This graphic condenses pretty much everything necessary to "get it" regarding the vegan philosophy and ethos. My thanks to the creator of this graphic summary.
This leaves little wiggle room...but where the wiggling will commence will likely be regarding the "nobody else" phrase. I suspect right there is where objections in the form of "but they're just animals, they aren't people" will be inserted. Or...if you're dealing with (usually a white male) a desensitized and violence loving human who has more issues than you probably want to deal with...they might say they don't care about others suffering and dying or maybe even that they like causing others to suffer and die.
The first group of objectors might be worth engaging in dialogue...that second group of objectors might be more than you want to take on.
If you're fired up enough to deal with that second group...be prepared for what might be a lengthy and difficult and scary task because you're not only going to be struggling with the "othering" of Earthlings who aren't considered to be members of the human species...you're also going to be facing a serious deficiencies and/or derangements in the areas of compassion and empathy.
2 comments:
Great Graphic!
You are right about the second category those who do not give a damn or even enjoy harming others, such as those who find pleasure in hunting. There is in my opinion something seriously wrong psychologically with such people and it is unlikely that you would have any success in changing their way of thinking. Many such people will just as easily cause suffering even to their own species and in my opinion those who care nothing about the lives of animals and actively enjoy harming them will just as easily harm other human beings given the opportunity. I like to think that such people are in the minority even though the damage they do to all beings and the environment is significant.
Thank you for commenting Christine. My wife and I just watched a not so great but ok in spots movie called The Water Deviner. There were numerous scenes of battle depicted with much violence and mayhem and suffering. My wife said something about humans being violent. I agreed and then it struck me that what I was saying was too imprecise. It's human males that are way way most often the instigators of and participants in violence. Wars are a guy thing and on and on and on. I will fail at times but henceforth I'm going to endeavor to be specific when I reference human propensities to violence as human male violence.
Consider this...if you look at the long sordid history of humans engaging in wars...how many of those wars were driven by and enacted by women? What percentage of "hunters" are women? (I betcha it's very small). What percentage of murderers are women? What percentage of rapists are women? Nope...if I'm going to speak and think accurately...the big problem with "human violence" is actually a big problem with "male human violence". It's misleading and inaccurate to indict the whole species...the miscreants are (with a few exceptions) the goobers who have a penis.
Thanks for giving me a chance to point this out.
That said...in defense (a little) of males...the socialization that is strongly inflicted on them when they are children...both by their fathers and mothers...impresses on boy children the confusing of maleness with violence or at least willingness to be violent. And...the media fog that surrounds us all reinforces and reproduces these messages that to be a "real man" you have to either actually be violent at times or at least be willing to be violent. (I'm referencing U.S.American culture primarily...but this crap goes on in many other cultures)
If we teach half of our species that being violent is necessary and desirable...and then they go out and behave violently...well...we taught our children (boys anyway) well. Sadly.
Post a Comment