Yah, if they’re not eating animals due to religion, that’s not veganism. That’s just religion. Veganism is a moral stance, but it’s one springing from rational argument based on available evidence. Religious proscriptions are generally…not that. They’re not committed to harm reduction, they’re just happening to do one good thing by accident.
So many people are inconsistent it’s not even amusing.
That being said, the idea of extending our compassion to other sentient beings is not often received with immediate cheer by people who are otherwise against oppression in general, sadly even by those who value moral consistency.
From an anti-speciesist perspective, watching anti-racist, anti-sexist, queer positive folks hand wringing and bumbling while trying to explain why “no, wait, here’s why this opresssion is OK” is both sad and disheartening.
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.
Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.
Are they really left wing? Vegan teacher is one of the most racist ppl out there. I’ve met a bunch of vegan right wing religious nuts. (India)
Yah, if they’re not eating animals due to religion, that’s not veganism. That’s just religion. Veganism is a moral stance, but it’s one springing from rational argument based on available evidence. Religious proscriptions are generally…not that. They’re not committed to harm reduction, they’re just happening to do one good thing by accident.
You can be leftist and racist. Look at the soviets.
So many people are inconsistent it’s not even amusing.
That being said, the idea of extending our compassion to other sentient beings is not often received with immediate cheer by people who are otherwise against oppression in general, sadly even by those who value moral consistency.
From an anti-speciesist perspective, watching anti-racist, anti-sexist, queer positive folks hand wringing and bumbling while trying to explain why “no, wait, here’s why this opresssion is OK” is both sad and disheartening.
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.
Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.