scherbensalat

Anonymous asked:

What do you not like about Peter Singer? This is an honest question, as I don't know much about him other than the fact that he more or less founded the animal liberation movement.

ewwwnicorn answered:

oh girl, where do i start?

the fact that many people, including yourself, think of him as the authority figure when it comes to animal rights is more than just problematic. especially when combined with the incredibly speciesist shit he actually writes. hes an advocate of animal welfare, not animal rights. he perpetuates the free-range lies, the humane myth and the confusion of animal rights with animal welfare.

in short: contrary to popular belief, he is actually working against animal liberation and animal rights and his views do immense damage to the movement as a whole.

but first of all, he has never really argued for veganism

Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal Liberation I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the basis for vegetarianism or veganism. But if they go back and look at Animal Liberation they won’t find that argument.

(Satya-Mag.com-Interview, Oct. 2006)

he‘s vegetarian,

I’ve been a vegetarian since 1971. […] But when I’m traveling or going to other people’s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan.

(Mother-Jones-Interview, 03.03.2006)

speciesist,

You could say it’s wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious. Then you would have to say it’s just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me. I can’t accept that idea. It may be just as wrong, but millions of chickens are killed every day. I can’t think of that as a tragedy on the same scale as millions of humans being killed. What is different about humans? Humans are forward-looking beings, and they have hopes and desires for the future. That seems a plausible answer to the question of why it’s so tragic when humans die.

(Indystar.com-Interview, 08.03.2009)

he thinks and says that consistent vegans are fanatical,

[…] I would like them to think about what’s the most appropriate way to really reduce the suffering of animals. The book is suggesting that we might be more effective by being somewhat more tolerant of people who consume animal products, if they’re thoughtful about where they came from and try to ensure that the animals have had a decent life. And that we not be too fanatical about insisting on a purely vegan life.

(Satya-Mag.com-Interview, Oct. 2006)

free-range eggs are perfectly fine,

I won’t eat eggs if they’re not free-range, but if they’re free-range, I will.

(Satya-Mag.com-Interview, Oct. 2006)

killing only the happy nonhumans is allright,

It’s pretty difficult to be a conscientious omnivore and avoid all the ethical problems, but if you really were thorough-going in eating only animals that had had good lives, that could be a defensible ethical position.

(Guardian-Interview, 08.09.2006)

so of course eating them is allright,

If it is the infliction of suffering that we are concerned about, rather than killing, then I can also imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm.

(The-Vegan-Interview, Fall 2006)

and semi-veganism is allright too.

[T]here’s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives. I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they’re going out to a fancy restaurant, they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening. I don’t see anything really wrong with that.

(Mother Jones Interview

just dont take it all too seriously, you know? enjoy life, enjoy your human privilege. just make sure your egalitarianism doesnt hurt anyones feelings or egos.

you see, with peter singer anything goes (except for consistent veganism)… even raping nonhuman animals for human pleasure. peter is not the founder of the animal rights movement nor an advocate of it. never was, never will be. he may have coined the term “animal liberation” but if anything he meant “omnivore liberation”.

he is a fucking disgrace.

weirdbardthesojourner

This urn will turn you into a tree after you die

rainbow-road-to-happiness:

image

You can choose what kind of tree you want to become

image

Idk I just find this beautiful 

just imagine cemeteries looking like this

image

a forest of living, changing, beautiful trees. I think a tombstone represents finality in death while a tree represents the continuation of life. It’s like you are living on symbolically through something greater than yourself. Each tree in a forest is a soul.

fightingforanimals

fightingforanimals:

Five million years in the past. Modern horse is born. 

"We did it friends. We evolved. We are majestic and beautiful."

"So where shall we go? What shall we do, the whole world is ours!"

"No. We will wait, another three million nine hundred and ninety-six thousand years for man to ride us. For that is our only purpose.”

So they waited. Frozen in time. Waiting for someone to jump on their back so that they can function and live.

The End.

image

englishloki

englishloki:

revolucionvegana:

englishloki:

amit0des:

revolucionvegana:

I can’t understand people who go through the cow tag to “look at beautiful cows” and complain when they find vegan posts.

I wonder if it would work the same with other animals. Imagine someone who supports dog fighting comes to the dog tag and goes “I just want to look at beautiful dogs without reading about your stance against dog fighting”.

How can you love and admire someone and destroy them at the same time and then complain when others defend their rights.

Cows are beautiful. Dont eat them

people don’t complain at vegans defending their rights, they complain at vegans forcing their beliefs on them

So writing a post telling people to stop exploiting other animals (i.e. defending their rights) equals forcing one’s “beliefs” on them. Hmm I wonder if we can apply the same logic to other injustices.

Stop treating women like objects! - Uhh stop forcing your beliefs on me.
End transphobia! - Uhh stop forcing your beliefs on me.
Boycott Nestle for its terrible practices! - Uhh stop forcing your beliefs on me.

Do you think that’s a rational response? I don’t think so. Then why is it different when we’re talking about animal rights? Because you people don’t believe they deserve rights. You don’t believe they’re worth that much. You think of veganism as a belief and a lifestyle when it’s not. And if we have to repeat a thousand times that nonhuman animals are not here for our own benefit until you start to believe it yourselves, then so be it. 

your logic is flawed, as people dont go around telling others to treat women like objects, nore are people forced into being transphobic etc, whereas vegans (some) go about telling people NOT to live their life their own ways

What the fuck?

Let’s see if I can make myself clearer this time. We live in a world where women are treated like objects on a daily basis. Where trans people face hatred and violence every single day of their lives. We also live in a world where nonhuman animals are commodified and exploited simply because they weren’t born human.

Do you see a pattern? There are all kinds of oppressed groups. All kinds of discrimination. But luckily there are still decent people in this rotten world. And these people stand against oppression and discrimination. And the way they stand against it is by calling oppressors out. Don’t be a misogynistic piece of shit. Don’t be a transphobic piece of shit. Don’t be a speciesist piece of shit

The point of my previous comment is that when you hear someone say “don’t be a misogynistic/transphobic/etc. piece of shit”, you don’t accuse them of forcing their beliefs on you. You understand that being misogynistic and transphobic is a shitty thing to do. At least decent people understand that. 

But when you try to do the same with nonhuman animals, you’re suddenly worse than Satan. And the difference here is that you wouldn’t call human oppression a belief or a way of life, whereas you don’t have a problem with labeling nonhuman oppression as such. 

That is a shitty thing to do.

Everybody is allowed to live their lives the way they choose to, but when their choices involve trampling others’ rights and freedom, they deserve to be called out. Because that’s not a way of life. That’s pure and simple wrongdoing.

kady-xvx

Veganism is not about love and peace

st00pid-vegunz:

I’m so over vegans preaching compassion and respect for meat, dairy and egg eaters, and when faced with a “radical” approach, their response is “Veganism is about love/peace/tolerance/respect”

Here’s news - It isn’t. It may be for some, but those are not the underlying beliefs of veganism. Because this is not a peaceful or loving issue.

The tolerance, respect and peace is for the animals. The victims. Not for their oppressors. Oppressors do not deserve love, respect, peace and tolerance. They need to learn it and act on it before they have any right to it. As a vegan activist, I am a voice for the animals. Do you think the animals would be respectful and tolerant to the people who fund and support their abuse, murder, rape, mutilation and enslavement? Because I highly doubt it.

It is healthy and natural to be angry at injustice. What is happening to animals every second of every day is injustice in its purest form. To say that those contributing to it, supporting it and DOING it deserve respect and love (on behalf of the victims - this is very important) is offensive and wrong. To say that we should be peaceful and tolerant towards those participating in the most violent, oppressive acts committed on the face of this planet is a farce. 

Get angry, be radical, be militant and don’t take the passive, apologist route that so many do. What is happening is revolting, and if it were happening to humans, there would be no question of our anger. Oppressors are not the ones who need support. The victims are. Never apologize for treating them with enough dignity and respect that you refuse to coddle their oppressors.

socialjusticevegan

If you are female, expressing hatred for your own body is not just acceptable, it’s practically de rigeur. Failure to indulge in the requisite amount of self-flagellation – my thighs! my skin! my face! – isn’t just negligent, it’s unfeminine. Self-hatred is fundamental to how femininity is constructed, more fundamental than any of the more obvious external symbols (dress, make-up, shoes). What matters is not that you are beautiful, but you know your place in the beauty hierarchy (and since every woman ages, every woman’s place will eventually be somewhere at the bottom).

Young women are encouraged to bond over their dislike of excess body hair, surplus flesh and “uneven” skin. They are meant to do so in a jovial way, egged on by perky adverts informing them what “real women” do: worry about having underarms beautiful enough for a sleeveless top, celebrate curves with apologetic booty shakes and cackle ruefully over miserable Sex-and-the-City-style lunches of Ryvita and Dulcolax. It’s a gendered ritual; men get football and booze, women get control pants and detoxes. We are supposed, of course, to be grateful. Hey, you don’t have to be perfect! Just know you’re not perfect and act accordingly, with the appropriate levels of guilt and shame!

Fairy tale after fairy tale tells us that what matters is being beautiful “on the inside” but what does that really mean? It means submission, obedience and the suppression of one’s own desires. Don’t be haughty and proud. Clean the hearth. Kiss the frog. Love the beast. Suck it up when you’re replaced by a younger model. Sure, you may look fine, but you mustn’t feel fine. You mustn’t be vain. You mustn’t be angry. All fury and pain must be turned back on itself. That way you’ll be a real princess: silent, fragile and never threatening to challenge the status quo.

englishloki

englishloki:

amit0des:

revolucionvegana:

I can’t understand people who go through the cow tag to “look at beautiful cows” and complain when they find vegan posts.

I wonder if it would work the same with other animals. Imagine someone who supports dog fighting comes to the dog tag and goes “I just want to look at beautiful dogs without reading about your stance against dog fighting”.

How can you love and admire someone and destroy them at the same time and then complain when others defend their rights.

Cows are beautiful. Dont eat them

people don’t complain at vegans defending their rights, they complain at vegans forcing their beliefs on them

So writing a post telling people to stop exploiting other animals (i.e. defending their rights) equals forcing one’s “beliefs” on them. Hmm I wonder if we can apply the same logic to other injustices.

Stop treating women like objects! - Uhh stop forcing your beliefs on me.
End transphobia! - Uhh stop forcing your beliefs on me.
Boycott Nestle for its terrible practices! - Uhh stop forcing your beliefs on me.

Do you think that’s a rational response? I don’t think so. Then why is it different when we’re talking about animal rights? Because you people don’t believe they deserve rights. You don’t believe they’re worth that much. You think of veganism as a belief and a lifestyle when it’s not. And if we have to repeat a thousand times that nonhuman animals are not here for our own benefit until you start to believe it yourselves, then so be it.