The Frugivore Diet

How to fight against 50 weak rebuttals?

2016-09-03T21:59:31.000Z

A common strategy I've seen is for an opponent to cast doubt by making 50 weak rebuttals. Most of them are obviously logical fallacies, mostly red herrings, yet due to the sheer volume it is easy to get overwhelmed.

Then, when I don't respond to one, my opponent and the peanut gallery are like you didn't respond to your opponent's points, so therefore you lose. I find it difficult to defend against this, because it is distracting. I feel if I respond my opponent controls the argument and we end up fighting over whether or not points C,D, and E are red herrings or not. If I don't, my opponent can claim victory for me not responding.

Often, the claims are so bizarre that it is easy to over look them.

Any advice?

How to talk to conservatives and fighitng against stimga.

2016-08-23T06:51:23.000Z

Quick note to non-Americans. In America our liberals are considered conservative by other 1st world countries and our conservatives are considered ultra conservative. So just replace conservative with ultra conservative to make sense of this post. So for non-Americans its ultra conservative vs conservative.

A dilemma I am faced with is I am constantly fighting conservatives. Considering I was raised liberal, I find it difficult to talk to them. In America there is conservative media and liberal media. Each of the two media gives a thoroughly distorted and corrupt version of the other.

Anyways, below is a conservative media website that a lot of the conservatives use almost exclusively for their arguments. The article can easily be defeated, yet shows that conservatives tend to see vegans as the enemy.

From what I've seen is that most conservatives are anti-green peace, anti-vegan, anti-vegetarian, anti-environmentalism, anti-global climate change, and so on. As they see it, the environmental movement is a Marxist movement following the anti-Christ. That's right, they see me as a follower of the anti-Christ when I mention vegan. They see veganism and think one world government.

That the environmental movement is aimed to destroy the 3rd world. That it is a political agenda and corrupt. So, how do I go against such strong stigma? I get an extreme reaction when I go onto their websites. Like an alkaline Earth metal. Yet, getting a reaction is different than changing anybody's mind.

A book that conservatives like to tout is called Green Power, Black Death. The conservatives I talk to see environmentalist as anti-human and anti-3rd world. Some days I feel like I am trying to scale an impossible mountain. The only thing me and the conservatives can agree on is to disagree.

A good example of how the conservatives I've been talking to see environmentalist as anti-human is Rachel Carson. They see her as an arch villain. The nemesis of the 3rd world by banning DDT and causing rampant disease. So, when they see me bring up the word vegan, they associate vegan with environmental and environmentalism with mass murderer. They really do see vegans as mass murders. Their hate and fear of vegan is genuine.

I knew veganism would be a tough sell, and I learned from arguing about a year ago that I was getting extreme resistance. Now I know why, I'm just not sure what to do about the extreme resistance.

Anyways writing this has helped me. Before I was like "why oh why don't people listen, they could save animals, health, and the environment?" Now I have an answer, now I know what I am up against.

Maybe I can use their hero fantasy against them. If they see me as such a force of pure evil like an agent of Satan, and themselves as the last defender of Christ perhaps there is a way to use this to my advantage.

In summary, many of the conservative media in the USA, this is ultra conservative for non-Americans, demonize the other side. Their speech comes off more as hate speech then anything logical or intelligent. Vegans are seen as environmentalists. Environmentalists are particularly despised and seen as anti-human, mass murders, communists, and anti-Christ. I'm looking for a way to get past this stigma or use it to my advantage.

Also, know your enemy. In one of my first arguments I mentioned Greenpeace, and boy did I get an uproar. I didn't think anybody had any hatred of Greenpeace, I was wrong. If your enemy thinks Greenpeace is Satan incarnate, perhaps a different source is merited.

One more note, they aren't a hive-mind or anything. A lot of them want to help me. They say if you want to go vegan that's fine, but as soon as you start telling others to go vegan you are idolizing veganism and environmentalism and despite your good intentions you are unwittingly serving Satan. That through their eyes the environmental movement is thoroughly corrupt, devoid of all morals, and is hellbent on world domination.

Then, they go onto to quote the first commandment stating that I am placing veganism above God. Honestly, I think they are all mislead and that destroying your body, temple, via animal products is idolizing gluttony.

If anything, I've learned that the environment is a real hot button for some people and you might be better off focusing on other issues. I can practically see them foaming at the mouth when I mention the environment. This might be a good event though. Even if they hate my guts, I am getting a lot of attention this way. I'm am using their own force and hatred of my ideas against them.

Conclusions, don't preach to the choir. Go to where you are really hated and you will get a lot more attention this way. Seek out the group that hates vegans the most and give them a piece of your mind. A lot of the green hate comes from the documentary referenced in the third link.

Thanks for the read.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/germany-warns-vegan-diet-is-a-potential-health-hazard/

https://www.amazon.com/Eco-Imperialism-Green-Power-Black-Death/dp/0939571234

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Arguing with libertarians and the you eat vegan I eat meat attitude. Apathy too.

2015-12-16T07:20:32.000Z

Libertarians seems to have the knee jerk reaction that everyone should choose what they want to eat. Other people seem to have the same argument.

Sample opponents' argument

Opponent 1"I eat what I want and you eat what you want. I don't care how much damage is done to the environment, health, etc. I eat what I want. "

Opponent 2 "Yeah, go away and let everyone eat what they want."

Opponent 3 "You have no right to tell us what to eat!"

These opponents aren't denying the health benefits, nor environmental damages, or any of my claims. They are just dead set against any limitation on their freedom. Basically my argument is the sentience, suffering, health, environment, world hunger, water shortages, and best way to prevent oppression is to stop oppression of animals. The response is typical.

Opponent 4 "We don't care."

Opponent 5 "Leave us alone."

On some level the apathy response seem to be the most disconcerting. I'm okay if somebody fights me tooth and nail for every inch. A lot of people take this route. Yet, the apathy defense is what causes me the most distress.

Basically, my opponents' argument is

Opponent 6 "I have the right to my own body. You have no right to tell me what I put in my body. You don't see me telling you to eat meat and dairy. We should punish you and force you to eat lots of meat and dairy. See how the shoe is on the other foot. I go my route you go yours."

Honestly, from paraphrasing my opponents' arguments I see how redundant they are. Here's a question would you rather somebody respond with apathy or would you rather them fight tooth and nail for every inch?

I just find it odd that I can defeat every argument my opponent throws at me, yet their point of view is the same. I found this in real life too. I feel like I am yelling at a modern day smoker. Despite all the evidence and cost, people still smoke. Makes it hard to have faith in humanity.

Person A: You shouldn't smoke its completely illogical and harms yourself and others.

Person B: Your completely right, but I'm going to smoke anyways.

Argggh! It feels like a different battle when arguing with these types. Scientific facts have no noticeable affects on these groups. That all my information on sentience, suffering, and so forth goes out the window, and suddenly its all about rights and freedom.

Then, the conversation breaks down into freedom.

Me: Our actions affect others, shouldn't your freedom be limited to improve others freedom.

Them: They are animals.

Me: But they are sentient and can suffer.

Them: Who cares.

Me: What about other humans do they matter too? What if you eat meat and then hit somebody with a car.

Them: The chances of that happening are very unlikely.

Me: What about children being feed hot dogs in school? Children aren't old enough to know the risks.

Them: Children should eat what they want.

Me: What about global climate change? A lot of people are going to die when the water levels rise.

Them: Nobody is going to change their diet, and besides overpopulation and cars are a larger problem go bother somebody else.

Me: What about world hunger don't you care about that?

Them: No.

Me: What about preventing oppression?

Them: Slippery slope argument, oppression of animals doesn't lead to oppression of humans. Besides humans oppress each other plenty.

About this point my opponents resort to Ad hominem attacks. I then, call them out on the Ad hominem attacks and post links to various scienfic literature and documentaries. This keeps up for a while until they stop responding.

I don't know if this will help anyone. Kind of funny though. :)

How to keep omnivoires on the defense?

2015-12-09T00:52:16.000Z

Hey, I've been battling in the forums a lot, and I can't seem to keep omnivores on the defensive. Example:

My argument

Meat should be banned for reasons x, y, z, a, b, and c. About 5,000 characters long.

Opponents' criticize my argument

That's completely unfeasible. How is suggesting banning of meat going to help anything? What about b12? Face it we will continue to eat meat.

My counter attack

Why do you think its okay to cause suffering to animals?

Opponents' response

Bacon tastes good. Other creatures are food, etc.

My response to the response

You think child abuse is immoral, yet why not animal abuse?

Opponent's response

These are completely different scenarios. Or, straw man argument.

Overall

Overall I've learned little from my opponents. They don't make any arguments, only criticize mine. Yet, one idea of my opponents' perseveres, it is okay to cause suffering to animal, but not humans. Though I still have no clue what the person's reasons for that belief is.

Beware the wild goose chase

2015-12-08T08:20:51.000Z

I recently fought an incredibly frustrating opponent. One who who would link to multiple lengthy links and claim information within the links that refuted my argument. Yet, my opponent wouldn't tell me which link contained the information nor quote it. Instead, getting all defensive and scolding me repeatedly.

This is called proving a negative. For me to search through all the links, and not find the information took an enormous amount of time and effort. Even then, my opponent just kept repeating that the information was there and continued to scold.

Proving a positive is much easier than a negative. Don't make the same mistake I made. If your opponent refuses to quote the information, ignore the information.

Remember many of the opposition doesn't seek to win, only to stall. This is a perfect stalling technique. While getting in free insults like "your practicing confirmation bias by not being able to find the information in the links I provided."

Beware stalling arguments like the one below.

Annoying time wasting opponent's argument

"Animals can feel pain, but are they aware that they are feeling pain? All you have proven is that animals can feel pain, but not self-awareness. This is the same as a plant, stimulus and response. Therefore you come off as small minded when you state that plants don't have sentience. Just because plants organs are dissimilar to animals, doesn't mean plants can't feel pain. I have proven with my links that plants have sensory organs. If your aren't going to bother to read my links you are practicing confirmation bias.

Your attacks are straw men because I haven't advocated for anything. I was merely pointing out all the flaws in your argument. I never stated that I was in favor of cows, so therefore the fact that cows are damaging the environment is a straw man. If you aren't going to even take the time to understand the flaws in your arguments I want nothing to do with you. Since you haven't responded to some of my points, you have conceded those points

I find your lack of application disturbing. The information that I have stated is found in the links I provided. I have defeated every one of your points. No, I will not quote the information because I can spend no more time on somebody so entrenched in their beliefs that they will not even read facts to the contrary." Random opponent.

Now add another 4,000 characters to that tangled mess of an argument, and see why I just give up on such people. Note, these people will endlessly spew such nonsense, until I just leave. They expect me to read their links in their entirety when sometimes they are over 100 pages long each. Yet, they claim the facts they put forth are in those links.

Not only that but they are expecting me to prove a negative by reading their links in their entirety when that person could prove a positive by quoting the information. Next, they won't tell me which of the many links the information is in. Effectively leading me on a wild goose chase, since its hard to fight against information that is out of context, and may not even exist, I tend to search my opponent's links.

Next, I have no idea what the person even says most of the time because his/her argument is so long winded and confusing. After about 50,000 characters of non-sense I just give up. I find its better to let such a person get the last word, because they will never let you get the last word.

Finally, such person advocates a completely neutral position and never criticizes. There is nothing for me attack, forcing me completely on the defensive. Any time I attack, the predictable response, I have advocated nothing, therefore any attack on me is a straw man. If I defend my argument, I just get more obscure and long winded nonsense about how I am completely wrong.

This is effective, because it wastes my time, while looking like a victory. After all I couldn't refute the claims, because I couldn't find the claims. This person also gets the last word. More importantly seeking is the grand daddy of systems, so it waste your time. Its really hard to stop seeking once you get started.

Arguments I like to argue against

0. Meat is healthy.

1. All vegans are unhealthy

2. We need meat to live

3. You have absolutely no proof!

See the difference those arguments I can really dig my claws and sink my teeth into. I can prove these four arguments wrong with little effort.

cows given hormones to keep producing milk, vs. being reimpregnated to keep producing?

2011-05-24T15:48:30.000Z

hey,

trying to help out a (vegan) friend here who recently got hit with this argument. now, its a bit of a mad argument anyway, because even if its true that they are not reimpregnating cows and thus producing disposable unwanted calves, its still not ok that they are imprisoning, drugging, and milking cows, then disposing of them when they are "spent."....so dairy is still a huge problem regardless. but, it would nonetheless be good to know the facts....

so, is it the case that some places are using hormones, rather than reimpregnating, to keep milk production up? surely its not the industry standard, as undercover investigations keep showing abused calves on dairy farms, but is it the case in some places that they are using hormones instead of breeding?

thanks

kaybee

any experts on buddhism here? particularly re: buddhism and compassion etc.

2011-02-14T13:07:43.000Z

Ok peeps, I need help

For several years, I've been working on researching and developing a thesis proposal that would hopefully help to increase compassion (i.e. my codeword for promoting veganism/stopping killing of animals) amongst a Catholic audience, actually hoping to see an updating of Church teachings to something that is more pro-animal... After finally recently arriving at my doctoral program, the professor I had come here hoping to work with has been taken ill and is no longer able to teach here (though he is kind enough to give me some informal guidance). Its super-difficult to find anyone open to working on this project with me, as its so against the flow of what most Catholics believe, and I'm at a small Catholic university. Anyhow, its looking like I may have to revamp my whole approach (uh...before next tuesday, when a preliminary proposal is due....) I'm now considering using Buddhism and its foundational tenet of compassion towards all sentient beings to do a sort of interreligious dialogue type thesis, having the Buddhist principles/practices help shed light on what we possibly could do well with paying more attention to in Catholicism... but I know next to nothing about Buddhism... this seems like it COULD be an ideal way to address this as the Buddhist tenet of "compassion towards all sentient beings" really encompasses 2 of the most important points I want to emphasize--the importance of SENTIENCE (as opposed to other factors) as a/the criterion for determining that we treat something with compassion, and the importance of compassion as a Christian approach to other creatures (rather than skewed notions of dominion, use, etc.) Anyhow, if anyone out there is well versed in Buddhism and can give me some guidance, I'd really appreciate it, either on this thread or private message me.

One of the critical questions/concerns I have at the moment is whether Buddhism's commitment to the tenet of "compassion towards all sentient beings" is based mostly in the belief of some Buddhists belief in transmigration of souls and that we shouldnt kill other creatures because they could be our brothers/sisters from another lifetime... I fear that it is...which is going to make my use of it more difficult and complicated...

Anyhow, help appreciated if anyone is able.

Thanks a million--

kaybee

Funny Horror Movie on Milk.. (great for the holidays!) lol

2010-12-06T18:09:43.000Z

a writing opportunity

2010-11-02T19:47:00.000Z

this was sent to me by the wonderful debbie took who was an excellent contributor to 30bad for many months.

it is a writing opportunity provided by a "well-known international raw food/health magazine". in fact, as debbie puts it:

"It's a golden opportunity for a raw vegan writer to have a big influence on the raw food world right now."

i've copied her email below, so if anyone wishes to exercise penmanship, here's your chance for a pultizer!

in friendship,
prad

====
The editor of a well-known international raw food/health magazine has asked me to pass this onto members of 30BaD. I haven’t seen the ‘Why I’m no longer vegan’ article referred to below, but understand that it will probably include the sorts of arguments put forward in ‘The Vegetarian Myth’ by Lierre Keith.

We’re looking for a good writer, who can back up their arguments (ideally with references). If you are interested, please provide a link to a recent article you have written.

In the Editor’s words:
‘So we are looking for someone who can write a piece entitled "Why I'll always be vegan" which will go alongside an already submitted piece entitled "Why I'm no longer vegan". The main aim of publishing these two opposing viewpoints is to put the environmental and compassionate arguments for veganism under the magnifying glass, though this will touch briefly on the nutritional arguments, too. We are looking for a passionate vegan with in-depth knowledge of the ethical case for veganism - and I mean in-depth! We need someone who appreciates that, to the extent we are talking about locally produced, pasture-fed animal foods (which is what the other writer focuses on) this is not quite as "black or white" as it is often made out to be - but who can convincingly argue that, despite that, there are compelling reasons to choose a vegan diet. To be specific, I am looking for around 2,000 words on the topic by next Tuesday, November 9. I'd be most interested
to hear from anyone who would be interested in taking this on. Of course, the chosen writer will be given a fuller brief/be able to ask any questions.’

We do appreciate the deadline doesn’t give very much time, but If anyone feels they can take this on (the article will be seen by many of the leading names in the raw food world), please contact Debbie Took at thisgeneration@btinternet.com, who will forward your details to the Editor.

help addressing the problem of predation from a philosophical/theological perspective?

2010-10-06T10:41:09.000Z

hi--not sure if i should post this on the main board so more people will see it or here?

trying to pull together stuff to develop my doctoral dissertation topic related to increasing compassion for animals, particularly addressing Christianity, and particularly Catholicism.

keep running up against the problem of predation.... bleh.

i know there are some writings on this... i have andrew linzeys stuff that i need to go through again, but anyone have any other ideas out there?

crux of the problem im having is that when i say that we shouldnt be killing/eating animals, people always bring up the issue of predation and how clearly meat eating is natural because other animals do it. yes, i could perhaps argue that our digestive tracts arent designed for it and hence its not natural, but even if i did/were able to do that, the bigger issue is that if God didnt want animals to die and be killed and eaten, then why would he have created/allowed for predatory animals? i.e. the point that even if humans stopped eating animals, it wouldnt eliminate violence in the world because there would still be carnivorous animals.... (there is a way to argue from a christian perspective that predation is a result of the "fall from grace" of humanity that Christians believe occurred, but arguing from the "fall" perspective--i.e. that all of creation is "fallen" still isnt really enough to convince people and moreso we cant "correct" the issue/behavior of predatory animals...so therefore people argue that God must have willed predatory animals and thus must not have a problem with animals being killed and eaten.... hence why should there be a problem with humans eating them if other animals eat them.

BLEH. comments appreciated. ive been butting heads with this argument for years...but now is a time that its becoming critical for me to come up with a response for it in order to pursue my writing. and i fear that there IS not adequate answer. :(

thanks all

kaybee

Veal Calves - Mercy for animals victory 1 - but victory 2 needs help

2010-09-02T00:25:15.000Z

Mercy for Animals got COSTCO to quit buying veal calves from a despicable farm.

"Atlantic Veal and Lamb, Costco's sole veal supplier, which buys from Buckeye Veal and over 100 other veal farms, told Jeff Lyons, Costco's senior vice president of fresh foods, that chaining calves in narrow crates is considered an acceptable industry practice. Lyons harshly condemned the practice, stating, "We're telling them flat-out that it's not acceptable to us, and we will not accept any veal from those farms, period...[W]e just don't think that's the way to treat an animal."

But now we need to urge Giant Eagle markets:

"Meanwhile, Giant Eagle, another grocery chain caught selling veal from the facility investigated by MFA, has failed to take any action, or even issue a public statement on the matter. Please contact Giant Eagle and urge them to address this important issue by removing veal from their store shelves."

SIGN!

http://http://www.mercyforanimals.org/veal/take-action.aspx

facebook - comments and replies.

2010-07-04T03:52:58.000Z

Hi,

I was hesitant with signign up with facebook because I ain't into other peoples drama but I have learned that it can be a good annoying tool.

I figure we can collectively post comments here and then we can be all over them like a fat kid on smarties as they say :-)

Prad and I have done a few already we don't want to to take all the fun from others so if your in just post away and collectively we can.

Take Care

Youtube editing

2010-06-10T04:30:22.000Z

Hi,

I want to start making youtube videos using text and some images possibly with music.

Any suggestions on some good simple east to use Free software?

I think youtube can be used to benefit our friends and educate others.

Take Care,

the focus of ar

2010-06-02T21:11:43.000Z

i received this in an email from bigG. he asks several very important questions here so i thought we should discuss the ideas in a thread. i have paraphrased a couple of the questions.

1. What should be the focus for AR here in Canada?

2. Do we need numbers for any cause then the challenge is getting them.
I think writing and signing petitions can go so far if you have 1,000 people doing it that's OK but you get 10,000 then maybe they might take it seriously.

3. Is it more videos exposing the events like in Ohio?

4. Should the focus be on more vegan outreach programs then going into ar or is it having more stores and restauraunts serving vegan foods.

5. Or should the laws be the main focus but this will require numbers to give them a reason to change.

my answers follow and hopefully others will contribute too.

in friendship,
prad

the eye of gitmr

2010-04-24T01:35:10.000Z

it seems our fine 30badigos keep getting banned at gitmr simply for revealing the truth about those who practise cruelty on animals. these are people who in part or in total imprison, exploit, abuse and murder other sentient beings for their own gratification (and go on to brag about it in various forms).

now while gitmr cracks down on those who speak up against cruelty and banishes them, mordor has no power in lothlorian. the eye can see, but cannot breach.

here we can present some of the truly bizarre arguments presented by some remarkably 'creative' individuals (who even diehard, sad corpse enthusiasts would likely scratch their heads about) and counter them. i'm sure the eye will see and may be it will learn.

in friendship,
prad

the kel faq

2010-04-09T19:29:09.000Z

kel has a comprehensive ar faq here:
http://yourcybercourt.info/arveg/arvegFAQ.html

it is huge!

we would like to present it through a database system so that someone could type in a keyword and see the various questions that come up as well as the answers.

it would even be interesting to create some sort of a 'natural language' interface for it down the road with a rudimentary expert system that can be continuously added to, but that will require some study.

meantime, if anyone has ideas about interesting ways to access the info, please post them here.

donovan, i think we can work this through python and postgresql very nicely.

in friendship,
prad

the less publicized victims

2010-04-08T18:50:30.000Z

this thread is for victims of cruelty who don't get as much publicity as say those in the factory farms or fur industry.

i think it's important to keep track of them even if we don't make them a major campaign.

some think that we should not even talk about things like honey because it will drive potential vegans away or it will detract from our efforts towards the 'larger' issues. i think there is merit in the latter, though if potential vegans are driven away by such things, i doubt if they'd have lasted too long anyway.

i'll maintain a running toc here to link to the various submissions as they come.

in friendship,
prad

the first three items are repeats from dr's honey thread:

why honey is not vegan

measure of a bee part 1
measure of a bee part 2

more to come as they show up

Talk about 'say it ain't so Joe'! Can we start a letter writing campaign against this??

2010-04-04T16:24:37.000Z

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palin-discovery/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/24/sarah.palin.reality.tv.ppl/index.html

How can the Discovery Channel offer Sarah Palin her own show about Alaska?
What in the world are they thinking?
(I know, I know - it's all about money & profits to them. And for some reason that is unfathomable to me there are people who are 'fascinated' by SP)
But honestly!!
This woman is anti-animal and anti-environmentalist.
How in the world could they offer her a show about Alaska?
What is she going to air? Footage of shooting wolves from helicopters?
Pictures of the chopped off paws and the pay-offs given to 'sport hunters' for submitting them?
Or her own personal collection of photos taken of all the animals she has hunted and slain?

This is one of the many reasons that I do not have cable or watch television.

But I do not want her to pollute the minds of people (and in particular children) who do watch TV.

The Discovery Channel programmers and administrators should be ashamed of themselves.

Seriously. Can we start a letter writing campaign about this?

letter writing

2010-04-02T23:22:22.000Z

this is one of the most important avenues activists have.

the stats apparently show that more people read letters to the editor than anything other than the front page (and possibly the sports page).

we need to respond for various reasons such as:

1) to tell the other side of the story (the correct and true one)
2) to show the readers that we are not a passing fad
3) to encourage those who write positively and honestly about animal, environment and nutrition issues

getting yourself published requires some thought though in certain media. for instance, whereas debating skills are useful in a discussion forum or blog, conciseness is generally preferable in letters to the editor because long stuff just doesn't get published.

this thread is the place to keep ideas about what makes good letters to the editor - one's that are more likely to be published and bring your most important message to the waiting public that really, really needs to hear it.

in friendship,
prad

Failed vegs: what makes them tick?

2010-03-30T06:53:12.000Z

Oddly enough many our most vociferous opponents are failed ethical vegans. They seem to be unusually passionate in their attempts to point out the dubiousness of the veg endeavor and/or how we ethical veg folk really shouldn't be telling other people what to do, or at least not in the way we're doing it. Why is this?

I chalk this up to a need in some individuals to rationalize their failure.. to evoke my favorite psychologist Alexander Lowen, he defines narcissim as someone living for their self image or self concept solely, rather than their 'self' or bodily feelings.. being perceived as a failure would result in an unacceptable self image, so they do whatever they can to convince themselves (and everyone else) that they didn't fail, at whatever it was, that it wasn't their fault, that there's something wrong with veganism for example, whether it's naive or dangerous to one's health or not eating corpses makes you into an a**hole somehow lol (I was an a**hole before I went veg so there goes that argument). of course there's nothing wrong with failure, people who are successful have failed the most and made the most mistakes, that's how you learn. perceiving failure as being something that must be avoided like death is what gives rise to this curious behavior.

what I'd like to try to do in this thread isolate patterns in the types of failed-veg characters we encounter and their argumentative strategies.

This thread was inspired in part by prad egging me on and also by some posts of kel on Tarah's dairy disaster blog where he basically cut and pasted responses that he had written before to respond to an animal cruelty apologist, and made this explicit that he had done so.. both making it clear that it wasn't worth kel's time to extend him the courtesy of a personalized response and that his ideas were old as the hills. pure genius :)

so we already know that there are patterns to the content of the arguments anti-veg folk hurl at us (kel has made an exhaustive compilation of these).. here we're investigating what are the patterns behind those argumentative moves in failed veg folk in particular. what makes them tick and what are their strategies.

here's just some ideas that I've brainstormed that I'll throw out there and we'll see how things unfold.. it's a bit of a mish mash of anti-veg moves in general and the kind of failed veg folks we might encounter.

so anti/failed-vegs will point out..

character flaws
claim that ethical vegs are fanatical angry self-righteous, don't pay their taxes etc. somehow a vegan diet is to blame, which can apparently be correct by daily consumption of animal based saturated fat.

logical inconsistencies of veganism
attempts to point out flaws in vegan moral philosophy. this is usually based on false premises that veg folk can't accept the idea of killing or their own mortality. or dubious claims that grassfed beef is somehow better for the envi

the TO type: pretends to be interested in conversation about apparentlogical consistencies of ethical veg but has made his mind upalready and does whatever it takes to have the last word in theconversation (has too much time on hands evidently). likes pushing people'sbuttons, will say things he considers shocking to get veg folk worked upand of course denies attempting to do so.

flaws in vegan nutrition
there's the type that fails and becomes 'well informed' on nutrition (WAP and/or paleo nouveau) either to explain that veganism doesn't work for 'some people' (i.e. them), or they try to argue that animal foods are somehow necessary for human health (again for them luckily enough).

then the Paul Nison type, who does much fear mongering on nutrition but is extremely uninformed on the subject, and chooses to surround himselfwith failed veg folk and rely on them as authorties. stirs up muchcontroversy to draw attention to himself and then wonders why people aregetting so worked up.

infobase + communications

2010-03-28T21:45:21.000Z

this thread is a result of a conversation kel and i were having.
for some time both of us felt that the ar movement because of it's vastness could use some more organizational assistance where people could access info easily and be able to communicate to each other easily.

such systems exist to some extent via search engines (some more focused than others) and social networks like this ning dating service.

however, neither are sufficient nor sufficiently utilized within the ar movement.

perhaps, we can figure something out.

in friendship,
prad

Veg/ar quotations

2010-03-10T00:27:59.000Z

“If you tremble indignation at every injustice thenyou are a comrade of mine.”
Homero 'Che' Guevara

..To pepper your discussions with.

(thx to Prad for the bulk of these)

--

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and
love."
Pythagoras, mathematician

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will
come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they
now look upon the murder of men."
Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

"While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth?"
George Bernard Shaw, playwright, Nobel Prize 1925

"In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings
see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they
victimize blindly and without a thought."
Isaac Bashevis Singer, author, Nobel Prize 1978

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, essayist

"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."
Leo Tolstoy, author

"We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any
living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such
moronic delight in killing we set back the progress of humanity."
Rachel Carson, marine biologist

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all
evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still
savages."
Thomas Edison, inventor

"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
Albert Schweitzer, missionary and statesman, Nobel 1952

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the
shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise
with their fellow men. Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first
duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission
- to be of service to them wherever they require it."
Francis of Assisi, saint

"About 2,000 poundsof grains must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other
livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain
eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain
eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is eaten indirectly
by humans in the form of livestock products...."
M.E. Ensminger, PH.D.

the anti-human supremacy argument

2010-03-07T20:15:34.000Z

This is the page for particular examples of a non-sentience based animal rights argument.

I will keep editing this first post with any additions that get added in replies and make updates(I cut and paste a few things but may end up rewriting bits--some of it comes from my 9000 word definitive essay)

The anti-human supremacy/human predation argument.

It is rooted in a variant of individualist ethical subjectivism, and uses the lack of an absolute, objective certainty in the claim of human supremacists and the reality of human discrimination against and predation upon other humans to force the observer into a choice, either extend rights to non humans, or accept that their belief allows humans to discriminate against anyone, including other humans, thus undermining their desire for an application of universal human rights.

Those
who believe in a moral code of universal human rights but deny extending rights to nonhumans have two problems. The criteria(s) they use to justify this discrimination (faculty of reason, a soul, divine or evolutionary favor, moral reciprocity, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, a bundle of characteristics or vaguely defined ones etc.) cannot be proven to be possessed by all humans or lacking in all nonhumans. i.e. some humans are more intelligent than others, some nonhumans are more rational than some humans, humans can and do willfully break laws and yet the most hated of criminals are regarded as more deserving of care and respect than the most innocent of beings.

Secondly, the importance of such criteria can be doubted-- shown not to be objective absolute truth, but subjective arbitrary criteria conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination they wish to
justify. Nature(or invisible deities), through environmental phenomenon, weather, earthquakes, and the actions of other human beings, shown to care or favor humans over other lifeforms as an absolute objective fact. This subjectivity means that someone who may discriminate against other humans (which happens despite the laws and philosophy designed to curb such incidents) using criteria that is just as subjective (skin colour, gender, class, religion, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, etc) cannot be effectively condemned by a human rights advocate who denies rights to nonhumans, since both are discriminating according to subjective criteria of value they deem to be important. Pragmatic appeals to self-interest and the Golden Rule are also dubious, since a dictator or criminal may exploit and kill and never need to care about the rights of others or face prosecution, and a man living on one side of the globe does not necessarily have a
practical reason to care what happens to humans in another far away country.

The only way for a human rights advocate to consistently argue that one ought to have systemic universal human rights and an ethical code based upon this idea is to extend the concept of fairness and justice to nonhumans as muchas possible. Because humans develop ethical codes to govern humanbehavior, and nonhumans do not appear to employ or require such codes in their social interactions, they benefit from the consistency requirement in human concepts of fairness and justice without needing to reciprocate. To expect them to adhere to human moral contracts in order to be eligible for moral regard is like expecting a blind man to be able to read and then punishing himfor not doing so. That moral regard may not be possible or practical in all situations due to particular factors (such as scale or absentmindedness or the inability to be perfect), but since the same is true of relations with other humans, it does not invalidate the merits of the argument or provide a loophole to justify systemic exploitation of nonhuman lifeforms (since one could then justify the same for humans).

Every argument put forth to defend exploitation assumes human superiority as a given, and conveniently ignores the reality of human predation upon other
human beings. This approach applies equally to theists and secularists, and any human society that can articulate a belief in supremacy and uses it to systematically discriminate(against humans or nonhumans). While it is not guaranteed to convert the ignorant, it has proven to be effective in reducing the confidence of the most ardent and articulate opposition and occasionally replace arrogance with humility.

One will find the human supremacy/predation double standard blindspot in just about any (if not all) anti-animal rights argument.

Attack: humans are meant to hunt and kill like any other predator

*** humans are not true predators like tigers or lions. They are not born with the equipment to hunt. . If someone says tools are the equivalent of fangs and claws then there is a factual problem, the same tool-making ability that is used for hunting non human animals, can also be used for tilling the soil to plant seeds or to kill other human beings. By this type of thinking even homicide is natural. The reality of human predation remains. True predator animals do not usually kill other members of their species or plant gardens. Only humans have the flexibility to do so- and a problem controling their behavior.

Attack: Humans as stewards of nature

While a nice thing to aspire to, the fact is that most of what humans describe as stewardship is fixing mistakes created by other humans. A worm on the other hand, could be described as a steward-and ironically we call them lowly and worthless as with all insects(except those that provide something we use like honey).

Attack: "humans are superior because they are human"

"This belief is often taken for granted as if an axiom, and usually not expressed in precise terms, with good reason, as it leads to the Regress argument. An absolute is the final answer to a question. If you can question it, how can it be absolute? For every why there is a because and for every because another why. A belief in human supremacy is subject to many a why."

It takes for granted the idea that humans are superior without being able to prove it. Because it is subjective--it can be doubted, questioned, it cant be absolute. If its not absolute then nothing stops the racist or person who doesnt care about universal human rights from saying

"whites are superior because they are white."
"males are superior because they are male."
"christians are superior because they are christian."
etc.

Attack: "you will never get rid of meat eating-it has been around since ancient times."

One could answer-"and child abuse and homicide will always be around too-so we shouldnt try to curb it eh? Just let everyone do what they like-exploit whoever they want(oh and they cant say that one should care for other humans out of self-interest-because why should someone living in one country care about what someone is doing to their family in a house across the country? It cant be proven that one needs such a social contract to survive--some dictators die peacefully in their beds). In fact-one could say getting rid of meat eating is easier than getting rid of child abuse or homicide since humans have to be in contact with other species-while humans are always around humans if they are reproducing and live in a society.

Attack: "but with all the cruelty in the world-we need to deal with human problems first."

But if that is so-then which is more important, worrying about racism or sexism? Is violence against gays and lesbians more of a priority or helping blind people? If you see two children about to be hit by a car which one deserves priority in rescuing? What exactly is the formula, the hierarchy for determining moral worth and priority? Obviously there isnt one. So they are only saying these things because of the human supremacist double standard.

Attack: "But many religions say humans are superior. It says so in the Bible."

If one says that humans are superior as a species according to the will of a Supreme Deity, how do you prove it? If you cite a Divinely-inspired religious book written down by individuals who conveniently, are members of the very group that stands to benefit from the discrimination, then anyone else can emphasize race, or gender, or wealth instead of (or in addition to) species and claim that the same deity (or another one) decided that theirs is the ultimate measure of value for determining superiority. Especially since the Bible also sanctions various kinds of behavior deemed morally wrong today (human slavery etc). If someone says "my God says humans are special"-another can say "My God says my race is special" or
"my gender is special" or "my family is special,"...which goes on today
as we see from the news and politics.

Such disagreements cannot be objectively resolved - and they must be to avoid hypocrisy and moral corruption.

Attack: "If you were passing by a river in which a dog and a child were drowning, who would you try to save?"

In most desperate situations, people will save whomever they can save; they don't measure and qualify the recipients of care. It might be true that as a human, one would feel a more urgent need and bond with another human who is drowning, but in principle, that situation would be no different if the argument were redefined to focus on race, language or gender instead of species. If you are white and you see a white man and a non-white man drowning, who are you more likely to feel a bond towards? What if one spoke your language but the other didn't? What if one was a close relative, the other a stranger? If you chose to save the more familiar individual, does that mean you endorse a policy-based, industrial, "factory farm" exploitation of the human group that is not given priority? If the answer is no, then it should be equally true for non-human groups when they are not given priority either.

There is also a variation in this:

Attack: "If you were attacked by a lion/snake/dog/rat/boar/gorilla etc, would
you defend yourself? And if you did, wouldn't that prove you believe
humans are superior in value to other animals?"

Self-preservation is a different issue from species preservation, or the belief that humans as a species are superior in value to all other life. If a thief confronted a civil rights worker/poverty activist, and the worker/activist defended him or herself, would that mean that he or she does not believe in human rights? The answer should be no different for an animal activist.

In research debates I usually would turn the tables-so if someone said "would you sacrifice a rat to save your child"--I would say--"would you sacrifice the life of a stranger's child to save yours? If you say yes-then you dont believe in human rights. if you say no, then you love a stranger more than your own child."

Attack: 'a blade of grass and a cow are equal, therefore a cow eating grass is no less immoral than a human eating a cheeseburger'.

They are confusing (perhaps deliberately) two definitions of equality--Conflicting Conditions, a fallacy in definition.

A cow can be equal in value and unequal in attribute. There is no conflicting conditions. We say a blind man is equal in value but not equal in attribute. We dont say that because a blind man cant read road signs that a seeing man shouldnt be expected to either. Its just a way to get out of moral responsibility.

Humans need concepts of moral codes to govern their behavior because unlike a cow, humans dont seem capable of working off instincts to control themselves. A cow needs to eat to survive-humans do too-but humans can make dietary choices--a cow or lion cannot. To expect them to follow human codes of justice is an absurdity. The same is true in the argument that they have to be able to follow human codes in order to benefit from ethical laws-its contractualism--There are humans (children, mentally handicapped, criminals) who receive rights even though they cannot reciprocate (or refuse to in the case of criminals). One would not expect a blind man to be able to read road signs, so why would one expect a lion to be able to understand human concepts of morality? It is a double standard, and if anyone thinks they can get lions and spiders to follow human concepts of morality, best of luck in trying.

Attack: 'plants feel pain' (this is certain even though scientists debate
whether insects feel pain because they have no pain receptors) so
you're just being a hopeless idealist by not eating steak for breakfast.

This is basically saying since we cant be morally perfect we shouldnt even try (or if you cant do everything, you shouldnt try to do anything ;)

But by that logic it would mean we shouldnt care about anything-even human on human predation. There's the human supremacy blind spot-they always miss that consequence of their belief if put into practice. The issue (IMO) is not moral perfection, but trying the best one can (and certainly factory farms, zoos, research labs and other massively organized and complicated structural entities for exploitation and discrimination are not as difficult to avoid as scratching your arm and killing a microbe or accidentally stepping on an insect). No ethical view can take into account the interests of everyone at all times. And one can certainly argue the line of moral regard is not drawn at animals--that it is wrong to exploit trees and other plants. Sentience is as much a subjective criteria as any other. If there are problems in implementing an ethical policy that includes non-animals, then it is true of all potential beneficiaries of moral conduct (i.e. you may live on land that was once occupied by others who were driven off or killed due to colonial aggression; or pay taxes to a government that uses the money to finance wars, or use drugs that were tested on unwilling human patients in Africa etc.). No one can be perfect, either in compassion or cruelty, but the failure to be morally perfect does not then mean one has to fall back to some line like species to focus one's discrimination. If you argue for that--then there is no reason why someone else cannot draw the line at race, or religion, or intelligence instead of, or, in addition to species (which many people do already). In fact, if one attempts to argue from convenience, then committing a homicide is much more practical than establishing a factory farm or stalking through a forest with a rifle in search of an elusive animal. No matter how one looks at it, the reality of human predation hangs on the neck of the anti-animal rights position like an albatross.

Attack: a selective moral relativism is a common fallback when the oppressors are confronted on trying to avoid moral responsibility---- that notions of right and wrong are socially constructed and ultimately arbitrary, so again they can avoid feeling bad for eating steak.

They say its socially constructed and ultimately arbitrary BUT they always have a blind spot/double standard when it comes to applying that belief--i.e. they tend to drop moral relativism as a defense when it comes to human on human relations. I.e. female circumcision, or anti-homosexuality cultures, honor killings or cannibalism. If one really believed in moral relativism, then someone should be able to construct their own morality--as in preying on other humans. They will sometimes say its a golden rule or in your own best interest to want to establish a social moral contract with other humans-but the fact is that there are humans who can do ok without honoring such a contract. Dictators, criminals etc. In fact they can say: "sure, I will honor your rights," and then turn around and stab you in the back.

Attack: quasi-spiritual platitudes: "everything is one, evolving perfectly as is (so factory farms are cool and I can eat fillet mignon sans guilt)" or "killing is a part of the natural order of Being" etc..

Also can be more secular based---life is cruel-life is about killing-that's the way it is. survival of the fittest...

----if "everything is one" or survival of the fittest, then war,
theft, homicide and rape are also permissible-part of survival of the fittest or the "oneness" of the universe, so we shouldnt try to
stop it. The human predation issue still can be applied to it.

Attack: "What about First Nations people? They hunt and fish and kill animals too."

**The ethical problem is true for both the city dweller and the aboriginal. So-called subsistence hunters like the Inuit have access to electricity, firearms, and other industrial inventions at the same time they want to pick and choose their traditional lifestyle choices. If the Inuit are meant to live in the Arctic like a polar bear or seal, why are they not born with all they need to survive in the climate? Since humans do not need to live in these climates (biologically, their bodies are not equipped for it), they do not need to hunt or fish. If an Inuit is naturally meant to hunt in the Arctic, as is frequently claimed by defenders of exploitation industries that use First Nations communities for supplies or propaganda (i.e. whaling, sealing and trapping), then its factual validity can be tested by simply having one brave Inuit hunter jump naked into the Arctic sea and try to bite a seal to death with only his teeth and bare hands. The outcome would speak for itself on the issue of whether First Nations people or any humans should, by biological design and necessity, hunt and fish.

If one regards non colonial societies as human, then they should be subject to the same rights and obligations as any other humans, according to basic principles of fairness and justice. If a human group, whether in the Sahara, a coastal Japanese fishing community, the Arctic, or some isolated island can hold to a moral view that they deserve special regard at the same time they declare themselves to have a right to systematically kill for sustenance, then they can be criticized for adhering to an unfair moral system, according to their own understanding of right and wrong. The concept of being fair and compassionate to others is universal, and the most basic animal rights argument is merely a logical extension of that principle. If it is ethically wrong for human groups to engage in human slavery, cannibalism, oppression of women and children, then the same should be true for their interaction with other species, to be fair and consistent in ethical policy.

No human group in the 21st century needs to kill other animals for food--period.

If we can put a man on the Moon, and design a computer that can play chess, then we can provide daily sustenance for all humans without resorting to harpoon, hook, and gun. The issue of practicality or implementation is a separate affair. Loss of traditional independence is a trivia disagreement. It can be assumed that many would agree that life should trump lifestyle.

Also it should be noted that such cultures are often collaborators in exploitation. Case in point-Canada using the Inuit to campaign for the fur industry, seal hunt and keeping the polar bear off the endangered species list.

Attack: killing is acceptable if you eat what you kill

****--it is the same as saying it is acceptable to murder someone if you rob them at the same time.

Attack: "humans need to kill invasive species that threaten native ones"

**beyond the issue of who appointed humans to be custodians of nature, or the moral problem of punishing species that were introduced into another environment by humans, or the issue of whether there is such a thing as an invasive species, there is the double standard of humans claiming that ecological destruction in some cases deserves lethal means, and yet the many examples of humans causing environmental destruction (maliciously and not innocently as in the nonhuman scenarios--broadtail possum of Australia introduced into NZ by the fur industry or pigs dropped on islands off California by farmers) does not appear to be so important as to deserve a similar response.

Attack:"You may think you avoid all unnecessary suffering,but how many animals died in the fields to grow your plants for food?" AKA the Steven Davis/ruminant pasture grazing model study(from TIme magazine July 8, 2002).

**

To suggest that killing animals directly either in hunting or cattle grazing is a better answer than indirectly killing animals in fields that cannot be seen is akin to this scenario:
Imagine you are driving along andyou come to a forked road. One way is covered in darkness, the other
has some children playing in the center of it. By the meat eater logic, it is
better to drive through and deliberately kill the children instead of
taking the other route where you may end up killing more that you cant
see--OR getting out and walking to check if the route is clear (after
all, who says crop harvesting MUST be done by only one type of
tractor-- the most destructive? It assumes that the current methods by machinery is the only way in order to push its grazing solution).

It also ignores animals killed as pests--wolves, animals killed due to competition over grazing lands(buffalo) and the large numbers of cattle on pasture lands required to feed human populations(as well as the effects on water resources and rivers).

Attack: "More animals are killed for a vegetarian diet (in fields) thanby hunters. Therefore, hunting is more compassionate than
vegetarianism."

**Ideally, animals that may be killed in fields etc to growfood for vegetarians are killed unintentionally. Hunters kill
intentionally. Thus vegetarianism is more compassionate, since it seeks
to eliminate unnecessary suffering and killing, not encourage it.

If everyone went and hunted for food, it would kill a lot
more animals than in fields that grow food for vegetarians

Growing your own vegetarian food in a garden would
be more compassionate than hunting.
It is impossible to gauge how many animals are killed infields. The answer is not to advocate hunting, but to find the best way
to avoid killing animals to grow food.

By that logic, someone may decide that resorting tocannibalism or eating human corpses would be more compassionate than hunting. Why prey on other
species for your survival when you can prey on your own?

Attack: "Your values deem animals to be right-holderswhereas others deem them to be resource, it is the former and not the
latter that has the ethical obligation to stop killing them."

Response: by that logic, if someone doesnt believe that other humans are
rights-holders, they dont have any obligation to stop those acts that
violate them. So a racist can go and lynch members of another race because he doesnt
value them as equals. A child abuser can do likewise. You havent proven
why all humans should regard all humans as rights-holders, and you need
to in order to defend human rights while you attack nonhuman rights.

Attack: : Wasnt Hitler a vegetarian?

Response:

The testimony of Hitler's personal cook in Hamburg duringthe late 1930s - Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one that he
customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I do not mean to
spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to
know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the
hotel often." (http://www.ivu.org/history/europe20a/hitler.html)

"Otto D. Tolischus in 1937 in The New York Times pointed
out that the Führer was a vegetarian who 'does not drink or smoke' but
who also 'occasionally relishes a slice of ham' along with delicacies
such as caviar and chocolates." (Ibid.) Robert Proctor calls Hitler a
vegetarian "of sorts" (The Nazi War on Cancer, p. 134) and is content
to state that Hitler was a vegetarian who "occasionally would allow
himself a dish of meat," (p. 135) and quotes The New York Times as
stating that in addition to ham and caviar Hitler also occasionally ate
squab." (http://www.micahbooks.com/readingroom/Hitlerveg.html)
His cook, an enormously fat man named Willy Kannenberg,produced exquisite meals and acted as court jester. Although Hitler had
no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish,
he enjoyed caviar....(The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler (Praeger,
1973)(p. 346) (http://www.micahbooks.com/readingroom/Hitlerveg.html)

Hitler's reputation for being a vegetarian seems to
consist solely of his not having eaten red meat. The effort to describe
Hitler's eating habits as vegetarian requires changing the definition
of "vegetarian" to exclude liver, ham, and sausages from the list of
meats, and changing the definition of "animal" to exclude pigs. Hitler
did exhibit a sympathy with a vegetarian diet, but paradoxically,
vegetarians and the vegetarian movement in Nazi Germany were
persecuted. Vegetarian societies were restrained, subject to raids, and
"books that contained vegetarian recipes were confiscated by the
Gestapo." Janet Barkas has a good account of this period in German
history in her book, The Vegetable Passion. German vegetarian societies
were forced to leave the International Vegetarian Union; they were
prohibited from organizing and from publishing material, but
individuals were not molested and "could exchange their credit notes
for meat for dairy products. About 83,000 vegetarians participated in
this program." (http://www.micahbooks.com/readingroom/Hitlerveg.html)

"He also ordered that the meat supply not be reduced, even though itsproduction used up a tremendous amount of resources during the war."

Attack: : "Didnt the Nazis ban animal research?"

Response: a) from
http://www.micahbooks.com/readingroom/Nazisandanimalresearch.html 'On
April 24, 1989, Drs. Daniel Johnson and Frederick Goodwin from the
National Institutes of Health, argued on the McNeil-Lehrer television
program that "The only people in modern society that have not used
animals for research were the Nazis." They further contended that
because the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933, they were
led to experiment on human beings, and that there is therefore a
relationship between animal rights and a loss of human rights. None of
this is true.The "anti-vivisection law," which the Nazis purported to
pass, like Hitler's vegetarianism, is filled with contradictions. A
study of the law the Nazis passed shows that this law had enough
loopholes in it to assure the continuation of animal research;
consequently, an enormous amount of animal experimentation continued to
be carried out by Nazi doctors. The Lancet, the prestigious British
medical journal, reviewed the Nazis law and warned anti-vivisectionists
not to celebrate because the Nazis law was no different, in effect,
from the British law that had been passed in 1875, which restricted
some animal research, but hardly eliminated it. Furthermore, a law
passed by the Weimar government in 1931 required that all experiments
on human beings be first conducted on animals. Such a requirement
exists in the United States as in many countries that practice animal
research. In other words, animal research is often a legal
justification for experimentation on humans, as it functioned in Nazi
Germany. The 1931 law in Germany was never abrogated. Nazis doctors
dutifully submitted written statements when they requested "human
material" for experiments which carried the legal notification that
such experiments had been first conducted on animals. The first request
for "test persons" was made by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Himmler on May
15, 1941, "for two or three professional criminals" for "High-Altitude
Research." It states that human beings were needed "because these
experiments cannot be conducted with monkeys, as has been
tried...."***Robert Proctor's book, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton
University Press, 1999), records Nazi animal experimentation, which
should leave no one in doubt about where Nazi doctors and scientists
stood on this issue. These animal experiments were often embedded in
the continuum of animal research that had been ongoing for decades. By
the 1920s the Germans had developed strains of mice that were "more or
less receptive to the uptake of cancer tissue transplants....SS chief
Heinrich Himmler was apparently intrigued by the prospect of breeding a
race of cancer-prone rats; in a 1939 meeting with Sigmund Rascher, the
notorious Dachau hypothermia experimenter, the SS Reichsführer proposed
breeding such a race of rodents.... (p. 63) "by the end of the 1920s,
there was a sizable scientific literature on radiation carcinogensis,
including a large body of work based on animal experiments." (p. 83) By
the mid 1930s the Nazis had formidable laboratory evidence of some the
causes of cancer based on animal experiments: "Experiments
were...performed that finally produced--for the first time
anywhere--lung cancers in animals raised in the mines." By 1938, Nazi
scientists could produce lung cancer in 25% of the mice raised in mine
shafts. "This was the first conclusive animal experimental evidence
that breathing air in the mines could cause lung cancer." (p.99). The
Nazis conducted their "war on cancer" with animals as their weapon of
choice. Indeed, in 1943, at the height of a world war, the Nazi
government developed plans for a "'tumor farm' to raise animals for use
in experiments." (p. 261). As Proctor states, animal experiments were
vital to the ideological stance of Nazisim: "Animal experimental
evidence was extrapolatedto humans, bolstered by the ideological push
to see all aspects of human behavior--including purported racial
differences--as rooted in "blood," race, or genes." (p. 63)***The Nazis
often did important scientific research, much of which has found its
way into our own research. They developed the most extensive anti
smoking legislation of any western countries; they did important
research on the effects of industrial pollution on the environment,
much of which found its way into Rachel Carson's book, Silent
Spring--which is not an indictment of Rachel Carson. When World War 11
first ended and news of the horrendous research on human beings was
made public, Western scientists wanted to denounce Nazi science as
"pseudo science" for fear of being tarnished by the public's loathing
of Nazi science, but Nazi science finds its way into our science all
the time, including findings gained from their experiments on human
beings.

Other examples to follow. :)

link droppings

2010-02-20T18:28:57.000Z

this thread came about as a result of dr's comment on the home page where he put up some links he usually drops around in discussions.

depending on what forum or person im talking with. i find a veganwebsite relevant to what they could connect with..

please post your favorite links here with a bit of an explanation as to why they are good or what they are about. we'll eventually compile these for reference so people can 'encourage' those they meet on the forums to seek and be enlightened.

in friendship,
prad

Paleo/Primal Diets -- the uncanny and the macabre parrallel universe of raw meat eaters

2010-01-31T13:53:37.000Z

This is a subject I'm just delving into, anyone with more knowledge in this subject is welcome to contribute. There's seems to be a whole library of literature devoted to rationalizing the use of animal foods for health and environmental reasons, ostensibly backed by scientific studies. This is where we begin to investigate the matter.

Glossary of terms:
RPD - (acronym) Raw Paleo Diet
RAF - (acronym) Raw Animal Foods
High Meat -- meat that has been left out unrefrigereted for days/weeks (ala aajonus vonderplanitz) :b

Web:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/ -- RPD online community; the 30BaD of the paleoverse.. Shows the cultish nature of these diets, the recipe sections can be quite disturbing, you've been warned..

http://paleodiet.com/ -- Paleo diet nutrition, includes links to introductory articles/websites on paleo nutrition, naive vegos, etc.

http://www.beyondveg.com/ -- website of Tom Billings, failed former vegan and fruitarian, who now spends his time bashing (r)veg folk.

http://zeroinginonhealth.com/ -- "Zero carb" diet website. See here for more info.

Books (haven't gotten my hand on any of these yet, anyone who has could write an abstract):

Lierre Keith's The Vegetarian Myth

Nora Teresa Gedguadas' Primal Body-Primal Mind

Paleo nutritional theory:

From what I gather much of Paleo nutritional theory is based on 'new' research in human evolution, studies citing that there's no link between saturated fat consumption and cholesterol etc. I'm just beginning to investigate the manner, but it all smells a little fishy to me, pardon the pun.

Also apparently there is an 'old school' high protein paleo diet, and a paleo 2.0 if you will that is high fat but low protein (don't ask me how that's supposed to work!). It seems the Primal Body-Primal Mind book is at least in part a text on Paleo nutrition 2.0.

Paleo nutrition case study 1: Paleo diet theory 1.0?
- This was my response to a post on the raw natural hygiene site showing some astonishingly bizarre conceptions of human physiology in the paleo universe. It is still unclear to me whether this view was solely that of the poster or if it is shared by many in the paleoverse.

Counter evidence to the Paleo argument

Man the Hunted: Primate Predators and Human Evolution.
Robert W. Sussman, PhD
- debunks the "early humans as predator" myth.

Frugivorous Ancestry of Humans part 1
-- excerpt from an article c/o of 30BaD's Gosia claiming that human digestive physiology has not changed since our frugivorous days (hunter gathering didn't turn us into obligate carnivores lol)

Defense of Veganism and Compassion for Animals from a Religious Perspective--General/Master Thread

2010-01-11T23:11:54.000Z

For posting anything/everything relevant to religious traditions/perspectives in general in regards to defense of veganism and compassion for animals. This might be a good place for more general or "across the board" stuff, and also for religious/spiritual things that dont fit into a specific religious tradition, or that relate to all/many traditions (such as what prad has noted in other posts about there being a general moral standard in many religious traditions, a sort of commonground base-line morality) etc. For info pertaining specifically to one religion or another, it might be helpful to start a new thread such as "Defense of Veganism and Compassion for Animals from a Jewish Perspective" (or Hindu or Buddhist or Jain or Muslim or etc etc etc), that way it will make a quicker more clear-cut resource if someone is looking for specific info pertaining to that religious tradition. Maybe helpful to use this thread as the master thread and make sure the others are linked to here?

Philosophical Discussion and Resources on Issues Related to Veganism and/or Compassion for Animals/Animal Issues

2010-01-11T21:49:02.000Z

OK, title is a bit convoluted, but I wanted this doc/the thread to be able to encompass whatevers out there, even if its just resource/commentary and not directly a defense of veganism. Philosophical notions/frameworks are rarely focused on things such as veganism, but we often need to look to philosophical systems to see where the modern thought in the culture and/or modern ideas came/come from, and why "people" or the Catholic Church, or x or y or z group holds certain views about particular issues. So here is the space to post resources relevant to philosophical foundations--and to examine these philosophical foundations--that might be underlying the cultural views (or the Catholic Church's views/doctrine, or whatever) on these topics and on how the culture views animals and the current "status" given to animals in the world, etc.I dont have a lot of resources to list at the moment, but perhaps B could add what he mentioned in the theological post about platonism and neoplatonism and whatever else. Philosophy isnt so much my forte, but I think there is probably a whole thread to be woven starting back with Plato and Aristotle and etc and then coming up to the modern day, that can at least help us begin to see where modern assumptions are coming from. In my experience, its the philosophers and academians (is that a word...? academic people) that are often the hardest to reach in terms of trying to get them to change their points of view in regards to the status and place of animals and how they should be treated and in trying to get them to adopt a more compassionate lifestyle by foregoing meat and dairy etc. Even when I feel as though I AM appealing to reason, oftentimes they just refuse to see or refuse to concur. :( So I think this is a particularly important/critical area to develop.I'll just offer this one for now...and im not attesting to the validity of it or whether its good or bad...merely presenting it as a resource....I have had a mentor once tell me that he thinks it needs a lot of improvement...currently plowing my way through this one at the moment. Oh, and its out of print so if anyone is DYING to have a copy of this obscure (but probably important) and "not a light read" little book (UNLIKELY!!).... I'll have to scan it to you or something, lol. Or you can copy it from the library.Aquinas on the Nature and Treatment of Animals by Judith A. Barad

Inside Factory Farms - facts and video docs

2010-01-11T05:58:34.000Z

Here we can post links and data on the number on meat/fish/dairy/egg farm stats and documentary vids showing the inner workings of these real life house of horrors.

Theological Defense Of Veganism From A Catholic/Christian Perspective

2010-01-11T02:09:30.000Z

Ok, going to have to work on this one more later, but for now, I just want to put a few resources out there. There are actually a fair number of works (i.e. books) out there on the topics of Animals and Christianity, running the spectrum from recommendations towards veganism all the way down to suggesting we just “treat animals better,” and likewise running the spectrum from suggesting that we have a duty to animals and to compassion/mercy for animals to suggesting that we just “be good stewards.” Obviously, the latter opinions being inadequate. There are some really good works out there though. I want to draw attention to a few right now. Ill try to do a better synopsis of the books later.FIRST: this website: The Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics : http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/homeThis center was founded by Andrew Linzey who is probably one of the most dedicated people working on the issue of animals and Christianity. There are a bunch of people who have become associated with the center as “Fellows” as well. They are working in interdisciplinary areas to try to bring animal issues to the forefront.Linzey has a number of books out on animal topics. Good stuff. Good resource, and one of the best if you are looking for info on animals and Christianity, from a theological and/or biblical perspective. Linzey is an Anglican priest.-Animal Rites-Animal Theology-Why Animal Suffering Matters.-Christianity and the Rights of Animals.Others too.Also edited and cowrote several books.-NEW BOOK OUT: The School of Compassion: A Roman Catholic Theology of Animals. Deborah Jones. Cant wait to get this one, its on order.-website: Catholic Concern For Animals: www.all-creatures.orgAlso: Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully. Especially the intro, first few chapters and last chapter. The stuff in the middle is good too, but its separated out by industry and the chapters can feel a bit slow. I love this book because it is well-written, and/but also written on a level that the average person can understand, and also that the average meat eater could possibly have their eyes opened by. The author is basically targeting Christians, challenging them to look a little more closely at why they do what they do in how they treat other creatures, and how much suffering they cause just for those bits on their plate and how ridiculous it is that they are so defensive about those bits on their plate ..he says things like “maybe, in the grand scheme of things, the life of a pig or a cow or fowl of the air isn’t worth much. But if its the Grand Scheme we are going by, just what is a plate of bacon or veal worth? …I am betting that in the Book of Life “He had mercy on the creatures” is going to count for more than “He ate well.” (45)”Scully offers biblical grounding, but he also offers philosophical reasoning,--philosophical reasoning which I believe can be addressed even apart from that biblical grounding if necessary, which I think can be important depending on who you are trying to reach,-- and he doesn’t come across as self righteous or as a preacher—he just comes across as realistic and REASONABLE, at least in my opinion. So I think he’s someone that even conservative Catholics/ Christians might be willing to at least read—because he is pretty conservative himself in other ways. I think he appeals to reason and to reality.He unfortunately doesn’t go far enough as he doesn’t really condemn the use of dairy and eggs, but I think he makes a brilliant contribution nonetheless, I think he has the potential to reach a group of people that we really need to reach, and I think that if we can at least get people to drop the meat, then we later go on to show them the suffering behind the dairy and the eggs, its still an “in-road.” (and it also seems pretty clear by his ethos that he wouldn’t support the sort of current factory farming conditions that milk and eggs come from…though he also suggests a “humane farming act” that includes discussion of raising animals for food at the end of the book, a concession im not a fan of).Still, overall, a lot of good, useful stuff in it and some really thoughtful quotes.Very sensitively written as well. Scully has a great sense of compassion and sensitivity towards animals and their plight.OK…that’s all I got time for for now… not much “data,” mostly just resources… but it’s a start.

Feedback on something I wrote please! - a kind of public servic announcement

2010-01-10T05:15:40.000Z

Hi everyone!I have crafted a message that I wish to email personally (not bulk mail) to everyone I know who is clueless regarding AR. I know that you are all busy doing your good works so I dont ask this of you with expectations of quik return. I am pasting below my current draft. Would you read it objectively as if you were a hotdog pushing mom with 4 kids in Pittsburgh, PA?Any suggestions are fully welcomed. I don't want to be too harsh but I do want to be effective. And if I can make it near perfect I want to offer it for everyone's use to message at will. THANKS BROTHERS & SISTERS! LOVEHERE IT IS:I am on a mission. It is a mission most people want to ignore; blindly and in denial living as if they are not aware. I hate having to email you because of it. I can't wait until there is no cause for me to pass on a message of this sort.My mission is to ask you to actually look at the atrocities occurring against animals millions of times a day in order to feed the vanity and demands of civilized society. Most people do not search to find the reality of what goes on to produce meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, cashmere, wool, cosmetics, new medications, or any products tested on imprisoned tortured animals (like pet food, ever-evolving prescriptions, and chemicals tested on their skin (bunnies/cats/dogs - rubbing the chemicals into their shaved skin repeatedly for 2 weeks suffering chemical burns until they are killed). It is gross and unbearable to look at so people just don't. It is ignored, as you know right? Who wants to think that their entertainment is born of cruelty behind the scenes to those beloved elephants, horses, monkeys, lions, tigers, bears, pandas... well that list goes on and on for most animals in the circus and zoos. But most people that are (unknowingly?) causing the demand for what should be considered criminal animal abuse are good people, people who love animals and who are kind. Those of us who do know the truth are moved to be active to show all those good people that they have a choice to reject the lies and hatred that these large animal industry profiteers want us to just accept without question. That is what we have been doing now for decades - supporting the sadism for their profit and our egos. Or is it laziness; being too lazy to care? Then, of course, many are too busy to pay attention, but that doesn't make it a willing participation. Consider: “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Are you willing to keep up your demand for severe cruelty toward these innocent living, feeling, emotional beings? You have a chance to raise your lifestyle up to meet your own moral requirements. Less disease, pollution and violence are the effects of this enlightened choice. So, what? Will you leave all of this up to your children to sort out for themselves? Ignore this basic issue that infiltrates our daily lives in hundreds of ways? Depend on other people to make the world a safer, healthier more peaceful home for your babies? Most people would not agree that the atrocities and products are OK for themselves or for their families if they would watch a documentary like EARTHLINGS. Those that would still go on contributing to the demand for abuse of captive and trapped animals...well, who are they? Is it you? If that IS you please consider this: What if you just contribute less?For (Easy) Starters:1. Don't buy fur, fur trimmed fashion or fur trimmed knicknacks. Fur animals, who have nerve endings, emotions and fears like your pet kitty, doggy, or bunny are often skinned alive whilst hanging upside down from a noose tied around one ankle. Then they are thrown onto a pile of slowly dying skinned animals. Yup. Don't do it.2. **Choose cosmetics and household product companies that dont test on bunnies, cats, dogs or anyone else. Do you know what they do to them? You should know what services you are paying for. How about every new hairspray tested sprayed in their eyes to see how badly it burns? Yes, animals scream. They are screaming "STOP! IT HURTS". Are you listening? Does your pet food brand test on animals? Find out. Get your 14 year old to research it online. This task #2 is so easy, there are many choices on the shelves that don't require an animal to be tied down and left with bleeding sores without anesthesia (yah, not nice to think of, I know). Just please do better than you are right now.3. Eat less meat; if you believe that you need to consume animals of some sort every day then you are probably creating your self and family a future disease. Most of those animals are diseased with infections of unGodly sorts due to their living conditions. Ever wonder why meat is so cheap? Find out for yourself the benefits of consuming a diet of at least 80% plant nutrition. Try it for a month. Eat less meat, dairy, poultry and fish. It won't kill ya to try, in fact, you will lose weight and gain energy. Please do better.It's a start.I am begging you: Please watch EARTHLINGS for free at www.earthlings.com and pass it on to at least one person whom you care about.And if you think that my sending this email is in poor taste or offensive, then how do you rationalize that you are directly supporting these gross offenses? Please think that through with love. My intention is not to make you feel "bad", but I do hope you feel. I love you and I present this information in a service of COMPASSION FROM MY HEART.ps; Try to figure this out: when a dog is found to be abused in a suburb; beaten, starved and caged, the authorities come, remove the animal and jail the criminal. So why are other animals allowed to be beaten, starved and caged to be sold for profit? Please explain that to me.HAPPY NEW YOU!CREATE MORE PEACE IN 2010**COMPANIES THAT STILL TEST ON ANIMALS:* Alcon Labs* Allergan, Inc.* Arm & Hammer* ArmorAll* Arrid* Aziza* Bain de Soleil* Ban Roll-on* Banana Boat* Bausch & Lomb* Benckiser* BenGay* Block Drug Co. Inc.* Bounty* Boyle-Midway* Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.* Carpet Fresh* Carter-Wallace* Chesebrough-Ponds* Church & Dwight* Clarion* Clairol* Clear Choice* Clorox* Commerce Drug Co.* Consumer Value Stores* Coppertone* Coty* Cover Girl* Crest* Cutex* Dana Perfumes* Dawn* Del Laboratories* Desitin* Diversey* Dow Brands* Drackett Products Co.* Drano* EcoLab* Eli Lilly & Co.* El Sanofi Inc.* Elizabeth Arden* Erno Laszlo* Faberge* Fantastik* Fendi* Final Net* Finesse* Flame Glow* Giorgio* Givaudan-Roure* Glade* Glass Plus* Helene Curtis Industries* Huggies* ISO* Jhirmack* Johnson & Johnson* S.C. Johnson & Son* Johnson Products Co.* Jovan* Keri* Kimberly-Clark Corp* Kiwi Brands* Kleenex* Lady's Choice* Lancaster* Lava* Lever Brothers* Listerine* Lubriderm* Lysol* Max Factor* Mead* Mop & Glo* Nair* Naturelle* Neutrogena* Neutron Industries, Inc.* Olean* Oscar de la Renta* Pantene* Parfums International* Pearl Drops* Pennex* Pfizer, Inc.* Pine-Sol* Plax* Playtex Corporation* Pledge* Polident* Post-It* Prince Matchabelli* Proctor & Gamble Co.* Quintessence* Raid* Reckitt & Colman* Richardson-Vicks* Sally Beauty Supply* Sally Hansen* Sanofi* SC Johnson & Son* Schering-Plough* Scotch* Scott Paper Co.* Sensodyne* SmithKline Beecham* S.O.S.* Stanhome Inc.* Sterling Drug* Suave* Sun Star* TCB Naturals* Tegrin* 3M* Tide* Tilex* Unilever* Vaseline* Vidal Sassoon* Visine* Vivid* Warner-Lambert* Westwood Pharmaceuticals* White Shoulders* Whitehall Laboratories* Windex* Woolite