Well, if you know Dave Warwak, you're likely to think the same, but why should he be the general idea of AR? Surely the majority of ARAs are nice, normal, sane people, right?
Well if they are, shut the psychos the fuck up. If YOU as an ARA want to prove that you're not all insane, SHUT THE OTHERS UP. Stand up and say "that's not me." Don't sit there and hide and only speak up when someone calls you psycho for believing animal rights. Besides making yourself look sane and normal, you keep the ones with more than a few screws loose from destroying your whole belief.
That aside, I'm still gonna think AR is nutso. ANY belief that refuses to accept that there are multiple viewpoints, ideas or ways of life is NOT something I'm going to believe. I'd rather accept that Natalie Portman was vegan, went to vegetarian, and will be going back to vegan when she has her kid. Good for her. I certainly won't go vegan, but it's nice to see someone who wants to and is willing to keep herself and her kid safe doing it.
But to an ARA? She's hypocritical, stupid, and an embarassment to vegans everywhere, regardless of whether or not all vegans feel that she is. A look inside PeTA forums tells me plenty about that (and if you don't want PeTA being the "ideal ARA", SHUT THEM THE FUCK UP).
Me, I'm evil, selfish, cynical, and abusing animals just because I breathe and refuse to go vegan. Well, I'm fucking proud of it. I raise my goats, eat meat, drink milk, eat eggs and cheese and anything else I fancy because I don't believe I should limit what I eat by what I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT.
If you're vegan because you believe it's healthier, great. Good for you. Don't throw bullshit claims and statistics in my face, and we'll be great friends. If you're vegan because you believe that killing an animal is wrong for whatever reason, go kill yourself if you can't leave me alone. You're killing thousands of animals a year by existing, so good for fucking you.
At any rate, I refuse to believe that killing animals is wrong (happens in nature all the time), or that us raising animals is wrong (again, nature. we're a part of it, get over it), or that we were designed to be obligate herbivores (herbivores don't have hydrochloric acid, or sharp teeth, or forward-facing eyes), or that everyone should be forced to believe and do the same thing. Go preach to your AR friends, and please, for the love of fuck, SHUT THE PSYCHOS UP.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Speciesism
Sexism. Racism. Now speciesism. It seems humans are the most biased animals on the face of this earth.
Except not.
Animal rights activists use this term to try and pretend that they alone are pure, unbiased and all-caring, when in fact they are the ones shunning their own species for another who, quite frankly, doesn't give a flying fuck.
Speciesism is defined as "Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals. " www.all-creatures.org/articles/act-gloss.html
Here's the big "oops"-ALL animals are speciesist. There isn't an animal on the face of the earth that won't put his own species above and before another. It doesn't happen that way, sorry. Hell, animals are even intolerant of members of their own species who are a different color (sound familiar?). Ever wonder why albinos don't often survive, even in a herd? It's because their loving, caring, unbiased herd kicked his white ass out because he stuck out.
So why aren't we "speciesist"? We are. It's hardwired into our brain that OUR species must survive, at the expense of others. Horses do it. Wolves do it. Deer do it. Hell, even fish do it. It's not speciesist to put your own species above others, it's natural. If anything, we are the most unspeciesist animals on the face of this earth. We have members of our own species who care about other species, often more than their own, and increasingly often at the expense of their own.
Except not.
Animal rights activists use this term to try and pretend that they alone are pure, unbiased and all-caring, when in fact they are the ones shunning their own species for another who, quite frankly, doesn't give a flying fuck.
Speciesism is defined as "Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals. " www.all-creatures.org/articles/act-gloss.html
Here's the big "oops"-ALL animals are speciesist. There isn't an animal on the face of the earth that won't put his own species above and before another. It doesn't happen that way, sorry. Hell, animals are even intolerant of members of their own species who are a different color (sound familiar?). Ever wonder why albinos don't often survive, even in a herd? It's because their loving, caring, unbiased herd kicked his white ass out because he stuck out.
So why aren't we "speciesist"? We are. It's hardwired into our brain that OUR species must survive, at the expense of others. Horses do it. Wolves do it. Deer do it. Hell, even fish do it. It's not speciesist to put your own species above others, it's natural. If anything, we are the most unspeciesist animals on the face of this earth. We have members of our own species who care about other species, often more than their own, and increasingly often at the expense of their own.
Love the dog cont.
Rather than re editing my last post, I'll simply continue it here.
We've already established that what animals we eat and what animals we deem as companions is strictly a cultural preference. But there's still more to it than that.
The animals we choose as companions are not always strictly companions. When a horse gets too old to plow the fields or carry a rider, he is often eaten. It's not because we didn't care about him, or appreciate what he did for us, it's because we were in a situation where that horse could provide one last useful thing, even if it was only feeding us for a winter. Better we eat than scrounge to find food for us and him.
But why don't we eat dogs and cats when they get old and are no longer "useful"? As I stated previously, these animals aren't often chosen for food when they are considered companion animals because they are more useful alive, they don't require as much care as a horse, and they're certainly easier to dispose of when they've died. A hole for a dog is much smaller than a hole for a horse.
But you still have to remember that dogs are indeed a food source, even if it is on the other side of the world. They're bred solely for what they can provide in the way of food, rather than companionship (ever wonder where the word chow came from?) Several breeds were actually created because of their use as meat dogs, such as the now-extinct Hawaiian Poi.
As for someone who "politely" mentioned the fact that all animals are equal-why, yes, they are. There isn't a single companion animal who isn't considered a delicacy somewhere else, and there isn't a single food animal who isn't considered a pet somewhere else. All animals are equal to us, whether they're carrying us or feeding us. There is no real bias towards animals like that, only what location and conditions deemed necessary for us to survive.
We've already established that what animals we eat and what animals we deem as companions is strictly a cultural preference. But there's still more to it than that.
The animals we choose as companions are not always strictly companions. When a horse gets too old to plow the fields or carry a rider, he is often eaten. It's not because we didn't care about him, or appreciate what he did for us, it's because we were in a situation where that horse could provide one last useful thing, even if it was only feeding us for a winter. Better we eat than scrounge to find food for us and him.
But why don't we eat dogs and cats when they get old and are no longer "useful"? As I stated previously, these animals aren't often chosen for food when they are considered companion animals because they are more useful alive, they don't require as much care as a horse, and they're certainly easier to dispose of when they've died. A hole for a dog is much smaller than a hole for a horse.
But you still have to remember that dogs are indeed a food source, even if it is on the other side of the world. They're bred solely for what they can provide in the way of food, rather than companionship (ever wonder where the word chow came from?) Several breeds were actually created because of their use as meat dogs, such as the now-extinct Hawaiian Poi.
As for someone who "politely" mentioned the fact that all animals are equal-why, yes, they are. There isn't a single companion animal who isn't considered a delicacy somewhere else, and there isn't a single food animal who isn't considered a pet somewhere else. All animals are equal to us, whether they're carrying us or feeding us. There is no real bias towards animals like that, only what location and conditions deemed necessary for us to survive.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Love the pig, eat the dog?
Many vegans claim that it's immoral to eat meat based on the fact that we are biased towards the animals we eat, and that all animals are the same, and it's no different if we eat a pig than if we eat a dog.
While they may be right in some aspects, they seem to have forgotten the rest of the world exists. Here in America, we eat cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, chicken, turkeys, geese, bison and other, more exotic meats, while we will not eat horses, dogs, cats, and other animals we deem to be pets. Is this normal? Yes. We eat what we do based on our culture and what worked for us. Pigs grew quickly, and produced a lot of meat, without offering much more. Dogs on the other hand, worked for us, and didn't provide much in the way of meat, not even with larger breeds, so we saw fit to keep dogs alive and pigs on our plate.
In other countries, such as India, animals we see as food aren't thought of as food animals, such as cattle. Jewish people won't eat pigs, and many Asian countries see horses and dogs as delicacies, rather than pets.
Animals people eat end up being eaten because they are worth more that way. A horse who can't work is worth more on someone's plate than sitting in the pasture requiring feed and other expenses, same as a pig who isn't capable of working is worth more as food.
ARAs and vegans may think there is no difference between the pig and the dog, but we here in America see quite differently, and so does the rest of the world. What we eat is based on our geographical location and our culture, not a biased, speciesist love affair with eating the pig, but loving the dog.
While they may be right in some aspects, they seem to have forgotten the rest of the world exists. Here in America, we eat cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, chicken, turkeys, geese, bison and other, more exotic meats, while we will not eat horses, dogs, cats, and other animals we deem to be pets. Is this normal? Yes. We eat what we do based on our culture and what worked for us. Pigs grew quickly, and produced a lot of meat, without offering much more. Dogs on the other hand, worked for us, and didn't provide much in the way of meat, not even with larger breeds, so we saw fit to keep dogs alive and pigs on our plate.
In other countries, such as India, animals we see as food aren't thought of as food animals, such as cattle. Jewish people won't eat pigs, and many Asian countries see horses and dogs as delicacies, rather than pets.
Animals people eat end up being eaten because they are worth more that way. A horse who can't work is worth more on someone's plate than sitting in the pasture requiring feed and other expenses, same as a pig who isn't capable of working is worth more as food.
ARAs and vegans may think there is no difference between the pig and the dog, but we here in America see quite differently, and so does the rest of the world. What we eat is based on our geographical location and our culture, not a biased, speciesist love affair with eating the pig, but loving the dog.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
PCRM takes a stab at dissection
http://www.dissectionalternatives.org/
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=77&uid=114271991917636#!/group.php?gid=114271991917636
While I'm all for students being able to have a choice in the matter of dissection, PCRM isn't just pushing for that. Even on the first page, you see unproven and unsourced opinions that they claim as fact, such as computer models are cheaper and just as accurate. They're even going so far as to say that animal dissection has a negative psychological impact on students, encouraging cruelty and a lack of respect for life, ignoring the fact that dissection is aimed towards studying and understanding life, and unless kids are dissecting live frogs or cats, no cruelty is involved or even imitated.
The way I see it, it's little more than the typical "we're PCRM, so we're right" crap, same as with most ARA groups.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=77&uid=114271991917636#!/group.php?gid=114271991917636
While I'm all for students being able to have a choice in the matter of dissection, PCRM isn't just pushing for that. Even on the first page, you see unproven and unsourced opinions that they claim as fact, such as computer models are cheaper and just as accurate. They're even going so far as to say that animal dissection has a negative psychological impact on students, encouraging cruelty and a lack of respect for life, ignoring the fact that dissection is aimed towards studying and understanding life, and unless kids are dissecting live frogs or cats, no cruelty is involved or even imitated.
The way I see it, it's little more than the typical "we're PCRM, so we're right" crap, same as with most ARA groups.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Not everyone believes the AR hype
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/9089
It's nice to finally read something that makes sense. I've never seen solid proof that we can't eat meat, that it causes cancer (PeTA and other AR extremists have gone so far as to say it causes AIDS, or at least that veganism cures/prevents AIDS), or that it's harmful to the environment (several of Oklahoma's HOG farms have won environmental awards for how they manage and clean up their surrounding environment-real harmful, that is), and now it looks like I'm not the only one. So enjoy your barbecues, cook-outs and meaty social events. The environment isn't going to die because you did, and neither are you.
It's nice to finally read something that makes sense. I've never seen solid proof that we can't eat meat, that it causes cancer (PeTA and other AR extremists have gone so far as to say it causes AIDS, or at least that veganism cures/prevents AIDS), or that it's harmful to the environment (several of Oklahoma's HOG farms have won environmental awards for how they manage and clean up their surrounding environment-real harmful, that is), and now it looks like I'm not the only one. So enjoy your barbecues, cook-outs and meaty social events. The environment isn't going to die because you did, and neither are you.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Opening post
I originally had a blog about pit bulls, but I decided that if I'm ever going to help their image, I had to tell the truth about those who'd rather see them extinct in the first place-animal rights activists.
On this blog, I'll be posting articles from humanewatch.org, peta-sucks.com and other news sources, including the groups themselves. I'll be covering the main groups, such as HSUS, PeTA and Sea Shepherd, as well as the smaller groups such as Farm Sanctuary, United Poultry Concerns and ASPCA (while the ASPCA is an 0n-the-fence group, too many of their policies and values point towards animal rights).
I'll also make this statement right here and now-I firmly believe in animal welfare. I believe that animals are living beings that are capable of being used by us, but by our using them, we have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of that animal. I do not believe that domestic animals should die out, as is the belief of animal rights activists. I do not believe that someone claiming to be an expert knows more than someone who's worked in the industry for 30+ years and who relies on that industry to put food on their plate. I believe that everyone should be free to make their own choice, and if that means they don't believe domestic animals should exist, or that animals shouldn't be eaten, then so be it and best wishes to you.
Right now, I'm only linking to various sites for reading material and info, tomorrow I should have some articles up.
http://humanewatch.org/
http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?action=forum
http://www.horses-and-horse-information.com/articles/0496anright.shtml
http://www.humanesociety.org/
http://www.peta.org/
On this blog, I'll be posting articles from humanewatch.org, peta-sucks.com and other news sources, including the groups themselves. I'll be covering the main groups, such as HSUS, PeTA and Sea Shepherd, as well as the smaller groups such as Farm Sanctuary, United Poultry Concerns and ASPCA (while the ASPCA is an 0n-the-fence group, too many of their policies and values point towards animal rights).
I'll also make this statement right here and now-I firmly believe in animal welfare. I believe that animals are living beings that are capable of being used by us, but by our using them, we have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of that animal. I do not believe that domestic animals should die out, as is the belief of animal rights activists. I do not believe that someone claiming to be an expert knows more than someone who's worked in the industry for 30+ years and who relies on that industry to put food on their plate. I believe that everyone should be free to make their own choice, and if that means they don't believe domestic animals should exist, or that animals shouldn't be eaten, then so be it and best wishes to you.
Right now, I'm only linking to various sites for reading material and info, tomorrow I should have some articles up.
http://humanewatch.org/
http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?action=forum
http://www.horses-and-horse-information.com/articles/0496anright.shtml
http://www.humanesociety.org/
http://www.peta.org/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)