I hate doing animal rights activism It's not a passion


Bild: pixabay

People have commented that they admire my passion for animal rights activism. This is especially disheartening if they’re not going to stop eating animals. It feels that I am being made a spectacle of, instead of the animal liberation message being understood.

It’s not a passion. People have a passion for sports, or art, or music. This isn’t that. People enjoy doing those things. I don’t enjoy doing animal rights activism. It’s physically and emotionally stressful, and it makes me nervous. Every time I walk past a busy restaurant or see a horse-drawn carriage (I’m in Philadelphia where that shit still happens) I have an obligation to speak out against it. If I don’t, no one else will. Because I am one of the few people doing this, I have to project my voice to be worth that of hundreds.

I am not passionate about animal rights activism. Animals are in a constant state of tremendous suffering every waking second of existence, and human beings are actively causing and participating in it. This is an injustice. You can’t be “passionate” about correcting something that’s wrong. It’s an obligation. Anyone with a conscience would feel this way. If you saw someone slit the throat of an innocent animal before your eyes you would stop them. You wouldn’t want that done to you. We’re all just trying to make it.

Stop telling me that you admire my passion. I’m passionate about programming. I love playing video games. Trying to unfuck the world isn’t a passion, it’s something that every single one of us should be working towards. Eating animals is wrong. Instead of telling me you admire my passion, stop eating animals. Recognize that their lives have value, just like yours.

Telling me that you admire my passion is making this issue about me. This isn’t about me; it’s about the animals. Stop making this issue about me. Just stop eating animals. They don’t fucking want to die, and they don’t want you to pay someone to kill them either.

Alex Gleason

The article is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Eating Meat is Masculine – extensive

Meat consumption is masculine?!

To dissolve the sexism in this statement, we will replace the word “masculine” with the – in this context often meant – word “strong”.
Therefore eating meat is “strong”?

To which effect?
Physically strong, because I am able to stuff my body with fat and cholesterol and manage to sit on the sofa and watch TV anyway?
Or personally strong, because I am capable of presenting how absolutely indifferent I am to the suffocation of other beings and how much I value my own luxury instead?
Or mentally strong, because I have the ability to follow the mainstream in their meat eating habits and could not resist the craving for addictive drugs and flavour enhancers, even if it would be a matter of life and death?

Wherever these statements are (implicit or explicit) given, and in which way meat consumption ever implies strength, I cannot understand. Furthermore I would argue the other way round.

Mentally strong?
The ones who are aware of the suffering caused by meat consumption and nonetheless don’t change their habits, although they would – if they were really honest to themselves – admit that meat consumption is “bad”, seems pretty weak to my eyes. It speaks of a very weak will, which I can’t desist from transferring in other areas of life. Will such a weak person act otherwise in similar situations? Perhaps it is a helpful person, but at which point prevails their own comfort over the welfare of other people?

Personally strong?
Some people don’t care about animals. They care that little that they might accept the abuse of their own pets. The only possibly acceptable aspect in those people is that they are at least consequent in their actions. How does it define a person who doesn’t care about animals? Who doesn’t care about harm? Does he only not care about animals, which means he defines his respect for other beings as a result of their group membership? What if the group was not only defined by species but skin colour or sex? How can I know?
The second possibility would be, that the person doesn’t care about anyone, independent from a group or species. Do I really want a person like that in my social environment? Or even beneath my friends? Someone who would likely stab me in the back at every occasion?

Physically strong?
I guess I don’t have to say a lot about this. I’m not a nutritionist – but who is? Yet spoken against the common tendency, a vegetable diet would be “unhealthy”, it could never be that unhealthy that it would cause me to murder animals, unless you die right away when eating a plant (assumed it wouldn’t be the wrong one). My motivation to being a vegan is not health. For example, who would breed and eat humans, even if it would be healthy?
It should be common sense that eating as much meat as possible is not the best way to keep one fit. If you take a look, you might discover that physical strength is more likely to be caused by sport than by meat consumption. I know, the one or the other may be surprised, I request you to just try it.
Many vegans state that they feel a lot fitter after becoming vegan and are able to achieve greater athletic performances.

Now then what’s positive in eating meat?
If you try to judge it, it would cause a rather negative impression, as shown above.

And why do you eat animals?

To each his own – Thought experiment Moral courage in a brawl?

Just a little thought experiment
– sorry for the parentheses

I often get criticised by statements like “to each his own”. People accuse me (or the general offensive vegan position) of unjustified trying to persuade others to become vegan by making use of awareness campaigns or discussions. While some of these critics are bacon-lover, who are afraid to deal with their conscience, others are vegetarians or vegans themselves, who try to get accepted by their carnivore friends – which is perfectly comprehensible, if the vegan position is based on health or ecological reasons.

Except for the fact that I often find myself – probably like many others – in a defensive position, because I – who would think so – do not want to discuss my antipathy for exploiting animals around the clock, with every meal.
Naturally I sometimes feel like bursting out – not because of the terrible vegetable food I consume – but because often the topic is brought up to me rather than I start it (sorry for the perhaps unjustified generalisation).

To generalise and leave the vegan issue behind for one moment – the cliché taken up here is just as simple as negative: a person with moral pointing finger. What is it, that makes us unlike this picture so much? This question may be answered by psychologists and pedagogues. All I want to do is creating some analogies to illustrate the issue.

Here comes my thought experiment, addressed to all those “to each his own” representatives:

Person U is cuts down the physical condition of person V. Person W observes the whole situation. You are person W. What do you do?

a) I pretend I haven’t noticed and move on.
b) I exclaim: “Hi, you go dude! I don’t do stuff like this, but each to his own!” and give person U a high five.
c) I beg “Stop it. You are hurting someone. Please think about your actions and let it be!” and try to protect person V.

Keep in mind, there is no wrong or right. Beneath you’ll find the outcome.






Analysis of personality without engagement!

You chose a)
You are that kind of a person, who doesn’t like to interfere in other peoples actions, doesn’t speak up against injustice and likes to subordinate.

You chose b)
You are adaptable, try not to alienate someone and seldom take part in emotional discussions.

You chose c)
You force your opinion on others and limit their freedom.

Stop Proselytising! – Extensive

Everyone might have come across a statement, that he obviously has classified as “not right “ or even “wrong“. This could be a prominent example, like “1+1=3“. It’s the right of each maths teacher to mark this answer wrong. But why? Why wouldn’t my surroundings directly tell me if I was wrong by stating this? And how come that the phrase “It’s my opinion“ erases every criticism?The statement “It’s my opinion“ implicates, that it is not possible to call this claim right or wrong on an objective basis.
But what are those claims?
No one would contradict the declaration “I like red flowers best“, because it’s something that refers to a subjective opinion. If you change the sentence to “everyone likes red flowers best” it’s legitimate to criticise it. Thus each claim on universal validity has to be justified and can be criticised by outsiders.
The statement “1+1=2” is based on mathematical postulates, which are only accepted because of the long and detailed proof given. But in everyday life there is not enough time to prove every statement with a 42 pages long essay (above all, the wood in our forests is too precious for that).

As soon as a statement is related to the community and requires a specific action or to refrain from a specific action, it is called “morality”. If we continue thinking about it, we find ourselves in the ethical sphere.

The difference between personal opinions and moral demands often is underrated. It seems as if the necessity to stand up for ones ethics feels dubious to many people.
The word “proselytise” is used on a regular basis to downgrade tries of persuasion, although it’s primary a religious action.
But when is it appropriate to proselytise, or better say persuade someone?

Imagine living in a community without women’s rights. Some people would refuse this idea. What would be the right thing to do for those? Would it be right to keep their opinion to themselves and let every man himself decide whether or not to discriminate his wife? Those people, who are really confident with their opinion that this cultural act against women is absolutely unethical, would want other people to come to the same conclusion. And who would accuse them for it? Eventually it’s the only possible way to fight injustice.

That’s something one should always have in mind when finding themselves in a situation of “proselytising”, even if the other part seems to be extremely different than his own views.
We owe it to our history of mistakes and unrighteousness to at least think about every point of view, no matter how absurd it might sound. It won’t sound as absurd as the idea, black people couldn’t be held slaves some years ago.