We lose weeks like buttons, like pencils.

My name is Emily. I'm a vegan and aspiring ESL teacher living in Little Rock, Arkansas. This is where I share things that, well, I'd like to share.

January 12, 2014 3:15 pm
Carnism: Why Eating Animals Is a Social Justice Issue

itsasecrettoeverybody:

itsasecrettoeverybody:

image
”I don’t eat lamb…You feel guilty. It just feels kind of like…they are very gentle. Well, cows are [gentle, too, but] we eat them. I don’t know how to describe it….It seems like everybody eats cow. It’s affordable and there are so many of them but lambs are just different….Seems like it’s okay to eat a cow but it’s not okay to eat a lamb…the difference is weird.”
- Interview subject: 43-year-old meat eater

”I don’t [think of animals raised for meat as individuals]. I wouldn’t be able to do my job if I got that personal with them. When you say “individuals,” you mean as a unique person, as a unique thing with its own name and its own characteristics, its own little games it plays? Yeah? Yeah, I’d really rather not know that. I’m sure it has it, but I’d rather not know it.” - Interview subject: 31-year-old meat cutter

Consider the above statements. A meat cutter wouldn’t be able to carry on with his work if he thought about what he was doing. A meat eater is affectionate toward one species but eats another and has no idea why. Before being asked to reflect on their behaviors, neither of these individuals thought there was anything odd about the way they relate to the animals that become their food, and after such reflection their awareness quickly “wore off.” So the meat cutter kept the unpleasant reality of his job at bay and continued to process animals, while the meat eater suppressed his mental paradox and continued to eat them.

What is perhaps most extraordinary about the sentiments above is that to most of us—including those of us who are committed to critically examining our beliefs and behaviors, and the impact of our choices on others—they are not extraordinary. All of us who are born into a dominant, meat-eating culture have inherited this paradoxical mentality: We know the animals we eat are individuals, yet we’d rather not know it. We’d feel guilty eating certain animals, yet we take pleasure consuming others. We cringe when faced with images of animals suffering, yet we dine on their bodies multiple times a day. We love dogs and eat pigs and yet we don’t know why.

Widespread ambivalent, illogical attitudes toward a group of others are almost always a hallmark of an oppressive ideology. Oppressive ideologies require rational, humane people to participate in irrational, inhumane practices and to remain unaware of such contradictions. And they frame the choices of those who refuse to participate in the ideology as “personal preferences” rather than conscientious objections.

It is essential that those of us who espouse progressive values and thus support social justice initiatives recognize the paradoxical mentality of meat. Because although this mentality is pervasive, it is not inherent in our species—it is the product of an oppressive ideology so entrenched that it is invisible, its tenets appearing to be universal truths rather than ideologically driven assumptions. This ideology shapes and is shaped by the same type of mentality that enables other oppressions, and it is therefore essential to address if we hope to create a more just social order. Eating animals is not simply a matter of personal ethics; it is the inevitable end result of a deeply entrenched, oppressive ism. Eating animals is a social justice issue.

Carnism: The Ideology of Meat

Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions us to eat certain animals. Carnism is the opposite of veganism; we tend to think it is only vegans (and vegetarians) who bring their beliefs to the dinner table. But when eating animals is not a necessity for survival, as is the case in much of the world today, it is a choice—and choices always stem from beliefs. Most of us do not, for instance, eat pigs but not dogs because we don’t have a belief system when it comes to eating animals.

Yet most of us have no idea that when we eat animals we are in fact making a choice. When we are growing up, forming our identity and values, nobody asks us whether we want to eat animals, how we feel about eating animals, whether we believe in eating animals. We are never asked to reflect upon this daily practice that has such profound ethical dimensions and personal implications. Eating animals is just a given; it’s just the way things are. Because carnism operates outside of our awareness, it robs us of our ability to make our choices freely—because without awareness, there is no free choice.

Carnism, like other oppressive, or violent, ideologies whose tenets run counter to core human values, must use a set of social and psychological defense mechanisms that disconnect us, psychologically and emotionally, from the truth of our experience. In so doing, carnism enables us to support unnecessary violence toward others without the moral discomfort we would otherwise feel. In short, because we naturally feel empathy toward animals and don’t want them to suffer, and yet we nonetheless eat animals, carnism must provide us with a set of tools to override our conscience so that we support an oppressive system that we would likely otherwise oppose.

Denial: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

The primary defense of carnism is denial: if we deny there is a problem in the first place, then we don’t have to do anything about it. And denial is expressed through invisibility; carnism remains invisible by remaining unnamed so that eating animals is seen as a given rather than a choice, an impartial act rather than an ideological practice. Moreover, the victims of the system are kept out of sight and thus conveniently out of public consciousness. Animal victims are, for instance, routinely and legally forcibly impregnated and castrated, and their beaks, horns, and tails are cut off—all without any pain relief. They spend their entire lives confined in windowless sheds, in crates so small they can barely move, and it is not uncommon for them to have their throats slit while conscious or to be boiled alive. The dismembered bodies of slaughtered beings are everywhere we turn, and yet we virtually never see these animals alive.

Justification: Conservatism in the Guise of Progressivism

The secondary defense of carnism is justification; when invisibility inevitably falters, we must be provided with a good reason for continuing to eat other beings. Carnism teaches us to justify eating animals by teaching us to believe that the myths of meat are the facts of meat. There is a vast mythology surrounding meat, but all myths fall in one way or another under the Three Ns of Justification: eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary. And these same myths have been used to justify violent behaviors and beliefs throughout human history, from war to slavery to all forms of bigotry against humans (e.g., misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

The Three Ns are antithetical to progressive values. Progressives by definition are those who challenge entrenched social norms, question dominant definitions of human nature and history, and seek to transform an oppressive status quo. And historically, the Ns have been used to discredit progressive movements, framing the ideologies these movements promote as abnormal, unnatural, and unnecessary. (Consider, for instance, the reaction to the suffragists: it was widely believed that if women were to vote it would defy the natural order and destroy the nation.) Yet most well intentioned progressives have unwittingly embraced the Three Ns of carnism, either by ignoring the issue of farmed animal exploitation altogether or at best by supporting the increasingly popular “humane” and “sustainable” meat movements, movements which reflect the same conservative traditionalism that has always been used to justify ideologies which exploit a disempowered group of others.

Eating Meat is Normal: Violence in Moderation

What we call normal is simply the beliefs and behaviors of the dominant culture. It is the carnistic norm. And carnism as a social norm is so entrenched that it blinds us to the fact that “humane meat” is a contradiction in terms. Most of us would, for instance, never condone killing a perfectly healthy six-month-old golden retriever who “had a good life” simply because we like the way her thighs taste, and yet carnism prevents us from seeing the immorality of doing the exact same thing to cows, pigs, chickens, and other farmed animals. Any moral difference between animal species that carnistic culture teaches us to believe in is a pure rationalization.

Eating Meat is Natural: Violence as a Tradition

What we call natural is simply the dominant culture’s interpretation of history. It reflects not human history, but carnistic history; it references not our fruit-eating ancestors but their flesh-eating descendants. And more importantly, infanticide, murder, and rape are at least as longstanding as eating animals and are therefore arguably as natural—yet we don’t invoke the longevity of these practices as a justification for them. In the words of author Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, do we really want to use the behavior of the Neanderthals as the yardstick by which to measure our current moral choices?

The argument that eating meat is natural is a key premise of the sustainability movement. Many proponents of this movement claim that the reason we buy our meat from grocery stores rather than hunt and kill animals ourselves is because modern food production methods have removed us from the (natural) process of killing so that we have become overly sensitized to harming animals. Such an argument is reminiscent of the portrayal of slavery abolitionists as “sentimental.” The “sustainable meat” argument is founded on a traditionalist worldview which frames the progressive values of empathy, compassion, and reciprocity (doing unto others) as qualities to be transcended rather than cultivated.

“But They Eat ____ in ____!”: Cultural Carnism

Carnism is a global phenomenon. In meat-eating cultures around the world, people tend to feel comfortable eating only those species they learned to classify as edible; all the rest they perceive as inedible and often as disgusting (e.g., pigs in the Middle East) or even unethical (e.g., dogs and cats in the U.S., cattle in India) to consume. And all cultures tend to see their own classification of edible animals as rational and judge the classifications of other cultures as disgusting and/or offensive. So, while the type of species consumed changes from culture to culture, people’s experience eating animals remains remarkably consistent.

Most people assume that because eating animals is universal, it is not ideological. The wide variation of species consumed across cultures—rather than being seen as evidence of carnism—often leads to the assumption that eating animals is a morally relative (and thus morally neutral) practice. Yet, just as, for instance, the marrying off of 12-year-old girls in Sudan is no reason for us to consider sexual relations with children morally neutral, the eating of dogs in Korea is no reason for us to consider eating pigs (or other animals) morally neutral. If the mere existence of analogous practices in other cultures ethically justified our own behaviors, we would have no reason to question the ethics of even the most heinous of crimes. While we of course should not condemn the traditions of other cultures as immoral, we can, as thoughtful observers, examine our own culture’s attempts to justify eating certain animals against this broader cultural backdrop.

Eating Meat is Necessary: Violence is a Given

What we call necessary is simply what is necessary to maintain the dominant culture. Today, the evidence that a diet without animal products is nutritionally sound (and likely even healthier than a carnistic diet) is overwhelming. For those of us who are economically and geographically able to choose what we eat, eating meat is necessary only to sustain the carnistic status quo.

Framing eating animals as a biological necessity de-moralizes what is a fundamentally moral issue. In other words, if we believe that eating animals is unavoidable then we also believe that it is amoral, and we are alleviated of the responsibility of reflecting on the ethics of our choices.

Institutionalized Carnism: Systemic Oppression

The reason so many progressives have not rejected the Three Ns of carnism is because carnism is structural; it is built into the very structure of society and is therefore a form of institutionalized oppression. And when an ideology is institutionalized, it is also internalized. In other words, those of us who are progressive often don’t challenge the Three Ns because we don’t see them for what they are, as we have learned to look at the world through the lens of carnism.

Cognitive Distortions: Internalized Carnism

Carnism, like other violent ideologies, uses a set of cognitive defenses that distort our perceptions of those on the receiving end of our choices. These defenses act as psychological and emotional distancing mechanisms. For instance, carnism teaches us to see certain animals as objects, so that we refer to the turkey on our Thanksgiving platter as something rather than someone. Carnism also teaches us to see animals as abstractions, as lacking in any individuality or personality and instead simply as members of an abstract group about which we’ve made generalized assumptions: a pig is a pig and all pigs are the same. And as with other victims of violent ideologies, we give them numbers rather than names. And carnism teaches us to place animals in rigid categories in our minds so that we can harbor very different feelings and carry out very different behaviors toward different species: dogs and cats are family and chickens and cows are food.

From Absurdities to Atrocities: The Mentality of Oppression

When we look at the world through the lens of carnism, we fail to see the absurdities of the system. So we see, for instance, an advertisement of a pig holding a butcher knife and gleefully dancing over the fire pit in which she is to be cooked (“asking” to be killed and consumed) and we take no notice, rather than take offense. Or we are told by the corporate conglomerates who profit from the bodies of those whose eggs and milk we consume that the animals in their well concealed factories are free from harm, and we unquestioningly accept such a claim—despite the fact that it is illegal for civilians to obtain access to these buildings or even to photograph them from a distance.

As Voltaire aptly said, if we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities. Carnism is but one of the many atrocities, one of the many violent ideologies, that are an unfortunate part of the human legacy. And although the experience of each group of victims will always be somewhat unique, the ideologies themselves are structurally similar. The mentality that enables such violence is the same.

It is the mentality of domination and subjugation, of privilege and oppression. It is the mentality that causes us to turn someone into something, to reduce a life to a unit of production, to erase someone’s being. It is the might-makes-right mentality, which makes us feel entitled to wield complete control over the lives and deaths of those with less power—just because we can. And to feel justified in our actions, because they’re only…. savages, women, animals. It is the mentality of meat.

Injustice begets Injustice: Carnism as an Interlocking Ism

Many progressives appreciate Martin Luther King, Jr.’s declaration that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, because we appreciate that oppressions are interlocking, reinforcing one another. Progressive social change thus requires not simply liberating specific groups, but challenging the foundations of oppression itself. For if we fail to pick out the common threads that are woven through all violent ideologies, we will be doomed to create atrocities in new forms, to merely trade one form of oppression for another. To create a truly humane and just society, then, we must include carnism in our analysis.

Including carnism in progressive analyses requires a paradigm shift: we must recognize the systemic nature of eating animals. We must appreciate that, just as feminists who challenge patriarchy, for instance, are not simply “imposing their personal views” on society, those who challenge carnism are not simply “imposing their personal choices” on others. Eating animals cannot be reduced to simply a matter of personal ethics any more than can the refusal to allow people of color to enter one’s privately owned establishment.

Justice begets Justice: Toward an Inclusive Social Analysis

The flip side of MLK’s aforementioned quote is that justice anywhere is a threat to injustice everywhere. The oppressive-powers-that-be depend on a divide-and-conquer mentality that pits oppressed groups against one another, as though oppressions were rungs on a hierarchical ladder rather than spokes on a wheel. And while it is impossible for anyone to take on all causes, we can and should value any cause which seeks to create a more just and compassionate society. As ethicist Peter Singer muses, “I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that [people working for human welfare] are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the…exploitation of farm[ed] animals.”

Progressive social change is not merely about changing policies, but about changing hearts and minds. Genuine and lasting change requires a paradigm shift, a transformation of the mentality that propped up the old order. We must knock out the foundations of oppression and cultivate the values that form the foundation of justice, values such as compassion, integrity, and reciprocity. And to challenge injustice everywhere, we must practice justice everywhere: on streets, in the courtroom—and on our plates.

Melanie Joy, Ph.D., Ed.M. is the author of the acclaimed Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Dr. Joy is a Harvard-educated psychologist, personal/relationship coach, professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and celebrated speaker.

(via lettingoff-thehappiness)

May 6, 2013 10:18 pm
jotter-journal:

I never knew :(
UDDER FLAMING/SINGEINGOne of the torturous practices “dairy” cows are forced to endure for humans’ taste buds is udder and belly hair removal. Dairy farmers claim that hair removal is a vital process to improve udder cleanliness and reduce bacteria and that udder flaming/singeing is a “humane” way to accomplish this. Udder singeing is further described as a way to remove hair “quickly and painlessly, using a 6” cool flame, eliminating the need to clip udders manually.”* The cows in UDDER SINGE demonstration video appear to disagree with the claim that it is painless: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0LzliJzoXsWhile some dairy farmers flame the udders when they are full of milk, some flame them after the cows have been milked.*www.animart.com/uddersinge● The truth about the dairy industry (including organic): www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm● The truth about the goat dairy industry (including organic): http://tinyurl.com/copkql3● YOUR GUIDE to VEGANISM: www.tinyurl.com/d4spyjd

jotter-journal:

I never knew :(

UDDER FLAMING/SINGEING

One of the torturous practices “dairy” cows are forced to endure for humans’ taste buds is udder and belly hair removal. Dairy farmers claim that hair removal is a vital process to improve udder cleanliness and reduce bacteria and that udder flaming/singeing is a “humane” way to accomplish this. Udder singeing is further described as a way to remove hair “quickly and painlessly, using a 6” cool flame, eliminating the need to clip udders manually.”* The cows in UDDER SINGE demonstration video appear to disagree with the claim that it is painless: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0LzliJzoXs

While some dairy farmers flame the udders when they are full of milk, some flame them after the cows have been milked.

*www.animart.com/uddersinge

● The truth about the dairy industry (including organic): www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm
● The truth about the goat dairy industry (including organic): http://tinyurl.com/copkql3
● YOUR GUIDE to VEGANISM: 
www.tinyurl.com/d4spyjd

(via vegetathiest)

February 28, 2013 11:03 am January 11, 2013 12:41 pm December 4, 2012 1:26 am

How can anyone eat a pig?

I’m preparing for a mini-lesson (in Spanish) and I need to present this dish (for vocab building) that is usually made with pork or chicken, and I can’t decide how I should convey that. I want to show a cute little pig and chicken, but I hate the idea of having to refer to them as ingredients! But at the same time, I don’t want to use images that objectify these creatures or represent them merely as food (i.e. images of packaged meat or chicken and pork that you’d find in the super market).

This is why I hate teaching food! I feel like I can’t do it with a clean conscience. If I didn’t teach “meats” I’d be doing the students a disservice (which I simply cannot do), but when I do teach all the meat-related vocab as it was meant to be taught, then I feel like I’m betraying my own ethical code.  But then I think that the language classroom is no place for this kind of discussion anyway, and I’d only be taking advantage of the power I have as a teacher (and authority figure to some?) (which would also be unethical). But then I think that getting this conversation going does matter and it should be held more often, and people need to be aware that the mere idea of speciesism does exist. I just can’t find a way to reconcile the two sides, and feel “okay” about how I’ve taught it. At least it’s only one chapter, right? And I can let me students know that I’m vegan in the appropriate context (i.e. when I’m sharing about myself or when we are talking about our favorite foods in the target language), and that I’m open for discussion about anything that comes up in class, right?

Rant done. I’ll probably use my passive-aggressive cute animal images and make no reference to them being anything other than… ingredients. 

I hate teaching food. 

November 24, 2012 10:21 am

Hey Vegans, I need some help!

thevegancheese:

hamstergonewild:

fawnthirteen:

I made the switch from vegetarianism to veganism in October but I’m still having trouble getting dairy completely out of my diet. The first time i did it a year ago i had absolutely no problems.
Help me with tips to get rid of cravings? Good substitutes? Any other helpful tips or motivation? thanks <3

These are some alternatives for dairy. There are others like rice milk and hemp milk but I haven’t tried hemp milk yet. My favorites are almond milk and hazelnut milk or soy milk with vanilla, they taste great!

You can find rice, soy, hemp, almond, cashew, hazelnut, or oat milks at your local specialty/health food store or grocery. If you looking for vegan cheese, yogurt, or creamer, you can also buy them at specialty/ health stores like Whole Foods. You can also make your own vegan cheese or non-dairy milks

If you’re not near a Whole Foods or your other local health food store doesn’t sell many vegan dairy alternatives you could order some at veganessentials.com. If it’s ice cream your after, I love the coconut milk ice creams! It can be hard to give up old favorites when you first go vegan, you just have to remind yourself why you’re doing this; remind yourself where that cheese, milk, eggs, chocolate, ice cream, yogurt (or whatever) came from, and how good you’ll feel when the “craving” lifts and you didn’t give in!  Also, start hunting for vegan recipes and try out new ones often.  Once you start expanding your options, and you find some delicious favorites, you’ll start to just crave those. 

(via opinionatedcheese-deactivated20)

November 11, 2012 10:07 am
10 common objections to going #vegan

animalrightshumanwrongs:

watchxmexrise:

1. Objection: “Being vegan is fine for you, but I like meat.”

Response: People don’t usually go vegan because they dislike meat or cheese or any other animal product. They go vegan because they dislike animal cruelty. And the reality is, you can’t have one without the other. But going vegan doesn’t mean you have to give up the flavors and textures you’re used to. There are lots of amazing vegan alternatives out there, today. Check out Field Roast, Gardein,Daiya and So Delicious, for starters. Plus, many people who go vegan discover that their meal options actually become broader, not more limited, as they explore new foods and creative cuisines.

2. Objection: “What about plants? Don’t they suffer, too?”

Response: Unlike animals, plants aren’t sentient and they have no nervous systems. However, even if it were discovered that plants were somehow capable of suffering, it would still be preferable to eat a vegan diet since it takes far more plants to feed livestock than it does to feed people directly.

3. Objection: “Vegans kill animals, too. Field mice, snakes and other small animals can be killed when crops are harvested.”

Response: It’s impossible to live in this world without causing some degree of harm, that’s true. But shouldn’t we try to cause the least harm, rather than the most? While we don’t need to eat animals to survive, we do need to eat plants. And ethically-speaking, there’s a big difference between accidentally harming animals during the production of necessary food, and deliberately harming animals during the production of unnecessary food.

4. Objection: “People have always killed animals for food, that’s not going to change now.”

Just because we’ve always done something doesn’t make it right. People have always killed and raped other people, too. Does that mean we should allow such violence to continue unchecked? Or should we strive towards creating a more peaceful and just world?

5. Objection: “What about lions and tigers – are you saying they should be vegan, too?”

Response: Unlike lions and tigers (who are obligate carnivores), humans do not require animal products to survive. We are opportunistic omnivores and can survive quite well on a plant-based diet. A tiger may not have that choice, but we do. Those of us who live in the modern world and choose to eat animal products do so not out of necessity, but rather out of desire, habit and convenience.

6. Objection:“Aren’t vegans being elitist? Not everyone can afford fancy faux meat products.”

Response: You don’t need to eat fancy foods to be vegan. A vegan diet is based on combinations of grains, beans, vegetables, nuts, seeds and fruit. That said, vegan meals can be as elaborate or plain, expensive or inexpensive as you choose. Some packaged vegan foods may appear to cost more than non-vegan counterparts, however, it’s important to remember that animal products are kept at artificially low prices through unjust government subsidies (as this eye-opening chart demonstrates). Additionally, in terms of “elitism” – what could possibly be more elitist than believing that other beings should be enslaved and killed solely for your own pleasure?

7. Objection: “I can’t go vegan because I don’t like tofu – and I’m particularly bothered by the production of GMO soy, corn, and the destruction of the rainforests.”

Response: Who says you have to eat tofu? Plenty of vegans don’t. You can be a soy-free vegan. You can be a gluten-free vegan. You can even be a nut-free vegan. Besides, if you are truly concerned about GMO soy, corn and the destruction of rainforests, the best thing you can do is stop buying animal products, since those are the primary crops grown to feed livestock. By eating animal products, you are almost certainly consuming GMO soy and corn, you’re just getting it secondhand.

8. Objection:“I only buy humane meat.”

Response: Considering that more than 95% of all animal products produced in the U.S. come from factory farms, is that really possible? And what do labels like “humane” and “free-range” really mean? Sadly, the reality is a far cry from the idyllic images printed on the packages. But regardless of how animals are treated before they’re slaughtered, is it really ethical to use, manipulate and kill others –not out of need – but only out of habit, convenience and desire? Can killing for for those reasons ever really be considered “humane”?

9. Objection: “So animals should be given the same rights as humans? Should they have the right to vote, too?”

Response: Animals should have the right to be left alone and not be used as resources for human profit and pleasure. As Alice Walker remarked: “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.”

10. Objection: “Why worry about animals when there are people out there who need help?”

Response: Luckily, compassion isn’t a limited resource. Actually, it seems that the more we use it, the more we get! Since going vegan, I’ve starting caring moreabout human and environmental issues, not less. Because really, they’re allintertwined. Plus, it’s important to note that human and environmental problems are actually made worse by animal agriculture, which exacerbates world hungerand climate change, among other things.

While it may be natural to show concern for people first, that doesn’t mean we should feel free to abuse animals. A father may care more for his own child than for the child of a stranger, but does that give him the right to enslave and kill other people’s children? Likewise, just because we may instinctively care more about members of our own species doesn’t mean we have the right to enslave and kill members of other species.

Bless this post.

July 7, 2012 10:51 am

My cat Caillou is currently hospitalized and I’m broke as shit.

everycage:

quoilecanard:

This is Caillou. He’s currently being hospitalized for a blocked urinary tract. This is a life-threatening situation which requires him to be hospitalized for at least 48 hours while they flush out his bladder and tract, and already his vet bills are going to be over $1,300. I applied for Care Credit and was denied due to having no verifiable income. I currently need to pay rent on top of his vet bills but I had to spend all of my rent money just so they would take him in today. I’m going back tomorrow morning and they’re going to possibly need to keep him for longer, so I may have to pay even more (and I have currently only paid $700).

I feel like a total douche for asking for money from anyone, but I don’t know what else to do. If anyone can help in even the slightest bit, I would be beyond grateful. If you’d like to, you can donate through paypal here: Donate here. 

Thank you in advance to anyone who helps. If you can’t donate, even just reblogging this for a signal boost would be awesome.

Donation made!
Best of luck to the both of you. <3 

(via another-vegan-feminist)

February 10, 2012 12:50 pm

Slowly becoming that angry vegan lady

  • Carnist: I love animals and want them all to be treated with respect!
  • Vegan: Me too!
  • Carnist: But I'm not a veg*n, because animals also eat meat.
  • Vegan: So you only eat cats and other carnivores? Weird.
  • Carnist: ...
  • Vegan: Logic is just terrible isn't it?
February 1, 2012 9:09 pm

As a vegan

I can’t help but roll my eyes when a carnivore claims to be “pro-life.”

January 30, 2012 2:59 pm

veganskinnybitch:

Most brilliant response to the question asked of vegans/vegetarians: Where do you get your protein?

This woman is schooling all these mother fuckers. Go girl. 

(Source: marissalc, via vegpocalypsenow)

January 28, 2012 7:51 pm

The old one-person-can’t-change-the-world-so-why-bother argument:

maason:

“Vegan alternatives are not inherently better for animals or the planet. Pleather and faux fur—staples of vegan fashion—are petroleum-based products. The environmental devastation caused by petroleum—climate change, oil spills, toxic water, acid rain, genetic mutations—are well known and vast. While many vegans will tout the environmental values of hybrid cars, bicycling, reusable shopping bags and eliminating demand for factory farms, the analysis rarely curbs the demand for couture. Sure, cows were not slaughtered for our beloved shoes, coats and belts. However, plenty of other animals were destroyed when their habitats were ransacked, covered in oil, poisoned and abandoned.

If the world as we know it were to go vegan, the dietary shift would not save animals or preserve land. Many of the plant-based products that vegans rely on come from subsidiaries of the largest food corporations. General Mills, Kraft, Heinz and ConAgra—big hands in animal industries—are the purveyors of some of the most popular soymilk, tofu, prepared food and meat substitute brands.”

An interesting read about:

http://www.theprecarious.com/content/vegans-miss-larger-point

Too bad Zoe thought it would be a good idea to use one source for her article on veganism. Not that I wear a pleather suit with faux fur trim most days, but I highly doubt the about of patroleum used to make vegan friendly clothing come’s anywhere near the about of fossil fuels that are used by animal industries. The same can be said for Zoe’s misinformed conclusion that eating soy products is terrible given that so much deforestation takes place for the sake of growing soy beans (last time I checked, I ate way less than any cow). The gist of the article is that there is no way to do anything good for the world unless you join a commune somewhere, and that it is possible to do more harm than good as a vegan. I guess, on the internet, anything can be published by anyone. Oh you silly, silly, carnivores, when are you going to come to the light?

January 12, 2012 11:15 am December 23, 2011 11:57 am

Christmas talks with my vegetarian sister

  • Sister: (on the phone) I found a coat for Mom, but it's wool, but it's really cute, and all the coats that aren't wool are ugly.
  • Me: Well, I'm not going to tell you to buy wool. I mean, you shouldn't have asked the vegan.
  • Sister: Well, this isn't about you. Just pretend your Mom for two seconds.
  • Me: ... I don't know Nicki. Do you want me to ask her if she would buy wool?
  • Sister: Yes, just ask her if she would wear something that had wool in it.
  • Me: (to Mom in the other room) Hypothetically, would you buy something that was made of wool?
  • Mom: No. I try not to buy anything that has any animal product in it.
  • Sister: Ok, well I don't know what to do then, I can't find anything.
  • Mom: Even if something is cute, if it has wool I won't buy it.
  • Me: (to sister) You could try another store, or look online. I've seen nice stuff online.
  • (It's just irritating that she comes to me with questions like that. No, I don't think you should buy it, and honestly I don't think you should have asked me at all. You should have chosen on your own not to buy it. And it's not a matter of putting myself in someone else's shoes! So don't ask me to pretend that I'm not vegan, not even for two seconds.)
November 27, 2011 11:54 pm
miemilio:

Ha, telling them you’re vegan.. Fo-get about it!

miemilio:

Ha, telling them you’re vegan.. Fo-get about it!

(via thathealthyveggiekid)