Swift rebuttals of common non-vegan bullshit!

"You vegans are so extreme, telling us non-vegans how shit and immoral we are because of the harm our lifestyle causes and accusing us of being animal abusers for buying meat, dairy, eggs, honey, leather, wool, down etc...

You guys are so hypocritical, causing all manner of harm and suffering yourselves in many other ways; through the harvesting of crops, consuming cocoa and purchasing phones and computers (amongst other things)."

Never mind the fact that this argument is a version of the Tu Quoque Fallacy, the difference is vegans don't demand/require harm and suffering through their purchasing behaviour. In contrast, harm and suffering are necessary consequences of your purchasing behaviour if you are not vegan. Pain and misery are baked into animal agriculture - its entire business model being predicated on the exploitation of sentient creatures - and they couldn't survive as an industry without it.

Let me explain something to you real quick...

Firstly, most crops are fed to the animals you wish to eat, so vegans are still responsible for less crop-deaths than non-vegans (not to mention the plant-based products non-vegans also eat). Secondly, the harvesting of produce doesn’t necessitate the killing of animals. It is the responsibility of farmers to reduce the number of animals that die through their harvesting methods, as all vegans require is the crop, not the suffering and death of animals. It may cost farmers slightly, but it is still feasible for them to implement more ethical farming practices to reduce, as much as is practical and possible, the death of certain animals who get caught up in the harvesting process.

Vegans are opposed to the use, subjugation, commodification and exploitation of animals for food, fashion, labour, entertainment, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, profit etc. Veganism doesn’t exist to eliminate unintentional/accidental deaths, such as those that occur when we harvest crops or walk on grass or live and fucking breathe. Animal agriculture, conversely, DEPENDS ON the use, subjugation, commodification and exploitation of animals, which results in the DIRECT, INTENTIONAL and SEVERE torment and death of sentient beings who WE have brought into this world (mutated and practically disfigured through many decades of genetic modification, to the point where the animals we currently breed for food are unrecognisable from their natural ancestors, adding even further to their misery) for OUR exclusive benefit and to THEIR fatal detriment.

Unintentional and accidental deaths (including those resulting from steps taken to reduce/prevent damage sustained to crops) can, in no way, shape or form, be compared to the evils animal agriculture GOES OUT OF ITS WAY to administer.

The video below explains the above beautifully:

To reiterate: animal flesh, dairy, eggs, honey, leather, wool, down etc., necessitates the exploitation, rape, torture and/or murder of animals; there is simply no way around it. Whether due to the nature of the product itself or the commercial viability of acquiring it as swiftly and cost-effectively as possible, an animal HAD to suffer and/or die for any commodity that contains animal products (i.e., is not certified vegan).

Essentially, the ‘vegans kill animals too’ argument boils down to ‘because accidental death sometimes occurs, and there’s no way to prevent ALL death and suffering, we may as well kill whatever we want whenever we want’. I swear, some of the arguments y’all use seems to suggest you’d engage in some pretty horrific shit if it was legal to do so.

Being vegan also doesn’t mean that you will cause NO harm to anything, ever! Just by existing, we are going to cause some damage. All veganism advocates for is the personal minimisation of the maximum amount of harm we are demanding, inflicting or towards which we are contributing by virtue of our purchasing behaviour.

The risk of harm, to ourselves and others, is exponentially magnified whenever we get behind a wheel, but suggesting that most people never drive a car again is a practical impossibility; it being the most efficient means of travel in the twenty-first century. Sure, you are more likely to die in a car than via other means of travel, but that is not the purpose of these vehicles; car manufactures don't profit or benefit from the injury or death of the victims of car crashes.

We accept the potential for accidental death of humans in car crashes, just as we accept the potential for accidental death of animals in crop harvesting.

The main thing here is the intention of industries, what they rely on to make a profit and what we, as consumers, are really demanding when we hand over our money for certain goods and services. For example, when we buy a car, someone suffering and/or dying is not required, demanded or expected at any stage of the transaction. Yet, with meat, dairy, eggs, honey, leather, wool, down etc., IT IS!

Here’s another video to drive home this point:

Our dependence on technology also means that people in third-world countries might be exploited and suffer while manufacturing our phones, computers, or other technological devices. The same with cocoa (linked to claims of child labour violations). Hell, one could use this argument with a whole host of products.

The thing is, when you buy a phone or a chocolate bar, you don’t demand the exploitation of others. It is possible to get these things without abusing workers in the process. It may cost big corporations a chunk of their profits, but switching to more ethical labour practices would allow us to continue enjoying our iPhones and hot chocolates etc., without the guilt of our contribution to misery. In these cases, it is up to manufacturers, suppliers and governments to implement change in the industry, not the consumer to change what they buy (especially when there are no viable alternatives).

The problem is, we don’t precisely know which companies are engaging in these unethical practices (most of the time), how far the exploitation goes and how much people are suffering as a result. In this respect, individual companies need to be held responsible for their cost-cutting and unethical practices. They should be forced to take a knock on their profits while still delivering the products of their business. This may require subsidies, but that is not the consumer’s problem.

We do, however, know the suffering (the extent and scale of which is genuinely unimaginable) that goes into meat, dairy, eggs, honey, leather, wool, down etc. There is no avoiding it, and the survival of animal agriculture entirely depends on it. Not to mention that we can survive and thrive without these products as well as the fact that consumers have access to countless (often superior and sometimes even more affordable) vegan alternatives.

So, yes, human atrocities do occur; but as good, moral people living in a civilised society, we don’t actively or intentionally pay organisations to exploit vulnerable people in order to enjoy the ‘pleasurable’ outcomes of their suffering. If there is exploitation, it is hidden or minimised. If legitimate companies are engaging in unacceptable levels of exploitation, they need to be fined or incentivised to move over to more ethical practices.

However, there is NO way for animal agriculture to become more ethical in their exploitation, enslavement, rape, torture, and murder.

The suffering that we may 'demand' of other humans in producing certain goods (considering same is entirely unnecessary) pales into insignificance compared to the merciless hell that we put animals through in the production of non-vegan goods (considering same is absolutely unavoidable).

It is incomparable!

Suppose you think vegans cause anywhere near the same level of harm and suffering as non-vegans. In that case, the cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty you are engaging in is truly exceptional.

What animal agriculture is responsible for is a moral atrocity our species would not be able to comprehend, let alone survive, if we were to suffer the same fate.

What humans do to animals is completely fucking evil.

The genetic manipulation of cows, chickens and pigs (amongst other 'chosen' species) for nothing more than our taste-pleasure, that has resulted in chronic and painful illness, injury and deformity - something they would not be susceptible to but for our intervention - is completely fucking evil.

And then the sick fucking demented shit we go on to do to them from their birth until their death is completely fucking evil.

So don't you FUCKING DARE accuse vegans of causing ANYWHERE NEAR the same level of devastation to this planet - and those that live on it - as YOU ANIMAL-ABUSING pieces of shit!

Let’s be honest, you don’t actually give a single flying fuck about the kids exploited on cocoa farms or the mice killed in the harvesting of crops. If you cared about this stuff at all, you would still go vegan to reduce the harm for which you are responsible. It’s simply your defeatist attitude towards life (i.e., we can’t prevent every problem we, ourselves, cause, so why bother changing at all? You discipline your child, so I’ll just continue abusing my wife. I mean, you cause harm too) and an attempt to alleviate the guilt you feel.

What about the abuses taking place against the workers - the humans - in factory farms and the PTSD they suffer from having to work under such disgusting conditions? You don’t even care about the human suffering you are responsible for, yet claim vegans only give a fuck about the animals.

You say that we need to solve the human atrocities taking place around the world before we even think of the animals, but fail to realise that going vegan addresses the human problem too (e.g., we can resolve most of world hunger by going vegan - a post for another day).

In reality, we have to alter how we think about and treat non-human animals if we ever hope to solve human injustices.

Don’t pretend you give a shit about what vegans do, okay. It’s just another distraction; another bullshit excuse to continue being a cunt!

P.S., for those of you that accuse me of creating an 'us-versus-them' divide through the language I use in writing about veganism, you obviously either wish not to or simply fail to comprehend the severity of the injustice, the absolute catastrophe and utter indecency being inflicted on poor, innocent and defenceless creatures, which fucking disgrace can be placed squarely on the shoulders of non-vegans.

We are completely justified in our vitriol towards non-vegans who consciously choose to perpetuate the cruelty society has deemed acceptable. But it is not acceptable, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

We wouldn't allow racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, misogynists, murderers, rapists, child-molesters or sadistic and violent people off the hook for the harm they impose on others. Yet we make excuses for those who are taking advantage of the world's most horrific and longest-running HOLOCAUST (yes, that's fucking right... HOLOCAUST - look up the word before getting your knickers in a twist!) we have, and are likely to ever experience.

Calling non-vegans 'animal abusers' is letting them off lightly, to be perfectly honest. What their lifestyle calls for is absolutely disgusting and, by extension, so are they... and so was I and so were most vegans at some stage in their life (if they were ever non-vegan).

But, until you adopt a vegan lifestyle, you are an immoral piece of shit! That's just a fact. And just because you are human doesn't mean you don't deserve to go through the suffering you demand of the animals you regard as nothing more than a means to your selfish ends.

In fact, as a moral agent, nobody is more deserving of such a fate than you.