We've moved! Same writers, same, perhaps higher level of brilliance and logic, and the snarkiness, oh the snarkiness. The only difference is the domain name...and the layout. 

Visit us at That Vegan Girl for new posts, etc.

I just posted a new one about those individuals (you know who you are you wannabe, maybe actual, sickos) who think that joking about suffering is actually funny here. 

Go vegan!

Like other ethical positions, the worth of veganism isn't measured in comparison to the actions of another. It relies on the acceptance of certain premises, or more accurately, an acknowledgement that I already hold these principles and this is the conclusion.

Veganism has both intrinsic and extrinsic worth. Extrinsically, for example, a plant-based diet is superior to any other because of the limited environmental externalities associated with it. Veganism is non-violence manifested. In its association with suffering, what and how much we eat is intimately connected to the amount of unnecessary or needless harm experienced in this world. Definitionally, veganism is a conscious rejection of directly causing suffering. Associated with these extrinsic benefits of veganism is its intrinsic worth. There is certainly an existential benefit to A) being principled and B) following the logic of your own beliefs to their conclusions.

As the "holier than thou" challenge assumes a relational context, which veganism rejects, it isn't real. Sexism, for example, accepts certain premises that anti-sexism would challenge. If two individuals were cultivated in a society that believed sexist assumptions, and one of these people reasoned their way beyond this context, and, therefore, began to accept other non-sexist assumptions, this would parallel the situation where a vegan is confronted by a non-vegan (or vise-a-versa). The anti-sexist's articulation of his position is no more "holier than thou" than the vegan's challenge to speciesist assumptions. However, in both instances, the worth of "veganism" and "anti-sexism" isn't measured by this relationship between the two individuals with differing opinions. Both concepts have independent value of their own.

Stated simply, I do not think that I am "better than you" because your relationship to me doesn't factor into the equation. You don't matter, nor do I. We are simply having a dispute about ethical principles.

It is curious that the same individuals who would criticize animal rights advocates for being "holier than thou" would most certainly not label us as such if our position was "racism is wrong." The challenge I would level against the racist is logically parallel in many respects to my critique of speciesism. However, herein lies the difference. Those challenging me for being "holier than thou" are assuming a negative answer to the ethical question - "Are nonhuman animals things" - and, therefore, they assume that AR activist are suggesting that they are better than them in some way that doesn't make any sense - It's just a choice so what is the big deal, e.g. While, concerning the issue of racism, they are assuming a positive answer to the ethical question - "Are black humans things" - and, therefore, because they are in agreement with me, there seems to be something less offensive in this challenge - It's objective morality, e.g.

This isn't reasonable given that the context of the discourse is essentially the same. However, it's no longer a situation where we both agree that this or that ought to be a certain way; therefore, irrational feelings arise - a threat or a sense that you are "being judged" - as a means to respond to the challenge.

With this in mind, then, I might advance a counter-argument: When you advocate the consumption of animal flesh, are you acting "holier than thou"? If one challenge in this regard is valid, doesn't its counter-challenge have to be valid as well? 

While there certainly is an existential harm associated with someone who chooses to consume flesh - a moral offense -, I am not actually harmed by someone's non-veganism. It is not me who suffers when needlessly killed to satisfy the passing pleasure of human animals. The pain is not my pain. Perhaps because those who are being unethically exploited do not possess voices we understand (Or refuse to listen too?), the animal rights movement is a conduit for their rage. Accordingly, passions often run high, which implies a personal stake in the matter. However, this is not the case. I am not the oppressed.

Please forgive our passion because it doesn't suggest our own purity, just the necessity of the crisis. However, always remember that if it sounds judgmental open yourselves up to a logical consistency test and ask, "Should human rights advocates be accused of acting 'holier than thou'?"

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

I have often remarked that the claims made by hunters about doing the necessary "culling" as a means to avoid "overpopulation" sounded insincere given that unless the end is functional eradication, the "prey" being sought really should -- prudentially speaking -- be the weak and frail. Practically, however, the nonhuman animals pursued are the most virile and successful of the species. The sick and injured aren't murdered and mounted on our walls; it's the powerful and robust that make a "trophy." 

Elk still range across parts of North America, but every hunting season brings a greater challenge to find the sought-after bull with a towering spread of antlers. Africa and Asia still have elephants, but Roosevelt would have regarded most of them as freaks, because they don't have tusks. Researchers describe what's happening as none other than the selection process that Darwin made famous: the fittest of a species survive to reproduce and pass along their traits to succeeding generations, while the traits of the unfit gradually disappear. 

Selective hunting--picking out individuals with the best horns or antlers, or the largest piece of hide--works in reverse: the evolutionary loser is not the small and defenseless, but the biggest and best-equipped to win mates or fend off attackers. When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. 

"Survival of the fittest" is still the rule, but the "fit" begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren't the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There's nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

I think we can effectively dispense with this bogus defense then. It's clearly made from a defensive posture. Implied in this justification is a recognition that "killing for fun" doesn't suffice to justify the behavior, therefore, an instrumental purpose is employed to fill the ethical gap. However, as the above quoted post validates, my suspicion is correct about the nonsensical nature of the hunters' (il)logic. 

What an insight: Nonhuman animals aren't human animals. By definition, human animals are not nonhuman animals. Also, by definition, human animals aren't computers, aliens or coffee cups either. 

What a baseless claim, though: Human animals aren't animals. (I could say "by definition" but that would be redundant wouldn't it.) 

Here is the clever trick used by anti-animal rights individuals to disguise their massive error: they remove the "animal" from "human." For this to be valid, however, some premises are required -- a refutation of Darwinian evolution, for example.

In the end, then, the circular nature of this kind of reasoning goes to refute their own argument. "Animals aren't humans so different rules apply." I respond: "Actually, humans are animals, therefore, by your own logic, the same rules necessarily must apply."

An equation --

If there is one spot open in a household to be filled with an animal -- a "pet" --, there are two possible outcomes: that space can be filled with an animal who is currently in existence, or that spot can be filled with a non-existent animal that will be brought into existence for the specific end of filling that spot.

Given that animals are currently in existence, the latter option, if selected, by bringing another being into existence, will necessarily end in a homeless animal. If the former option is selected, this outcome will not come to pass given that the non-existent animal isn't brought into existence in the first place.