Thanks for alerting us to that info! All the more reason to hate the guy!

Sara,

Yes…Smith’s arguement is completely moronic and has no logical basis. Unfortunately there are many more like him out there.

Alex,

Of course he made it an arguement he could counter, by completely negating what actually matters…that was the only way he had ANYTHING….if you even consider what he “had” something! Thanks for commenting!

CJ,

Thanks for commenting…although I am not one to just “love and understand” so easily as you. I enjoy battle and I think it is more effective.

Ryan,

Lets just say we’ll agree to disagree.

I find it appalling that we as humans find the need to justify our indecent and unjustifiable actions. I’ve not always been vegan, so I know that at a time I too made excuses for inexcusable behavior – i.e. eating meat. What I find the most appalling is the flaccidity of this ‘Wesley Smiths’ argument – does he not see the big neon-flashing flaw in his own argument of veganism contributing to the deaths of field mice? As others have commented already, the major mouth that is fed with agricultural crops IS the animals, not the humans! For someone to actually take on the animal rights arena, they need to actually come up with logical, of-sound-mind arguments and rationales. This has always been a failure among those coming up against the AR groups (of which PETA should not be considered IMO) to have a plausible, hard-evidenced argument…and again, I say …flaccid!

“The argument made by animal-rights activists is that meat is murder, while veganism is supposedly cruelty-free.”

It is telling when those who are not vegan assume things about “veganism” that vegans do not proffer themselves. The assumption, then, that this author, who is not vegan, is making – “moral absolutes” (i.e., cruelty-free) thereby encompassing both intentional and unintentional actions – is purported to be a foundational premise of the philosophy of “animal rights.” The problem with this premise is clear and incontestable: if you fail the absolute “purity” test than your argument is flawed (or invalid). The author has purposefully defined our argument in a way that is easily countered. (Notice he doesn’t actually challenge Francione’s argument about “intent.”)

This “straw man” method of argumentation is fallacious; however, the casual reader who enters a conversation about veganism pre-prejudiced – selfishly desiring to continue eating meat, for example, therefore the prejudice underlies the justification – these “straw man’s” are convincing. Our efforts, therefore, must be aimed at uncovering these erroneous arguments and clearly and concisely asserting our premises and the conclusions that follow. As you have done quite well in this post.

Reasoning with these people is pointless. I try to stick to the same policy as Mother Theresa when she said something to the effect “I will not attend an anti-war rally, but if you ever have a peace rally, count me in.”

While many of us hold strong convictions, and have opened our eyes to the destruction that is the meat and dairy industry, fighting something is putting energy into it. Really the only thing we can do as conscious human beings, is to ask ourselves “what do I want?” and begin to focus our attention and energy to educating with love, acceptance, and understanding.

There will be those who choose to turn a deaf ear, and that’s OK. That is their path and not for any of us to judge. Was there a time in your life that you didn’t live exactly as you do now? There was a time for me, not so long ago, that no one was going to tell me I couldn’t have my meat and dairy, or that it wasn’t healthy. Everyone else was doing it, after all. In fact, if someone came to me with any kind of irritation over how I was living my life, as far as I was concerned, I’d do it more just to get them worked up. I wasn’t always the person I am today. We are all learning and growing daily.

I changed the way I live my life when the idea of no longer eating meat was brought to me by someone I respected, who held no judgements, carried no labels and allowed me to make my own choice, regardless if it was the one he would want for me. Not because someone was yelling through a bullhorn on the street about how eating meat was murder.

In my experience, much of the reason many people are afraid of change is because they don’t want to become, or be seen by the public as one of those hateful, animal rights activist who spreads anger and rage. If we want people to see us as peaceful, we must, as a whole, stop fighting.

Again I’ll say, fighting something is putting energy into the very thing we are trying to prevent. If we want to facilitate real, lasting change, letting go of our own egos and need to put ourselves up on a pedestal by knocking others down is the first step. It’s time to show society that we are as peaceful as we claim to be by not forcing others to believe as we do, allowing them the space, and choice, to be curious, ask questions and warm up to the idea of being vegan. When they bring it up, and not us, they are much more likely to listen.

Remember too, that more people are willing to try new foods when the person preparing it is coming from a place of love, regardless of what it’s made from.

With Love and Light

C.J. Cantrell

P.S. Feel free to enjoy the many healthy and delicious vegan recipes I share in my blog at http://usetheadvantage.wordpress.com/

I often get asked by nonvegans about the animals which are killed on farms, especially by grain harvesters. It is an unfortunate reality of large-scale grain farming that some animals get sucked into the machinery and killed.

There is a very simple answer to this: where does most of the grain grown around the world every year go? Directly into the mouths of ‘food’ animals. If veganism is about reducing suffering as much as possible, then it is more effective than most vegans realize. By indirectly reducing our grain consumption we are reducing the number of small animal deaths our food consumption causes.

Of course, if veganism were about absolute purity—which in my opinion it is not—then the only way to be vegan would pretty much be to grow all your own food, which is not an option for most people.

Therefore, within the context of an industrialized nation, where most people live in urban or suburban settings, veganism is the best you can do as far as removing suffering from your dinner plate is concerned. If you want to have an impact beyond that but still within the sphere of your direct actions, eliminating grains from your diet (they are not necessary!) and finding ways to grow as much of your own food as possible would go a long way toward achieving that.

Thanks for pointing out further absurdities of that article I was writing about. I highly doubt any cow deaths were taken into account regarding dairy, whether they be from veal cows or cows considered useless to the dairy industry. I grew very angry by the idea of raising animals mearly to consume them as more animal-friendly than veganism. The whole thing is freakin absurd!

Charmycarmy,

No problem about posting…thanks for your comment as well. I understand your frustation….society has yet to connect that compassion for animals can easily cross over to human beings as well.

Matt,

Smith was definitely trying to avoid the idea of intention because otherwise he would have absolutely NO basis to his own theory. It makes me all the more frustrated that anti-vegan individuals are actually using Davis’ very unscientific paper to blast everything vegans believe in. And just like Smith left important aspects out, he leaves out poultry so his theory has a basis….’cause otherwise he has nada! Thanks for the compliment on the blog!