re: the bat cartoon
Serwal had some “fucking stupid” points to make in response to the bat cartoon post. His/her comments are in italics and addressed in full and in chronological order, though they have been segmented in order to make our responses clearer.
This is fucking stupid. Not that being a vegetarian, vegan, or anything related is stupid. The reasoning and list used completely ignores the fact that we’re arbitrarily omnivores, no matter what anyone says. Inherent free choice, multi-purpose teeth, and the biggest contributor to our survival and evolution: the ability to adapt to new foods and the widest variety of food.
Where to start?
You say we’re “arbitrarily omnivores no matter what anyone says.” How about what anyone does? After all, I’m a vegan, not an omnivore. And do you know what “arbitrarily” means? If so, can you explain what it is supposed to add to your already problematic thought?
“Inherent free choice, multi-purpose teeth, and the biggest contributor to our survival and evolution: the ability to adapt to new foods and the widest variety of food.” Inherent free choice? This is a joke, a spoke on the wheel of human reflexive mythology. Free will is unequivocally impossible (beware, this will require heavy reading). Really, you’re just making shit up. Multi-purpose teeth? Herbivores can have multi-purpose teeth too — rabbits have incisors, for example. “The ability to adapt to new foods and the widest variety of food.” This is nothing more than a “might makes right” rationale, which is fallacious and not, I easily imagine, something you support when it comes to your own well-being.
Again, being Vegetarian, Vegan, or anything else related is NOT stupid, the picture and “supporting” list of “reasons” is fucking stupid. This example of reasoning is par to that of a Creationist, Intelligent Design, or both.
Hey, I’m glad you don’t think veganism is stupid. But we are not here resting the case for veganism upon anatomy or ancestry (i.e. the list of herbivorous anatomical features present in humanity). As one can see from our post, such arguments have been recognized as fallacious. Still, it is appropriate to answer those who would make factually incorrect arguments in favor of needlessly killing other animals by pointing out, in addition to the bad reasoning, that humans don’t actually have the apparatus of meat-eaters. Also, “the picture” is not an argument in favor of veganism. The item we posted reacted against the picture. And I don’t know where you’re going with the Creationism and Intelligent Design parallel.
Eat what you want, because of your own convictions. Do your research and then decide. Oh, and activists are stupid.
Ah, the moral indignation of moral relativists. Priceless. It’s also fun when moral relativists unknowingly but inevitably stake out universal moral positions, thus imploding their own system. “Eat what you want” just barely qualifies as a universal moral assertion, since it is based on nothing but your personal convenience, but nevertheless it is a moral position that is meant to apply to all. Speaking of which, I suppose you would be cool with a human coming by and chomping you to bits? After all, it would be a human doing the eating, eh? Of course, you wouldn’t be okay with that, and with good reason. The next step is to think beyond yourself and realize that no other creature, human or otherwise, deserves such a fate in the face of alternatives.
As for research, yes, I’m all for it. Decent research on relevant topics would reveal, for example, that the animals forced to endure hell for human taste buds suffer just as much as humans would. Since we obviously would have a problem with needlessly torturing and slaughtering other humans, we cannot deny other animals this same consideration. For another example, decent research would reveal that animal agriculture is by far the #1 source of global warming pollution. It would be nice if, as relativists implicitly posit, this suffering and these catastrophic environmental effects were no more real than our willingness to believe as much. But they are indeed belief-independent, and it truly puts one in the league of the anti-evolutionists to assert otherwise. There is truth, and there are moral propositions that respect the truth. “Eat what you want” is not one of them.
As for activists, I wonder how many people would be able to do research without activists, especially when it comes to animal welfare? Because of corporatist laws and a complete lack of corporate transparency, people must go undercover to see what actually goes on in factory farms and vivisection labs. But no, just because you shot from the hip and felt like saying so, activists are “stupid,” even though they make it possible for discerning people like you to click a button and watch a video and come to an obvious conclusion.
By the way, without activists, you wouldn’t have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, clean food to eat. Your African American neighbors would be slaves. You wouldn’t even have unlimited Internet access for a low monthly fee.
Edit - Also, what the fuck is this based off of? Just a generalization of animals? Or just the rough average? If so, this isn’t even worth reading. As it further disregards the individual differences between every animal, herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore alike.
The source I have for this information is: A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970). I don’t have a link for you, but maybe you can find it in a readable format somewhere online. To be clear, though, this is not meant to convey a “rough average.” And to reiterate, this is not the argument for veganism. It is simply a list of facts that is useful in rejecting an anatomy-based pro-meat-eating argument that is often made, which is both fallacious and factually incorrect.
.png)
