Whatever beef… you have with veganism, I don’t need to combat you. There are people that do know the middle way, and live it as much as possible, without needing to be taught. And there are people who will find it and learn from it. You may be one of them, but the energy you put into this back and forth isn’t worth the time, honestly.

You should REALLY write a book, because there is nothing but anguish on your part to gain while messaging me, just as I realised there was nothing more to say 3 weeks ago. It’s quite a shame you haven’t noticed I checked out a while ago upon catching your anecdotal rhetoric, what if I just don’t believe you, you’ve given no evidence to support your claims, and they’re BOLD claims.

I’ve felt no need to explain myself, and if you feel morally inferior, that’s on you. I’m not morally superior, but I strive to be better than I was. There’s the difference.

I wish you the best in your life, even while contributing to unnecessary suffering while using a fantastic brain to justify it.

True, actions speak. So I do what I can. You probably don’t but that’s an assumption I admit.

You’ve got a lot of assumptions, but that’s OK. Like people choosing to eat meat. I don’t think that, as I say, you’re fine to believe the assumptions you make are fact. Even if they’re anecdotal. Like people don’t need to be educated. I disagree. And it’s proven by the rhetoric used in discussing PETA.

Your “most vegans” argument is moot when as a vegan, the discussions surrounding rewilding are far more common than your slice of a piece of what I’ve talked about with them. As I reinstate, it’s simply anti vegan rhetoric that you’re so on board with, your world view is rocked, and can’t see the forest from the trees.

For clarity, I don’t think you’re an idiot or uneducated, just misguided and have been misinformed for so long, your very core is against the idea, and you’re smart enough to justify why you feel like that.

At the end of the day, you are against veganism, that’s cool imo, but I do hope one day people like yourself can see the fight against oppression doesn’t stop at humans.

You’re fine to believe all that, it just comes across as though you’re assuming everyone who eats meat has done the due diligence in finding out what happens behind closed doors. That’s not the case, and it’s too obvious you’re wrapped up in your own views to ever change based on what one guy tells you on the Internet. You have to do the work yourself, but only if you want to, which by now, you can’t.

Which is OK, people who care are putting in the work, and the world will be better for it.

I hope you find compassion one day, because I’m certainly not telling you why you should be.

A just world like Pala from aldous Huxleys:The island? Good read, highly recommended if you share the same mindset as me. Which, although not quite as far along the journey as me, you seem to.

Wow, I scrolled through your history and landed one one random comment.

If you see humans default to this, it’s only a reflection of yourself, and I mirror the guy who replied to you. Therepy would really help you.

Choose to see the good, or proliferate the bad, your choice.

They’re a case study in antivegan rhetoric, don’t worry about them.

Hmm I was 27 years a meat eater, advocating for meat consumption in the face of a vegan mate. Saying things like “we need a little bit of meat in our diets…they’re killed humanely…etc”

Took me one moment of realisation, then I dunno, I just tried, not even that hard, vegan 7 years now.

I can see that the transitional foods are a good stepping stone, but imo, the second you see inside the animal agriculture industry without any blinders on (biases), you’ll choose to act within your life, if you have the compassion/empathy to.

If someone sees the reality of what goes on behind closed doors and continues to consume animals in much the same way, it says more about that persons internal morality than anything else.

Nothing of value to add?

Peace.

And you still support animal abuse when you don’t have to.

Take care, and try and lead a better life mate.

It’s OK. Your veiled attempt at good faith discussion is textbook, so was expected.

It’s not my goal to make YOU individually vegan. Others can read and evaluate my reasoning, and by extension, the lack of yours.

I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don’t need to.

What you’ve amounted to saying is “if the world can’t be 100% vegan, why try?”

Let’s try this then-

Me: “respect women”

Misogynist: "You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.

I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?"

Or this one’s good-

Me: “don’t be racist”

Racist: "You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.

I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?"

If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you’re saying, what do you think their response would be?

And similarly, what would MLK say to you?

No, before you call out my comparison, I’m not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I’m comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it’s awfully similar.

In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.

People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.

Not worth my time.

Please try and lead a better life.

But what good is worrying?

Become vegan and actually act.

Annnnnd you just went full PETA on me.

What does this mean? If you can’t challenge what I put, and resort to ad hominim, this is just textbook anti peta parroting whatever supports your narrative…

I’m a huge animal lover

Oh awesome me too! How long have you been vegan? :)

Yeah I’ll be honest, i thought exactly the same as you about PETA before going vegan. But if you’re vegan, you’re intent on reducing the suffering of animals right? So it’s not too much of a leap to imagine a world where the people with the most money and the most to lose have orchestrated an incredibly effective smear campaign.

I’m giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming you’re here in good faith. As a fellow vegan, you must understand the commodification of sentient beings is absolutely unnecessary in 2023

The reason their kill shelters are so high is literally in the info dump above. If you don’t want to read that’s fine, but you have no valid argument till you do.

The AKC isn’t the bastion of good you’re making it out to be. They quite literally haven’t got the dogs interest at the forefront of their minds, but the amount of campaigns and disinformation throughout the years has made people like yourself blindly support them because Idk, dogs are cute and everyone should have one?

No. I don’t think dogs are for our enjoyment, and as long as ACK sees them as objects for us, I can’t take you seriously in saying they care about the welfare and rights of dogs.

You’re either being massively disingenuous (which makes sense with the fact you didn’t read the info I posted), you genuinely believe that kennel clubs are ethical, or you’re the PR account for AKC lol.

Dogs are objects in our society. They are bred and bought, and those that aren’t wanted are thrown away. That is wrong.

That’s a whole lot of information to read and digest in 2 minutes tbh…

You sound like a talking head

Look in the mirror mate, I don’t believe you read the entirety of what I put, bad faith imo.

Edit, forgot to ask if you had seen the BBC documentary about UK and US kennel clubs? https://documentaryheaven.com/bbc-pedigree-dogs-exposed/

Hey, for clarity I’ve commented below my own posts because comment limit. <3

Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit etc. comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit etc. gobbles it up.

The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.

Lastly; remember they’re not a monolith, and I can’t honestly say that I back everything they do 100%, BECAUSE of that.

They should still be scrutinised, but for the right reasons.

I had to stop there because comment limit, I’ve given more recent example in follow up comments, even then these examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

2018

General Mills agreed to ban all experiments on animals for the purpose of making health claims about its foods after talks with PETA about the cruelty of animal studies and their irrelevance to humans.

Following years of pressure from PETA and U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), the U.S. Coast Guard has become the first branch of the military to end the shooting, stabbing, dismembering, and killing of animals in trauma training drills. In public records obtained by PETA, the agency confirmed the ban in writing, adding that it will now use superior medical simulators in these training exercises.

After PETA’s exposé led to the closure of The Pet Blood Bank in Texas, a filthy dog blood farm, and the rescue of 151 greyhounds, the greyhound racing industry adopted long-overdue standards on blood banks. The National Greyhound Association barred its members from directly sending greyhounds to any blood bank operation, established rules for the length of time dogs can be used for their blood, and requires spaying or neutering, veterinary exams, and subsequent adoption.

The Japanese government stops requiring year-long pesticide poisoning tests on dogs, sparing hundreds of dogs. The move came after PETA scientists provided extensive scientific support for doing so over the course of three years. Japan joins the U.S., the E.U., and Canada in dropping this requirement after urging from PETA.

On March 2, 2017, PETA filed a complaint alleging that the city of Arcadia violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it adopted a program to trap and kill coyotes without first assessing the environmental impact that such actions would have. On April 4, the City Council rescinded its prior adoption and allocation of funds for the trapping program—which effectively mooted the substance of our case.

After decades of campaigning against fur, PETA reached a tipping point: Hundreds of major companies have banned it—including high-end designers Giorgio Armani, Gucci, John Galliano, Donna Karan, Donatella Versace, Michael Kors, and Jimmy Choo—and InStyle became the first major fashion magazine to ban it. Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, won’t wear it, and San Francisco and Norway both banned it, joining Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, and Japan.

PETA’s 2013 exposé of the angora wool industry, which revealed that rabbits scream in pain as they’re stretched across boards and their hair is torn out, led more than 330 brands worldwide to ban angora. These include the world’s three largest retailers—H&M, Gap Inc., and Inditex (which owns Zara)—as well as Stella McCartney, Topshop, ASOS, Forever 21, Ralph Lauren, and Italian luxury designer Gucci. Just one year after we released the video footage, exports were down 85 percent—numbers are now so low that trade information databases have stopped tracking angora. PETA’s campaign has decimated the industry.

PETA’s 2018 video exposé of the mohair industry—which was the world’s first behind-the-scenes look into it—revealed egregious abuse in South Africa, the world’s top mohair producer. After learning from PETA that mohair is stolen from terrified angora goats—who are often cut open during shearing, dragged, thrown by the legs and tails, and mutilated before being killed—more than 300 brands around the world banned the fiber. Inditex, Zara, Topshop, Gap, H&M, ASOS, Ralph Lauren, Diane von Furstenberg, Brooks Brothers, Crate & Barrel, Esprit, Forever 21, Express, and UNIQLO are just a few of the kind companies to do so.

In a monumental victory for animals, Chanel became the first major high-end fashion brand to ban exotic skins—including those from crocodiles, lizards, and snakes! Fashion icon and designer Victoria Beckham also pledged to stop using exotic skins in her designs, and luxury clothing brand Diane von Furstenberg pledged to stop using them as well. These victories follow decades of pressure from PETA and mean that countless animals will be spared a miserable life and a painful, violent death.

Following Israel’s historic ban on “shackle and hoist” beef imports, the largest U.S. kosher certifier, the Orthodox Union (OU), announced that it would no longer accept beef from slaughterhouses that use that archaic and cruel method of kosher slaughter. The OU said that roughly one-third of the kosher beef that it certifies for import into the U.S. comes from South America—where PETA has conducted three investigations documenting the painful method.

AirBridgeCargo Airlines enacted a policy banning the transportation of monkeys to laboratories anywhere in the world following a campaign in which tens of thousands of PETA supporters contacted the airline to urge it to stop participating in this sordid trade. On these types of flights, monkeys who were bred on squalid factory farms or taken from their families in the wild are crammed into small wooden crates and transported to laboratories, where they endure all manner of torment and are denied everything that’s natural and important to them.

Following a PETA appeal, South Korea stopped requiring that dogs be subjected to a yearlong pesticide poisoning test. Japan, Canada, the EU, and the U.S. also eliminated this cruel test following discussions with PETA scientists, sparing thousands of dogs.

Dove—one of the world’s most widely available personal care–product brands—bans all tests on animals anywhere in the world and is added to PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies cruelty-free companies list. In addition, Unilever—which owns the Dove brand—bans all tests on animals not required by law for the rest of its products and is added to PETA’s list of companies “Working for Regulatory Change,” a category that recognizes businesses that test on animals only when explicitly required to do so by law, are transparent with PETA about any tests on animals that have been conducted and why, and work diligently to promote the development, validation, and acceptance of non-animal methods.

Following a PETA Asia exposé of an elephant polo tournament in Thailand, PETA and their affiliates persuade a dozen companies—including IBM, Johnnie Walker, and Vespa—to drop their sponsorships. The tournament’s organizing body later announced that it won’t seek another permit, effectively putting an end to elephant polo in the country.

https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-asia-ends-elephant-polo-tournament/