Are you a self-proclaimed “animal lover?” Do you rescue countless dogs and cats, volunteer at your local shelter, petition for saving endangered species and circulate online calls to action for animals? If so, what do you eat?
How many people do you know who are self-proclaimed animal lovers? They rescue every homeless animal within a 10 mile radius of their home, circulate petitions to save the dolphins, adopt unwanted dogs, and protect the endangered species. They post thousands of pictures of their hundreds of cats on their Facebook profile, and in between circulating leaflets of the destruction of wildlife habitats and bringing food donations to their local no-kill shelter, they sit down for a nice big chicken salad.
You may think that it is a clear conflict of interest to love animals and yet eat them. This seems to be a familiar disconnect within our society. The vast majority of animal lovers out there love to eat their animals.
These are the very individuals who will be at your throat if you leave your dog in your car when it’s hot outside, or if you don’t spay or neuter your cat. But invite them out to a barbecue that supports their local animal shelter, and they are all for it.
How logical, really, are these arbitrary species distinctions? People get very up in arms about the killing of dolphins and the eating of dogs in other countries, yet pigs are actually far more intelligent than any dog breed, and have even outperformed three-year-old human children. So, why is our outrage over people eating canines, when we continue to eat bovines and porcines?
Let’s take a look at some similar dichotomous beliefs that don’t have the cloak of social acceptability to hide behind:
Let’s say that I participate in a racial protest. I advocate for the equality of all races. I probably voice my support for diversity in politics, always vote for the minority, and have friends from various ethnic and racial backgrounds. And, I progressively allow my slaves to have an education by providing them with tutors.
How about a real example: NAMBLA. NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. They state that the love between a man and boy is natural, and has its roots far back in history. They point to a quote: “The great affection of an elder for a younger man, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect.”
NAMBLA states that “most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection. Such relationships not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy.” So, here is an organization that says it’s all about promoting the well-being, freedom, and rights of young boys. Its members “dedicate” their lives, identities, and sometimes even lose their freedom, for the “cause” of loving these boys.
Now, you may think it’s absurd of me to compare animal-eating animal-lovers, to grown men advocating for the open love of young boys. Certainly, animal lovers that still eat animals and animal byproducts aren’t even in the same league as socially active pedophiles, right? I’d have to agree with you, in some minor respects.
First, the men of NAMBLA aren’t saying that it’s okay to kill certain boys under certain circumstances. Whereas animal-consuming animal-lovers draw arbitrary distinctions between which animals are to be rescued, cared for, advocated for and loved, and which are to be tortured and killed for a meal.
In all fairness, both animal-eating animal-lovers and NAMBLA members believe that they are doing the best for those for whom they advocate. Only, animal-eating animal-lovers only take this belief as far as their decided species or circumstance-determined line:
- Dog or cat?: rescue them
- Dolphin or endangered species: protect them
- Cow, pig, or chicken?: torture, milk, kill, and eat them
- Potbelly pig?: rescue them.
- Pet chicken?: love them (while eating their sisters for dinner)
Maybe you’re saying, “look, I’m not for the torture of animals or any kind of cruelty—I only eat animals and animal products that had been humanely raised and slaughtered.” Check out some of these posts for more on the humane concept.
And to learn more about the concept of speciesism and the arbitrary distinctions we employ based on traditions and culture, check out the linked posts!
— Emily Moran Barwick
Subscribe via Telegram
super,enlightening–as,usual-NAmBLA,HYPOCRISY,IS,THAT,THEY,STILL,REFUSE,TO,CHANGE,THEIR,NAme,to,the,true,purpose,of,the,og-which,is,North,americ,man,boy,SEX,associ-why,do,they,fear,saying,what,they,are,defending-which,is,SEX,not,love-they,confuse,love,with,sex-also,WHY,do,we,still,use,the,word,”pedoPHILE”,if,the,victin,is,underage-but,”rape”,if,the,victim,is,legal,adult,or,a,woman-do,we,define,the,same,act,differenty–according,to,who,the,victim,is?-btw,the,dictionary,was,/is,written,by,religious,priests-so,that,is,why,they,still,dont,invent,the,work,”PEDORAPIST”,which,we,should,use,to,accurately,describe,that,this,is,sexual,assault-not,”love”-imagine,calling,a,rapist,a,”gynoPHILE”-PLEASE,ALL,OF,US,BOYCOTT,THE,WORD,”PEDOphilte”-N,USE,ONLY,”pedoRAPIST”,for,ALL,unasked,for,n,sex,contact,of,older,persons,on,underage-SIZE,does,mATTER-in,iroquois,culture-only,the,wonen,approached,the,partner,for,sex-it,was,considered,bullying,if,a,man,approached,a,wonan,bc,of,strength,difference
SEX-WORDS-SAY,PEDORAPIST-SAY,ANINAL,RAPIST-NOT,BESTIALITY
Louise I can tell you feel strongly, and I do too, and we mostly agree, I think. But putting aside the gender issues (and that many women are stronger than many men and some want to be able to approach men and also to be able to be approached by men, and putting aside that that 1 size fits all rules are not ideal) there is an NPR show This Ameircan Life I recently heard.
Relevant to sexual abuse of children, see ( https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/transcript ) Search for “Here’s the first of many distinctions, I wasn’t clear on when I first met Adam. And it’s an important one to make.” or just start at Segment 2. No, this is NOT about being soft on pedos, it’s an important distinction, the journalist is correct that it’s important for this reason: if you care about PROTECTING kids, it’s important that sick people who have not acted on it, get help (and “sick” is not a mild term; Hilter was “sick” too, so being “sick” does not mean you can’t be super evil) Politicians do not CARE about protecting kids.
If they had to pick between (1) 200 people go to jail and 100 kids get raped and politician looks tough and is re-elected versus (2) 100 people go to jail and 100 people who did not act (did not rape) get treated, and 1 kid gets raped (or none) then the politicians pick (1) every time. They don’t CARE about kids.
They don’t care about kids or protecting them, just to look tough. Not NPR has talked about PREVENTION indirectly and directly. I still agree with you that “phile” is a problem, since I do not like the word “love” either here. Maybe pedo-sexually-attracted or something, but did not act on it like the 18 year old they interview, versus, I agree, child moelster or rapist. But as the NPR (This American Life) segment points out, there are two different types, and to PROTECT kids, we need to find the first group, and treat them, in some cases, mandatory treatment and life long monitoring might make sense, maybe in most or all cases, but other than this NPR, we don’t talk about it. Same with terrorism, they want to be “tough” on terror, but to actually prevent terrorism, with sensible measures, they don’t care, they don’t prefer a few innocents in jail, and more terror, than prevention, if they look less “tough”. But I agree “phile” even for the first group (who did not act on their sickness) is not right to call it “love” But NPR is right to remember there are non-rapist (because they did not act on it) and the need to find, treat, etc, those folks like “Adam” in their segment, please listen to it, I was abused by several parties as a child, maybe you were too, this is a sensible point and useful interview/segment that NPR’s This American Life is making. Peace.
I agree with you of course, Emily, and I’m for ending carnism 100%… I am not even suggesting that the things you present are “too hard for their ears” to hear…but I do think that in order to “win” (ending carnism) we need to supplement with easier to hear argument, and then, we can followup when they are ready, with arguments like you make.
Here’s an example: I’m 100% against the post-9-11 “endless wars”. Next to me is someone who supports it. I try to understand their motivation, and try to address that (“I too agree we need to be safe, we agree on that. However here are the facts and how the wars are both immoral, and make us less safe:…”
Michael Albert once said, imagine someone said to you, “I want to recruit you to fight against a great evil, that harms all peole in the world, causes suffering, is horrible, etc..” and you got interested and then they got to…”to please join me in the battle against mortality” People would leave after shaking their heads – attaining immortality to live forever, is simply not possible, they think to themselves. Michael Albert was talking about corporate capitalism or actually capitalism in general…People agree a lot is messed up about our economy, but they think that (just like there is no alternative to living a finite life) that there is no viable alternative to capitalism, other than chaos or communism etc…
So we may waste our activist energy trying to tell them that the current system is messed up, when (not all but Many, even mainstream) people agree it’s messed up, but think “but hey, it’s the least evil system, or , nothing better is viable”
I do not think that’s the only thing going on with carnism, I think “refusing to look at unpleasatn truths” is part of it, like people not *wanting* to know what goes on in factories that “produce” meat…BUT, I think a part of it is analogous to Michael Albert’s story..They think people need to eat meat, for example.
Yes, for some or many people they deliberately ignore facts they don’t want to hear..but others, many others, really believe that (most of us vegans were raised believing it, in fact..) so it’s like “join me in the fight to end all meat eating” is like “join me in the struggle to end mortality” they are like, “that’s not realistic” so Albert would make the point that in addition (and maybe before) telling peopel how terrible this or that is about the present system, we should wake them up to how alternatives do exist. The present system is Not necessary. Not to feed the hungry (despite what Heifer international tells us) not to keep your bones strong, etc.
But some animal lovers, not knowing these facts, think, “well, eating meat is unavoidable, it’s necessary for bodies, so, I love animals, but, that part is not avoidable, so I help the other animals” I am NOT defending them…I am saying, understanding the psychology, including, yes, like you say, including denial, hypocrisy etc, but also including other factors – our challenge is to try to understand all the factors and address those in a way that maximizes how many people we win over.
Another example are athiest activists. I’m non-religious, but I have a lot of issues with a lot of “atheist activism” that is so focused on trying to beat the @#%#% out of religious people’s beliefs, that they don’t ask themselves, “what does organize religion provide for them?” and maybe a gentler approach, “here’s how to find meaning, morality, community, comfort, etc, without organized religion” might win over more converts than “here is logical flaw #24 in the bible, and here is outrageous pro-slavery hypocrisy in the bible #54” which might be cathartic to vent about, but might win over fewer converts away from evangelicals and others.
I’m sure some eyes will be opened by your video. I worry others ears will get defensive and shut down. I am not criticizing your tactics here, as “unacceptable” but tring to suggest a wide diversity of tactics, is useful, and also, pre-emptively trying to avoid “shut their ears” syndrome as we choose how to word things to “win” over our audiences, including when our audience that we’re trying to reach, are non-vegans. Peace :-)
REGARDING:
” Next to me is someone who supports it. I try to understand their motivation, and try to address that (“I too agree we need to be safe, we agree on that. However here are the facts and how the wars are both immoral, and make us less safe:…” ”
In other words, this might be more productive than me saying to my pro-Iraq war neighbor, “so, you realize you’re in favor of mass murder of innocent babies and children right?” as my opening argument…that would probably cause them to “shut down” even if I know it’s the truth and even though I feel strongly about it..so starting with “I agree we should take steps to keep America safe, but here’s where youre assumptions are wrong” and then only in the third phase, when they’re read, get to”, as you see, being pro-war really is pro killin babies” but only when the groundwork for it is there..otherwise it may only harden their pro-war stance, their “damn libs don’t know anything, don’t care about America’s safety” etc and I’ve done more harm than good to the cause of peace
Quote at the bottom totally highlights your point! Just 2 or 3 days after viewing this and posting, I was looking at a list of Michael Moore’s films and found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets_or_Meat:_The_Return_to_Flint
“Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint is a 1992 American short PBS documentary film, directed by Michael Moore, featuring the director returning to his hometown of Flint, Michigan to catch-up with some of the characters featured in his previous film Roger & Me (1989). The film’s title refers to Rhonda Britton, a Flint resident featured in both films, who sells rabbits as either pets or meat.[1]”
But wait, this led to finding article from 2009, “Flint community reflects on 20th anniversary of Michael Moore’s ‘Roger & Me'” whose author Kristin Longley | on mlive writes:
“For supporting evidence that not much has changed in Flint in the last 20 years, you could look no further than the “bunny lady” herself, Rhonda Britton.
“These days, she’s still living in the same Burton home where Moore’s crew filmed her as she famously sold rabbits for “pets or meat” for extra money. The documentary’s most stomach-churning moment came as Britton bludgeoned and skinned one of the animals on camera.
“While Britton stopped selling rabbits long ago, her attentions have since turned to scrap metal and rat terriers. She raises and sells the small dogs (don’t worry — only as pets) to bring in extra cash as she takes classes at Mott Community College.
She’s been unemployed since her factory job was shipped to Costa Rica, she said.”
The author knew to write “don’t worry – only as pets” for the dogs…Speaking of which, we need vegan outreach to the Permaculture and Peak Oil, Transition Town etc type movements, many of which are still supporting (and almost all of whom are at least tolerating) things like “raising rabbits” etc..if we can’t wake up brothers and sisters who share our environmental concern and are doing important work there then who can we wake?
Same question for vegetarians. I’ve long thought it’s a failure of AR/vegan outreach that the ratio of vegetarians to vegans is so high. Shouldn’t be be able to wake up at least, say, 50% of vegetarians to AR and thus to go vegan? If our activism can’t do that, maybe we should find out why, and might learn improvement that will help wake up the non-vegetarian too.
Awesome Awesome video – you tell it like it is!
thanks so much, Katherine! i try to speak the truth :)