Dave wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>>ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>ant and dec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>>>>>posted by the author
<snip>
>>>
>>>What higher moral stance? Different morals perhaps. Why do you feel they
>>>claim a higher moral stance and why? Perhaps it's your perception of
>>>your own morality.
>
>
> If people decide to avoid animal source food products for perceived
> ethical reasons as the vast majority of vegans do then it follows
> they must consider this to be a higher moral stance.
>

Quite. To say otherwise is simply being obtuse.

>>Oh come on. Veg*ns ooze their sense of moral superiority like Christians
>>and Buddhists, they use it as part of their locomotion, like slugs. Of
>>course they make a point of not *claiming* moral superiority while doing
>>all they can to ensure that other people get the message loud and clear.
>>Their entire bearing says "we're not claiming to be superior to you, oh
>>no, that would be rude and arrogant and not *nice*, but you do know that
>>you are inferior to us, don't you? You don't? Here, take a pamphlet,
>>it's all in there."
>
>
> Since you obviously have a problem with it perhaps you might like to
> give
> veg*ns some advice. Should they avoid acting in what they consider to
> be the morally superior fashion in case it makes other people feel
> uncomfortable? Show they avoid trying to educate people whom they
> believe have similar moral values but eat animal products out of
> ignorance?

If veg*ns want to carry on getting cheap moral superiority without
having to do anything really worthy they should carry on exactly as they
are doing. Veg*nism will never be an opportunity for moral superiority
if it is universal, so the struggle must go on for ever and must never
be allowed to succeed. Ensuring that they never make a united and
coherent front, that there are always several contradictory sets of
ideas on display and that they are seen to also endorse a variety of
alternative and counter-cultural causes. I especially commend the use of
the "it's all the same struggle comrade" approach whenever possible to
ensure that veg*nism is always associated with the kind of militant
animal rights people who torture the pets of laboratory workers to show
how bloody serious they are and associating veg*nism with drugs,
homosexuality, torching McDonalds and overturning BMWs is always a good
idea.

What about holding a march on Trafalgar Square under the banner of
"Vegans: kick a pigeon if you think meat is murder" and carry banners
that say "Vegans fart louder" or "Vegans: spit or swallow?"

> How would you act if you agreed with their views about the raising or
> killing of animals?
>

Badly. I'd be a bloody dangerous person if ever I was infected by
religion or moral absolutism. I know my capacity for bloody-mindedness
and it scares me.

Seriously, I can't do it. It would be like trying to imagine what I'd
think if I was a bat.

If I agreed with those views I wouldn't be me and I wouldn't have my
thoughts or my memories.

No, I didn't say vegans were all batty.

<snip>

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org