Calling Out Animal Rights Activists

It’s about time we had some serious discussion with those who would protect animals from cruelty while simultaneously being cruel fruits and vegetables. Are you an animal rights activist? Vegetarian? Vegan? We want to hear your justification for what we perceive to be blatant hypocrisy.

How can you claim to fight for the rights of animals while stomping on the rights of plants?

How can you claim a higher moral ground because you do not eat meat when you eat plants?

Why do animals matter more than plants?

Why is it more cruel to butcher a cow than to harvest and process corn?

The bottom line is that you cannot defend animals without also defending plants. There will always be controversy over animal cruelty for this very reason, though not for the reasons you would have us all believe. Plants are more helpless than animals, most being immobile. Plants are preyed upon in greater numbers and are treated far more brutally than any animal, having little or no means to defend themselves.

Even though you have no rational argument to make (any and all attempts will be summarily exposed), we invite you to make them. Open your bleeding hearts. Free your befuddled minds. Divulge the passionate rants of your fiery spirits. Do so, but beware – beware the greater cause for it may ensnare you and you may evolve into a higher form of cruelty fighter. The Vegetable Rights Militant Movement will eagerly accept your petition for membership.

Nov 01 2006 01:45 am | activism and animal rights and commentary | 25 Comments »

25 Responses to “Calling Out Animal Rights Activists”

  1. on 08 Dec 2006 at 12:13 pm kico

    I’m not an animal rights activist, or a vegan, or a vegetarian. I’m the ultimate hypocrit – I don’t eat mammals or birds, but will partake of fish, inverterbrates and members of the other kingdoms (haven’t made my mind up on reptiles and amphibians yet). I won’t bore you with my fuzzy justification for this, except that the ability to think fuzzily is one of man’s greatest advantages over, say, computers. I never attempt to persuade others of the correctness of my position on this.

    True vegetarians occassionally express their disapproval for my eating habits, which I respect because its laudable to promote (within limits) what you believe is right especially when this is unpopular. Bizarrely, I’m far more frequently berated as a hypocrit by omnivores! I have no respect for this. They clearly are not bothered by my complicity in the slaughter of fishes, but have yet to provide a single argument why I *should* eat meat. So what’s the problem? Would it be okay if I didn’t eat meat because I just didn’t like the taste?

    On this site as elsewhere, the key point seems to be hyprocrisy. Your view appears to be that it’s wrong to destroy one form of life will objecting to (or at least refusing to be complicit in) the destruction of another. This view could be internally consistent if you would have no scruples with farming, slaughtering, and eating humans. If you are a cannibal who thinks the same way about babies as veal, then you have a coherent (albeit somewhat controversial) position, and you need read no further.

    Otherwise, you draw a moral distinction between what we should and shouldn’t eat, like the rest of us. There are sound arguments why we should value human lives above those of other animals, just as there are sound arguments why we should value mammals over, say, shellfish, and shellfish over plants. Maybe even plants, fungi and protists are out, in which case we won’t last very long. The vegetarian has a lower threshold for what is morally unacceptable to eat than you do. By all means argue against this view, explain why you think it is morally acceptable to eat meat (and, in the hypothetical case where you really believe it, morally unacceptable to eat plants).

    But do not accuse them of being hypocrits.

  2. on 11 Dec 2006 at 2:13 pm Carnivore

    Claiming there are “sound arguments” for this or that does not make your argument unquestionably true. Produce these “sound arguments” if you want to rely on them to further your argument, otherwise what you say has no foundation making it ultimately invalid.

    We don’t care about your meat eating habits – we care about your brutality towards fruits and vegetables. STOP DOING IT!!!

  3. on 12 Dec 2006 at 8:08 am kico

    If you wanted to pretend that the VegetableCruelty idea was not an attempt at “humourously” exposing what you perceive to be the hypocrisy of vegetarianism/animal-rights-protesting, then the rest of the content of this website has somewhat let you down. If you want to maintain the facade of your last comment, low interest in the site will probably continue – I for one would not comment again. If you prefer to argue your point, that’s great.

    You’ve somewhat missed the point in your first paragraph. My comment was long enough without rehearsing all the arguments on both sides of the vegetarianism debate. I do not wish to claim that any position is “unquestionably true”, particularly since I do not have strong views on the matter. You clearly do, and therefore it would be interesting to hear a rational defence of your position.

    The argument I was making was that nearly all of us discriminate on moral grounds between what we would and would not eat, so it is absurd (hypocritical even) to single out vegetarians as hypocrits on this issue. This argument I have already made in detail. If you have a counter-argument, make it!

  4. on 13 Dec 2006 at 11:17 am Carnivore

    The point is you haven’t made any argument for me to counter. All you have said is “here are sound arguments why we should value mammals over, say, shellfish, and shellfish over plants” and “my comment was long enough without rehearsing all the arguments on both sides of the vegetarianism debate”.

    I disagree.

    This is called supposition error – and it does not compute. (There’s an excellent book with the same title, if you’re interested.) You presuppose that I accept these “sound arguments” when in fact I don’t. Therefore, how are we to build a discussion off premises that are not held in common and are not seen as either valid or sound?

    Have I missed the point, or have you?

  5. on 13 Dec 2006 at 2:24 pm kico

    You have. Regardless of merits of the arguments on all sides, nearly all of us discriminate on moral grounds between what we would and would not eat. (The exceptions are those who have no moral problems with eating anything, a test which even most cannibals would fail, and – hypothetically – those who, for moral reasons, do not eat any life.) It is hypocritical to accuse vegetarians of hypocrisy if you discriminate in such a way yourself. This is my central point. Address it!

    There has been no supposition error on my part. I fear that I may have made an error in believing you would engage in intellectual discussion with someone who disagreed with your position, rather than repeatedly evade such discussion. Even if your criticisms of my arguments were valid, it would be little excuse for not addressing my central point, made in my first two posts and again in the paragraph above.

    Nevertheless, I shall address your criticism. We appear to lack a common understanding of the meaning of “sound” in this context. You appear to think that a sound argument means that the position supported by that argument is “unquestionably true” or that all sides “accept” it. To me, a sound argument is merely one that cannot be trivially rejected and should be considered in reaching a conclusion. For reasons of time and space, I made the reasonable supposition that readers of my post would be aware of at least some such arguments, *not* that they would accept the moral position supported by the argument.

    Unfortunately, I fear this will go round in another circle unless I repeat one well known argument in favour of valuing (some) animals over plants. As you know, this is *one* of several arguments, and of course there are many counter-arguments. (The argument presupposes that humans are valued over plants, because I do not wish to waste further time making this argument. This should not be a problem unless you are a cannibal, or you REALLY would go to the lengths to avoid vegetable death – by say, not eating domesticated animals that are fed plants which are killed either by humans or those animals – that you would to avoid human death.) Many animals (in particular mammals) exhibit brain activity that is at least partly analagous to activity in human brains which are identified with many human emotions. These human emotions have, throughout history to the present day, been attributed as defining characteristics of humans which give us value. No similar line of evidence exists for plants.

    Please note, I am *not* saying that eating meat is therefore wrong, or even that animals lives are more valuable than vegatables. To disagree with such a position is *not* an excuse to avoid the point in my first paragraph. I *do* recognise there are counter-arguments, and whereas I would be interested to hear them from you, they cannot be used to support your claim of hypocrisy. I have merely given *one* argument a vegetarian may use to value animals over plants. This (or any one of several other arguments) is sufficient to explain why such a decision may, without hypocrisy, be made on moral grounds.

    A lot of time has obviously gone into this site. I would expect that it has been accompanied by a lot of thought. I posted because I feel strongly that reason should be exercised in important moral issues, not because I feel strongly on the specific subject. In this article you call for “rational argument”. This, it appears, is a rare opportunity for such argument. Take it while you can.

  6. on 08 Feb 2007 at 4:43 pm fangs

    hey, carnivore – you’ve gone awfully quiet since 13 december (almost 2 months).
    here is a plain point for you to consider.

    animals eat lots of plants. every meat-eater causes destruction of thousands of plants via the animals they eat. being vegan reduces to a minimum the number of plants that are killed to maintain the life of a person.

  7. on 08 Feb 2007 at 4:57 pm Carnivore

    That is true – animals do eat an enormous amount of plants. This is why it is moral to eat animals, to protect innocent plants from predatory animals who have the ability to move and easily capture, then devour the poor plants.

    Being vegan requires even MORE plants be killed, and in this case directly by humans. We, as humans and higher intelligences, have the moral responsibility to protect the innocent. Who is more innocent? Plants or animals? If you think it’s anything but plants then you are not a higher form of intelligence, that is all there is to it.

  8. on 03 Mar 2007 at 2:50 am fangs

    you are deliberately failing to see that your meat-eating diet causes the destruction of many times more plants than a vegan diet does. this is due to the number of plants needed to raise an animal, multiplied by the number of animals you consume. you do not ‘protect’ any plants because you are one of the many who create the demand for farmed animals.

    you obviously like eating meat and dislike eating fruit and veg and have decided to extrapolate a juvenile notion about cruelty to vegetables into this ‘campaign’. anyone who can do basic arithmetic on the numbers of plants used in the respective diets will not be taken in by this argument.

  9. on 03 Mar 2007 at 1:26 pm Carnivore

    On the contrary, you are deliberately failing to see that meat-eating is a form of justice exacted on the animals due to their cruelty towards plants. By reducing the total number of animals on the earth, more plants are kept free and safe from horrible torture and death at the mouths of vicious animals.

  10. on 05 Mar 2007 at 10:55 am Jen

    Fangs is completely right, they only fail to explain properly what they mean. Here is a simple explanation.

    We breed animals to eat. Those animals need to eat plants to grow into adult animals. The animals eat 10x as much plants as a vegetarian does.

    300 plants-1 animal-human
    20 plants-human

    The animal needs more vegetable matter to produce a tiny bit of meat compared to the 30 or so vegetarians that would feed.

    Therefore, because you need to feed the animal more plants that you would eat yourself, more plants need to die for you to eat and in the end is more cruel.

    You might say that the animals would eat that many anyway, however the animals wouldn’t be alive if we hadn’t bred them to eat in the first place.

  11. on 07 Mar 2007 at 10:39 pm soyman

    To Carnivore:

    I do not believe you when you say you are a carnivore. A carnivore eats meat and does not eat vegetables. You probably eat breaded chicken that you paid someone to fry in vegetable oil. The breading comes from a vegetable. Are you actually saying that you do not eat vegetables? If you eat fried chicken or pork chops then you are the hypocrite.

    The other thing I feel obligated to tell is that vegetables do not have brains or a central nervous system. Without nerves, it is impossible to feel pain, and with out a brain, it is impossible to process that pain.

    Those animal rights activists that you say expressed pleasure when hearing about the deer hunter dying are an embarrassment to the vegetarian and vegan community. They are also an embarrassment to the human race. Deer hunting is a necessity in our society. Since the deer no longer have any natural truly carnivorous predators, we must rely on the deer hunters to keep the deer from over populating and painfully dying from starvation or getting hit by a car. The sad fact is that many humans die every year when the deer population gets out of control. If we had no deer hunters, the DNR would have to shoot the deer to control their population. (In fact, they do in urban areas where hunting is not allowed.) You should not let those few extremists distort your vision of what it means to be vegetarian.

    I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years and I choose not to eat animals because this is the year 2007 and society has progressed to the point where killing is not necessary for survival. When are you going to swallow your ego and leave the stone age?

    Do you not feel any empathy for the pigs you eat? Do you eat dogs? If you eat pigs, why don’t you eat dogs and cats too? I dare you to adopt a pig, love it, and care for it. Then, after the pig loves you and has become attached to you, I dare you to look at the pig in the eyes as you start trying to tear apart it’s flesh with your canines. I will bet that you will find out that your canines are not actually very good for tearing flesh. I am also willing to bet that as the pig squeals in agony, you will feel guilty. Don’t worry, the guilty feeling is just empathy and it is part of being human.

    At the same time, I will adopt a carrot. I will try to love it, but it will not love me back. Then I will crunch into it with my teeth. It will not feel pain or cry out because it doesn’t have a central nervous system or even a mouth or vocal cords for that matter. I will not feel guilty about it at all.

    I am serious about the pig. I will send you a check to help you buy the pig. I want to see pictures of you raising it and teaching it tricks. You must also post a video on your web site of you eating your pig alive with your canines. This is to show me and the rest of your readers that you actually do feel no remorse whatsoever.

    I am also serious about the carrot. Please send me check to buy the carrot seed. I will take good care of it and then I take video of me eating it for you to also post on your web site. You can even put dramatic music behind it.

    If you don’t take me up on my dare, then I will assume that you want to keep paying someone else to do your dirty work for you. Out of sight – out of mind right?

    I hope this either converts you or causes your blood pressure to rise as much as you have raised mine.

  12. on 08 Mar 2007 at 3:48 pm fangs

    are you unaware that the animals you and so many others eat are reared on farms? those that you eat are immediately replaced with others, all gobbling away like mad on plant foods, before being eaten and replaced in their turn etc etc. you do not reduce the total number of animals on the planet. this would be achieved if animal farming were reduced or stopped.

  13. on 21 Mar 2007 at 10:34 pm kat

    This whole thing is just silly. How can anyone on meat only anyway? And there is no proof plants are capable of conciouness, even at a metaphysical part. Keep in mind that scientificically life begins at conception, but spirtually dosen’t, so similarly not everything “alive” is essentially concious.

    And saying that “is an animal’s life no more important than a plants?” can also justify crimes against humans. Because you say that humans are animals too, so that means we can do justice to plants by boiling, peeling, skinning, chopping, dicing, canning, stir frying, roasting, basting, marinating, and smoking humans.

    Plants have ways of being cultivated without dying too, fruits have it so that animals will eat them and spread their seeds out of thier feces. You can rip out leaves and stems from plants and new ones will simply grow back. Elephants have been known to rip trees from the ground but still leave the roots which allows the trees to grow back. If you yanked the ovaries or lungs from an animal it would die. The only exception of course is roots, but still this whole thing is just a stupid joke to justify factory farming to animal rights activists.

  14. on 09 Apr 2007 at 11:10 pm Plantman

    Kat said:
    “And saying that “is an animal’s life no more important than a plants?” can also justify crimes against humans.”

    Great point Kat. Since it is acceptable to kill animals because they kill plants, then it must also be acceptable to kill humans for exactly the same reasons.

    I concede that as a vegetarian, there is no argument that justifies my eating plants. I am willfully committing murder against plants, and it’s not a reality that I’m happy about. But I’m even less happy about the prospect of death by starvation!

    For those disagree with the animal rights activist and deny that there are animal rights, which is philosophically justified, then on the same grounds we must also deny that there are human rights since both claims are ultimately unjustifiable. But if there are no human or animal rights, then we are not justified in assigning any rights to plant life either. And if there are no plant rights, then one cannot pretend to be defending the rights of plants by eating animals. Nor could it be argued that we should defend animals from humans or humans from humans.

    This means it’s now open season on all humans, plants, and animals. What a can of worms!

  15. on 26 Jul 2007 at 12:10 pm Vegetation Liberation

    Fang and Jens arguement that eating plants directly would in fact conserve more plants, falls flat on its face.

    Anyone who understands the concept of feed conversion knows, a beef cow for instance, can convert pound for pound, vegatable matter into human digestable meat, far more efficiently than humans themselves can. A human would would have to eat many times more vegetation to gain one pound of body wieght, than a cow would have to to gain the same pound.

  16. on 26 Jul 2007 at 12:18 pm Vegetation Liberation

    The answer to co-exist with our plant friends while punishing cruel herbivours is simple.

    Hay

    It doesn’t have to be gathered, and fed to cattle or sheep, until it has completed it’s life cycle and is already dead.
    The process of feeding this hay to cattle is beautifully reminicent of the Zoarastarian custom of allowing the vultures to carry away the spirits and flesh of the dead.
    The beef cattle can then be slaughtered cruelly and devoured by sympathetic canivores.

    A beautiful cycle of life where plant killers would be put in their proper place, and plants and carnivores can peacufully and serenely co-exist on our wonderful planet.

  17. on 02 Aug 2007 at 6:21 pm Stevo

    FFS… can’t you all just get lifes. lol get laid or something. .. btw there has been studies shown that plants react to bad adverse causing stimula.. the argument against that it doesn’t make any sounds or feelings to contribute to the pain coz they don’t know its gonna happen etc etc.. whatever.. is it therefore ok to kill deaf mute people? and eat them.. if your a canibal and believe that eating people with iq’s lower than yours is ok i suppose its just the same as thinking its ok aswell to eat animals coz there dumber lol.. both sides.. i think there will always be conflict.. and ultimately.. could PETA people STOP with the Bombing and setting things on fire.. don’t those hippies know that its all about saving the planet now.. no one cares for animal rights now.

  18. on 25 Feb 2008 at 11:09 pm michelle

    READ MY ENTIRE COMMENT, IT BUTCHERS YOUR BELIEFS, FREAKS! NOW STOP MAKING FUN OF ANIMAL RIGHTS.

    by eating meat you are not reducing the number of plants being killed, you are increasing it. basic statistics will show this. the meat industry feeds animals grain which takes alot more killed individual plants than eating veggies and fruits. and think of this feeding grain in massive amounts, trillions of pounds for billions of animals. the meat industry clears as much forest ever year as does the paper industry. being a vegan/vegetarian is the best thing you can contribute to our entire planet. and i really dont believe that you dont use plant products, what about your houses medicines and clothes? and think of the CONSTIPATION youll get, hehe…..

  19. on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:48 pm yummy veggies

    by feeding cows hay and eating them there is a few problems first off all cows dont eat hay they need fresh grass to survive, and a cow eating hay and being eaten for its crimes against plants, is not legit because it never did kill any plants. you are just eating a poor old cow.

  20. on 05 Jun 2008 at 3:38 pm loves meat with veggies

    ok no this is stupid there isn’t a lot of controversy over animal rights activists because they don’t thnik about plants i will admit that i don’t know why there is a lot of controversy but i will say that a plant cannot feel what is being done to them they have no nervous system but i can guaranty that an animal is gonna fill it being shot in the head and it dying and who’s to say that it wasn’t still alive when it got its throat cut to drain the blood now im not fighting for the rights if either but people should get their facts strait b4 they say something or at least have a good argument

  21. on 02 Aug 2008 at 4:51 am Jen

    Hey, Carnivore.

    I love meat. Don’t get me wrong–I think I’m on your side of this, though I just stumbled on your site and I don’t have long to talk.

    I eat vegetables, too. But I do not, do not, do not like it when vegetarians claim they are eating a “death free” diet. Those poor vegetables are usually ALIVE when we eat them (because if they weren’t we would consider them “spoiled!”). What’s the deal? Just because it can’t scream or look at you with cute eyes, does it mean it’s not sentient enough to die?

  22. on 16 Jun 2009 at 1:36 pm Computerexpert3

    SHUT THE **** UP PPL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    NOWONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO YOUR GARBEGE!!

    JUST ACCEPT THE FACT THAT ANIMALS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THEN PLANTS!!!

  23. on 01 Apr 2010 at 5:15 pm Lion King

    plants are pretty, they offer beautiful asthetics to the world, but they are like machines. The cells do as they are programmed in the DNA, they make the earth bountiful and facilitate the ability to live for every other type of organisim.This is their function, same way that the cells that make up our skin protect us, and are alive, yet we do not feel concern for these cells happiness.They are just a very important part of the circle of life, take it or leave it.

  24. on 11 May 2010 at 1:24 am Bec

    Here is a question for you..

    How can you justify defending plants and not animals? If they are ALL living things? You are also a hypocrite. Revenge on animals because they eat/destroy plants is a poor justification.

    Can you PLEASE show me multiple research articles (highly cited reliable research) that state 100% that plants feel pain/are even conscious (even though they lack a nervous system). I really wouyld like to know. Animals are conscious beings. They do feel pain. They feel immense pain because of people like you. You sit back and say they DESERVE that pain.

    When I first came across this website I thought it was one massive joke. But upon looking through the pages I realise you guys are very serious about your cause. I cannot believe how pathetic this world has become because of people like you. Your views are sadistic. You make me sick.

    I agree with Kico. You are all hypocrits!

  25. on 11 May 2010 at 1:40 am Bec

    I would also like to add that technically if you are eating meat, you are eating plants.

    Plants were MURDERED so your meat could be produced.

    Animals are not MURDERED to produce vegetables.

    You are killing animals and plants. This should shock you if you value 1 plant life the way I value 1 animal life.

    Vegans/vegetarians are killing plants. I agree.

    FACT- Stop eating animals and you will stop killing plants.

Leave a Reply