The “Conscious Case Against Veganism” is so wrong for so long! »
So, read it!
Abigail Wick, the author of the Conscious Case piece, appears intent on selling herself as a former vegan for pageviews. It’s sad. People who give a shit about eating issues need to stand up for the things that REALLY matter. Focusing their efforts on taking down a group of ethical eaters is just a poor use of time. If Wick gave a shit about the food system, she would be writing about gestation crates and working conditions in American slaughterhouses. I can think of about 10 million better uses for her time, but probably none of them would garner her terrible writing as many pageviews as the vegan hate.
What an idiot.
The “Why I Stopped Being a Vegetarian” article in The Guardian: Lady, you’re an IDIOT. »
I’m not going to even dignify this with a real response because goddamn, what a fucking idiot. I will simply copy and paste our rebuttal to the Mother Jones piece that we published earlier this month because it pretty much sums up how pathetic this woman is:
The Guardian published an interview with Jenna Woginrich, a former vegetarian who started raising and killing animals so she could justify eating them. Woginrich was vegetarian until, she says, she realized that:
One way to make sure the animals I ate lived a happy, respectable life was to raise them myself. I would learn to butcher a free-range chicken, raise a pig without antibiotics and rear lambs on green hillside pastures. I would come back to meat eating, and I would do it because of my love for animals.
She actually wrote that, that the way to love something is to kill it and eat it. She got waaaaaay into “sustainable” meat and thought, Oh, snap! I better start a farm where I raise and kill animals because that’s the way to teach everyone about sustainable dining—SLOW FOOD FOREVA! She’s obviously not the brightest bulb, but there are thousands of dumb-ass Slow Foodies who think the way to feed the world is through reducing meat consumption, and when it comes to their own diets there’s not a veg item in sight. You see, they mean “reducing the meat consumption for everyone else.” Lead by example? That’s asinine!
It’s like the problem with Michael Pollan’s elitism: these Slow Food dummies are so intent on showing the world that there’s “sustainable meat” (a whopping fewer-than-1 percent of it!) that they ignore the much larger, more important lesson: WE ALL NEED TO EAT LESS MEAT. Well, not us vegans, but you know, the rest of you fuckers. The constant message the world needs to hear from the Slow Food movement is EAT LESS MEAT. Then, if they want to get into where the meat that people “should” eat comes from, fine. Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. Global meat consumption has increased 500 percent since 1950 and people who care about sustainable dining should (one more time with feeling): EAT FEWER DEAD ANIMALS.
Jenna Woginrich, you ma’am, are a straight-up nincompoop. You’re doing the exact opposite of what you think you’re doing and you’re being so ridiculously vocal about it that it’s hurting the cause at an even larger scale. Just go hide your shameful face in a corner while you butcher the pigs who grew to trust you, and then sell their carcasses to extremely rich people so you can all feel better about eating dead animals. I hope all her friends read that and are running in the other direction. You know what they say: lay down with Jenna tonight and you’re gonna end up in her stir-fry tomorrow! Way to rock the system! I know Slow Food people are our supposedly vegan “allies,” but they could be less hypocritical about animal-eating issues.
And just because I love it so much and I need something to counteract the negativity of this piece, here is a picture of BABY OWL cuddling a STUFFED OWL TOY. What?! I can’t even directly look at this picture because my heart will explode IT IS TOO MUCH.
[photo via Ladyxo]
The necessity of animal testing: a rebuttal »
When I wrote about the terrible experiments scientists are conducting at the University of Texas, someone reblogged it with a lot to say. Here’s the final paragraph:
"REALLY want to protest animal testing? Walk away from the next antibiotic your doctor prescribes, turn down the next necessary surgery you are recommended, and hope you’re never hospitalized. I can assure you that each and every one of the medications and procedures that you come across has been tested on animals, using the most extreme conditions that could possibly be encountered in real practice."
Do you know why this is bullshit? Benefiting from things we learned in past experiments that we now consider ethically wrong does not mean we should support ethically wrong experiments or continue them in the future. There are all kinds of experiments that went on in the past that are now considered immoral—experiments on PEOPLE—and we’ve learned a lot from them. Think about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments; they were despicable and I hope we never, ever see anything like that again, but we benefitted from the knowledge we gained from them.
Even in psychology—the Milgram experiment? They teach that in every psych class and it’s pretty messed up. And don’t get me started on the Stanford prison experiment and its lasting effects on participants. That inspired new standards of ethics, and now would be considered officially unethical. We also learned a lot from that study, and it is frequently discussed in classrooms.
Peta is also trying to get the president of U.T. to investigate the experiments because they may be illegally abusive to animals. That’s the greater point to many of these cases Peta takes on: the research labs are performing animal experiments beyond what is allowed. Even if you are pro-animal testing, you still have to follow the rules. For example, after a Peta investigation, University of Utah was investigated by the USDA and cited for nine violations under the federal animal protection laws.
Saying “Medical research mostly deserves to be left alone” is cruelly short-sighted. Animal testing should be illegal, but in the meantime it must be closely monitored to make sure the testers are abiding by the law; clearly they can’t be relied upon to do so on their own. If a lab conducts illegal experiments, it should be shut down. Try to find some legal tests to get behind, if you are going to support animal testing.
We have knowledge from unethical—and now illegal—experiments, and that knowledge is valuable. We can’t pretend certain information doesn’t exist when it does. We also can’t condone these experiments and can’t continue them. If we know an antibiotic can cure an illness because that medicine was initially tested on non-consenting humans, do we pretend we don’t know the antibiotic is effective? No. Can we still condemn these experiments? Yes. Do we fight to make sure they never happen again? Yes. The same can be said if the non-consenting subjects were animals. Benefitting from knowledge derived from morally reprehensible experiments doesn’t mean we have to condone them and it doesn’t mean we should continue to practice them in the future.