We see a half eloquent person sort of write a letter to a judge they haven't met yet explaining why its justifiable to take up arms against people who are involved in the consumption of meat.
It failed the Goodwin's Law test very early in the piece by drawing comparisons between his position with the non connected Nazi reign of terror. I always think its pretty disgusting and low when this happens and its the lowest trick in the book to find something of decidedly low point in human history and connect it to something unconnected to try and bolster a failing argument. Too many people died in WW2, on both sides. When the war was over it was obvious there were no winners just millions of dead, millions of grieving and decades of rebuilding immense destruction. Why try & connect that with my mornings bacon & eggs on toast with rich strong coffee with milk?
But there's a few basic points of contention that cause this persons manifesto to implode without hitting deeper detail that causes it's increased spiral to Moron-town. So I will skip over and ignore the long drivel about "animal holocaust" etc and start nearly half way down with something slightly less moronic.
- "Even those who struggle with math must come to the realization that veganism cannot displace carnism when we are recruiting fewer vegans than carnists are having children."
Its at this point the fear should be beginning to elevate. As an early sign, even if you missed all the distasteful offensive comparisons with a genocidal regime that one sentence gives you a grave clue as to what is ahead, and its not good. Its already turning to numbers, not reason. - The term "Animal Rights" is used. Animal welfare I get, stop cruelty to animals, that being the deliberate and malicious act of senseless pain and suffering. There's no need for it, it can actually make food production more difficult, less productive and doesn't add to profit. There's no need to beat or mistreat an animal because an food animal will be more productive in a shorter time if its treated well, fed and watered well and has the lowest stress levels possible. Here's where the fork in the road begins, Animal Welfare is the path that wishes to eliminate all un-necessary suffering to the animal, whatever its final destination is. If its roaming the wild, in a house as a companion animal, someone's pony that gets ridden in sport/recreation activities or whether its destined for the dinner plate, Animal Welfare is the discipline that tries to reduce stress, pain, discomfort and keep the animal in the best condition whatever the use or destination. Animal Rights elevates the animal to equal with humans and sometimes above that. Whenever I see "Animal Rights" mentioned I know its about the evil empire or at least a group who wish it were an empire.
- The opposition of the concept of animals as property. OK, another sign of degraded logic but each to their own. The way to change that is via the legislature. Get the laws changed. There is no attempt to do that anywhere, no inclination to even try. It will fail by numbers and it will fail by logic. Hence I guess the next step is a call to arms and a call to cause violence to those of a differing view. Assuming they were actually successful at killing everyone who eats meat, well that's mass murder, genocide and the majority of the planet would need to be killed. Its a mind boggling thought bubble on every single level, from every single angle but the first angle is, kill those with a differing view. When did that ever become a way to do things?
- Animal Holocaust - Sorry, I can't even begin to answer that without being disgusted at the thought of comparisons with the genocide unleashed upon the Jews and many other minority groups. Nope, comparison invalid and offensive on every level.
- Is this wholesale slaughter of humans who eat meat to be extended to all carnivores or just human carnivores? Lion eats the antelope...kill the lion and all other lions who are vegan? The shark eats the salmon, kill all sharks oh and kill all the salmon because they eat squid and other small fish and keep killing down the food chain till you reach a vegan/herbivore victim and save them? Thing is, if you only kill humans and claim all the other "sentient beings" are just doing what nature does, well isn't that "Speciesism".
- Capitalism? Oh apparently this is the big problem that causes animal cruelty. Short of turning off his computer, giving away all his possessions and walking off to live in a cave to live of gathered foods amongst the vegetation, the author is relying upon capitalism. He wants to destroy the actual system he's a part of. Odd.
- Socialism ? Those societies murder half the number of animals? Says who, apparently the Armory author does apparently the socialists remove the profit factor from Agriculture. They will join the animal rights revolution. Hmmmm....ok...
Ahh, no, fail, epic, epic fail. - Murder ? There is not a criminal code nor legislation anywhere in the world that has criminal charges for "murder of animals". The term is moronic. Yep you can kill and animal both legally and unlawfully but there is no murder charge. Only thing charged is the language with emotion to overcome a lack of reason, logic, fact or shred of validity.
- Morality? Hinted at but odd killing humans who kill animals is ok. Not legally it isn't so all that's left is a moral defence. I know of know genuine worldview that is acceptable to mainstream society who'd be ok with the genocide of humans who are convicted of the charge of being involved in the production and/or consumption of food from animal sources. Which moral code allows this?
No comments:
Post a Comment