Who does not eat animals because of intelligence?

I think that the truth is that no one does.  People eat certain animals out of custom.  Intelligence really seems to play no factor in the actual logic of the ethics that these people claim to be supporting. 

Anyway, I added an interesting new argument to the common arguments section.  I get a bit saucy, but it really is a dumb argument.  Anyway, go have a look and see what you think.  This particular argument is on eating or not eating certain animals based on intelligence as a meaningful criterion for making that decision.

Have a great day.

Vegan Food

Soon I will be adding a new page on vegan cooking and vegan food for beginners.  This page will provide plant based alternatives to some of the core components of a vegetarian diet, making it easier for vegetarians to become vegan.

I hope to share some of the health benefits of a diet that does not consist of animal products.  I cannot promise that I will cover everything from pumkin pie to peanut butter to sandwich cookies, but I will add some of the basic and most fundamental types of vegan food. 

The bottom line is that eating is important to all of us, and delicious food can serve as a bridge to those who understand the logic and understand the ethics, but are still unwilling to change.  Anyway, I just wanted to get word out that I will be talking about vegan cooking to help out the newbies in a matter of days.

Keep your eyes peeled for some basic recipes, like egg replacers and ways to replace dairy products with homemade milks.  I look forward to sharing.

Anthropomorphism

I don't what it is, but I woke this morning with an itch in my brain.  So, I wrote about anthropomorphism on the terms page.  It was an idea that attacked my brain while I awoke.

I have tried to indicate that solipsism and the retreat to anthropomorphism are not only bedfellows or cousins, they are incestuous erotic playmates.  They have parallel absurd and unliveable (non-pragmatic) logic.  Nobody actually believes this stuff (to the point they would live it); they just like to feel mentally tough and earnest for holding true to their dogmas.

The flea to anthropomorphism is bull shit ...

New Terms Defined: holocaust and CAFO

I recently editted the Terms page and added a few new terms:

Holocaust

and

CAFO

Tomorrow, I will write on using the word holocaust in this context (or at least I plan on it).

Conservative Vegans

 Earlier today I posted these thoughts on conservatives being vegan on another blog.  Here is everything that I wanted to say in reply to an interesting and intelligent post here:

"Hmmm, I commend you for recognizing the illogic in labelling all vegans as liberals, which seems a form of confusing cause and effect (a logical fallacy).  Vegans often get labelled as liberals, however, not just because there are a lot of vegan liberals, or stereotypes and such.  Veganism is a dramatic change from the norm.  The norm in North America, especially Canada and the US (I'm from Canada) is resoundingly one of factory farming and more fundamentally animal commodification and objectification.   That is not to mention that the latter is our tradition, our heritage.

It seems then that this is not a conservative position, in that it is not attempting to conserve anything; rather it is moving towards change (whether that is in the individual or a matter of governance).  And, hey anyone who thinks on this issue clearly may recognize that something has been lost, and we need to conserve that which has been lost.  That just seems like trying to fit everything into these strange political labels, however.  Even if we want to return to the way things were, as a conservative mandate, that would not necessitate or even suggest veganism.  We did not evolve vegan, nor has it ever been widely practical without the mechanisms of the modern world to become vegan.  Veganism involves social and even political change, not conservation.  Perhaps I am being too literal with the word "conservative", but it really doesn't mean anything to me as a political self-label on a person anyway; rather it seems more comprehensive to apply it, at most, to someone’s view on a particular issue.  

Furthermore, animal rights is about changing laws and government regulation, not keeping things the way they are or returning to the way things were.  As you’re aware, self-regulation is allowed in animal industries and that has been a resounding failure.  Let us be honest too, it is only getting worse.  I would not be surprised if someday, within my lifetime, 1 billion pigs are slaughtered in a year, if our planet can handle that anyway.

Yes, in America, “Conservative” is more than just a position to conserve; it is a label.  Perhaps in this post/issue there is some confusion between political self-labelling and the issue itself.  Is conservatism simply what conservatives (someone who calls themselves conservative) believe?  In that case it is entirely subjective and essentially meaningless.

Also, for the other commenters out there, let us all remember that veganism is not just about diet.  It is important to be careful with that.  Ambiguity is great for creating different layers of meaning in literature and poetry; the same advantages do not apply when we are attempting to describe ourselves, however.  We don't want people asking us if we wear leather, eat fish (or honey), or if we are going to participate in the good ol’ fashioned American past time of fishing (*hihyuck*-that’s a hillbilly chuckle) or teach it to our kids. 

In the end, I am not saying that I am liberal, and I disagree ... I really don't care about those political labels.  I guess in America (or Britain) that would make me liberal, or anarchist, or antichrist, or something like that, lmao!  I'm just trying to create some clarity on this.  The fact that some conservatives are vegan does not mean that veganism and animal rights are conservative (and liberal, neither, or both).  To say so is to employ faulty logic, which is beyond liberal or conservative.  The fact that there are “conservative” vegans does not mean that it is consistent or that it can be labelled as a conservative position, or labelled as bipartisan or nonpartisan.  It is important that you raise the issue of whether or not conservatives can be vegan; however, it seems that that brings us to the point where the political labels seem kind of silly.  If we take that political label seriously, which creates partisanship, veganism does not seem consistent with the labelling, of conservatism at least.

This is the apparent argument of why conservatives can be consistently vegan, reduced to a syllogism:

A (Brian) is B (conservative)

A (Brian) is C (Vegan)

Therefore, conservatives can be consistently vegan. 

Nothing has been said about the consistency of Brian’s being vegan.  It is the undistributed middle term in this argument (speaking logically here, not “argument” in the colloquial).  Nothing has been said about what actually matters.

Anyway, I respect you and what you are saying.  I just disagree.  I mean absolutely no offence whatsoever.  These are just ideas my friends."

When an Omnivore Makes Hasty Generalizations

I recently added to the common arguments section on my site.

There are tonnnnnns! of 'hasty generalizations' (the name of the fallacy) made about vegans, the most prevalent being that our food tastes awful (because someone had a sloppy, soggy piece of tofu one time) or that we are all unhealthy, because someone knows someone who knows someone who claims they know a pale non-energetic vegan, or they've talked to one of the ex-vegans who now know everything about nutrition and have become paleo or something like that.

The point is that one must collect ample data before making a generalization.  And, I am afraid that a sample of 2 or 5 or a dozen does not create an even slightly meaningful sample in this case, especially if there are not the restrictions and controls in place, that one might find in a scientific or in this case social scientific study.

Go check it out!

A Note on Using Statistics Logically

Statistics can be deceptively persuasive.  You see, when we understand a statistic and just about any bit of a social science for that matter, we feel like we have some authority to make decisions based on that understanding.  Hey that is perfectly natural.  When it comes to statistics, however, this can be dangerous. Alright so it is not necessarily physically dangerous all the time, although it may be.  Let me explain.

When we come to attempt to understand criminals and their behaviour many people will cite information from demographical studies. These studies have an explanatory power to tell us what to expect from people of a demographic; this should not be mistaken for having knowledge of any individual of that demographic.  By the nature of justice and by the working definition we have of each other (fully mentally aware, adult, human beings) agency is a necessity.  We take this agency away when statistics are used to explain an individual.  Basically, it dehumanizes that person; in other words, rather than providing understanding it detracts it, supplanting understanding with empathy and sympathy, two important forces, but not to be confused with understanding.

Statistics can help us understand groups, but often not individuals. 

How does this apply to veganism?  Well, that is a good question.