the naysayers in this thread scoffing at the concept of animal rights activists speaking on behalf of the welfare of animals is the idea that us humans are better than them and therefore can do with them whatever we want. They are just property for us to use and abuse., which is a similar kind of superiority complex mentality that was behind the slave trade.
You keep repeating this line, despite the fact that nobody has said it and various people have specifically denied it.
 
You keep repeating this line, despite the fact that nobody has said it and various people have specifically denied it.
:rolleyes: I'm not sure what your problem is tbh. I've made it clear that I've no interest in engaging with you especially after your rage quit strop sessions, and yet you keep chasing me about and quoting me. If you don't like the content of my posts they are quite easy to avoid. Let it go.

"Nobody said it"?? Really? You appear to have rather convenient selective vision or have been looking in a different thread.. The fact that we think that it's perfectly ok to kill animals when we don't need to do so makes it self evident that they are not worthy of the same right to life that humans enjoy. Our superiority is implicit in our beliefs,actions and behaviours. Where has any of the meat eating advocates/supporters in this thread "specifically denied it"? In fact it's been the opposite.

If you can manage to conduct yourself in a civil manner and still want to engage then I might reconsider, however if you're going to carry on with petty nit picking of side issues and silly accusations then I'm really not interested. I'm not sure how many times I have to say "go away" before the message gets through. You appear to be still smarting at the fact that you can't get any vegan to agree that it's ok to kill animals. That is not something that I can see myself ever agreeing to, so if that is something that causes you stress, it may be better for your blood pressure to avoid my posts.
 
There's more to telling stories than vocal cords.
I don't really know what you're getting at tbh, You appear to imply that it would be absurd for white people to speak for or on behalf of black people, and yet it happened at various times in history and did play a part in helping to end the transatlantic slave trade. That does not diminish in any way the part that blacks played in their own emancipation whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you folks claim that it does, and again seems more to do with trying to divert and nit pick away from the main issues and get the discussion bogged down in some kind of semantic swamp.
 
I don't really know what you're getting at tbh, You appear to imply that it would be absurd for white people to speak for or on behalf of black people, and yet it happened at various times in history and did play a part in helping to end the transatlantic slave trade. That does not diminish in any way the part that blacks played in their own emancipation whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you folks claim that it does, and again seems more to do with trying to divert and nit pick away from the main issues and get the discussion bogged down in some kind of semantic swamp.

You seriously don't see anything dodgy with comparing vegan activism, which is done entirely by humans on the behalf of non-humans, with black liberation? Yes white people have played a role, but a signficant part of that was done by listening to what black people had to say. Vegans cannot claim that the voicelessness of non-humans is equivalent to the fact that black voices were present but not heard.
 
The bloke doing the branding here needs to think again. Consent is not a defence to a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm. He could find himself nicked.

It is in some instances. e.g. In R v Wilson (1996) where a man engraved his initials on his wife's buttocks with a hot knife. He was acquitted of the charge of ABH on the basis that his wife consented (or at any rate it wasn't proved that she did not consent). The Court of Appeal found that the knife carvings were 'personal adornment' akin to tattooing. In the unlikely event this ever got to court, It seems that a comparable defence could be mounted.
 
yeah there's lots of cauterizing/branding that goes on these days, tatooo/body mod people. They use electro-cauterizing pens rather than irons though, but its the same deal.
 
My downstairs neighbour's invited me to thanksgiving lunch and all the moral issues added together don't make it smell any less amazing as it wafts up the stairs. :)
 
It is in some instances. e.g. In R v Wilson (1996) where a man engraved his initials on his wife's buttocks with a hot knife. He was acquitted of the charge of ABH on the basis that his wife consented (or at any rate it wasn't proved that she did not consent). The Court of Appeal found that the knife carvings were 'personal adornment' akin to tattooing. In the unlikely event this ever got to court, It seems that a comparable defence could be mounted.
I was thinking of those sadomasochists who tortured each other’s knobs, filmed it, got nicked, and lost two appeals.
 
:rolleyes: I'm not sure what your problem is tbh. I've made it clear that I've no interest in engaging with you especially after your rage quit strop sessions, and yet you keep chasing me about and quoting me. If you don't like the content of my posts they are quite easy to avoid. Let it go.

"Nobody said it"?? Really? You appear to have rather convenient selective vision or have been looking in a different thread.. The fact that we think that it's perfectly ok to kill animals when we don't need to do so makes it self evident that they are not worthy of the same right to life that humans enjoy. Our superiority is implicit in our beliefs,actions and behaviours. Where has any of the meat eating advocates/supporters in this thread "specifically denied it"? In fact it's been the opposite.

If you can manage to conduct yourself in a civil manner and still want to engage then I might reconsider, however if you're going to carry on with petty nit picking of side issues and silly accusations then I'm really not interested. I'm not sure how many times I have to say "go away" before the message gets through. You appear to be still smarting at the fact that you can't get any vegan to agree that it's ok to kill animals. That is not something that I can see myself ever agreeing to, so if that is something that causes you stress, it may be better for your blood pressure to avoid my posts.
Nobody has said it, no. You are projecting arguments and points of view onto others. That a person thinks it's ok to kill other animals for various reasons does not necessarily mean they think humans are superior to other animals (superior by what measure?), nor that they think other animals are here for our benefit to use as we please. You should try to get your head round that and not to presume what others think - others think very differently from you and you don't even begin to engage with that.

As for the rest of it, you really need to start owning your shit. You said:

white lawyers and abolitionists would have been instrumental in helping those who were not really in a position to help themselves

That's what people reacted to. It is ahistorical shit, misrepresenting anti-slavery movements and the drive behind them. When you say something stupid, don't just try to bluff your way through or pretend you didn't say it.
 
Back
Top Bottom