On Veganism...

Greetings,

I'm currently listening to Dr. Dre and Snoop get "...funky on the mic like an old batch of collard greens." Yeah, that's right. I'm rockin' my "Gansta' Shit" mix.

The book I'm currently reading, Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk, has a character in it who is a rabid vegan. As I was reading about this character ranting and raving about the evils of what he considers animal cruelty, I just felt like I should sound off on the subject.

I should say, first off, that I don't have a problem with vegetarians or vegans in general - what you choose to eat is your decision, and it's not my place to judge that. That said, I really do feel like I have the right to demand the same level of respect from those vegans and vegetarians out there who feel like it's their divine calling to tell others how immoral they are for not making the same decisions.

I feel like I have a right to demand this respect from these people because they (so far) can't come up with a good reason why I shouldn't demand it. Most of these people aren't vegetarians, they're vegans. If you're unfamiliar with the difference, vegetarians are usually ok with drinking milk and eating dairy products. Some vegetarians also eat eggs. Vegans, on the other hand, don't eat anything that comes from animals - and their reasoning usually revolves around what they consider to be animal cruelty. The aggressive vegans usually like to start quoting a lot of, admittedly, gruesome statistics about how animals are treated in slaughterhouses, dairy farms, chicken farms, etc. Even though these statistics often seem repulsive, I've never heard a vegan give me a reason why these processes are actually morally wrong. Their whole premise seems to be built on anthropomorphizing the animals.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. You have to try harder than that - because I can give you good arguments about why it is not morally wrong to RESPONSIBLY raise and harvest livestock for food and other useful products.

1.) The whole idea that it is immoral to kill animals and use them to sustain ourselves is a slippery-slope argument. Essentially, the argument is that it is wrong to take life to sustain our own. So where do you draw the line? Some people draw it with mammals. Ok, so apparently fish and poultry have no capacity for suffering. So then we draw the line at mammals, fish, and poultry. So what about insects? No? Ok, then let's move that line down to include all animals - everything classified as an animal. Well, then what about plants? They're alive, right? What's that? They don't suffer? Are you sure? How do you define suffering? By the screaming, or bleating, or gasping for breath? What about the research that suggests that plants respond to people talking to them? And what about value? Are we really to accept the notion that just because an organism is classified by humanity as an animal, it is intrinsically more valuable than a plant? Do you see where this is going? Ok, so on to contention #2.

2.) Animals eat other animals. Plain and simple. It's totally natural. Are crocodiles immoral? What about wolves? Or eagles? What's that? Oh, well yes, humans can survive without eating animals, but I'm guessing that our primitive ancestors had good cause to evolve into omnivores. Besides, bears can survive without meat, but I don't hear any PETA activists telling them they're immoral.

Alright, I guess I should also point out that I hate stupid arguments on either side, because I also hate the redneck bumper stickers that say "If you're not supposed to eat animals why are they made of meat?" And like I said at the beginning of this blog, if you have a morality issue with eating meat, more power to you. Just don't expect me to feel the same way - unless, that is, you can give me a GOOD reason to.

That's all for today,

I am the Reverend Humpy and I have approved this message.