Brian is a grifter who makes money off the suffering and death of non-human animals so of course veganism is a threat to his business model of telling people what they wish to hear-i.e. you can love animals and be kind to them even if you pay to have them tortured & killed. his fallacous logic shows why considering veganism as a dietary choice instead of a moral imperative is so problematic.
i can't help but wonder if he takes the same position about other forms of violence such as "hitting my wife is bad so i cut back to doing it only every other day". of course, doing less harm is always preferable to doing more harm but that never justifies choosing to do harm in the first place.
in addition, Kateman also presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that veganism is invalid because it is impossible to be 100% vegan. in other words he claims that eliminating the 95% of the harm which we have control over is not good enough due to the other 5% that we have no control over. it's like claiming that since some people will certainly die due to auto accidents it's OK to intentionally run over pedestrians. what is certain is that if he were a helpless victim himself instead of a willing perpetrator of violence & exploitation, what is right and what is wrong would suddenly become crystal clear.
This comment is perfection. You nailed it. He is 100% grifting and appealing to futility. Just because we can't eliminate insect deaths, to him it's perfectly reasonable to consume, wear, and perform research on others. People love to be told good things about their bad habits and he's found a model that exploits that so efficiently. Reducetarian much like flexitarian, vegetarian, pescatarian are meaningless for the animals who's bodies are being consumed. You're either vegan or you're not. It's really that simple.
There are animal "advocates" who do not empathize very much or at all with actual chickens, cows and other nonhuman individuals and species. Their focus is abstract: "reduce suffering," "end factory farming," "support better conditions," etc. A person who can watch a chicken, pig, turkey or cow being slaughtered, and then claim or suggest that it is morally worse to take a walk or drive a car because more insects are likely to be killed that way, is emotionally detached. Brian Kateman is an example. So are Michael Pollan and Peter Singer. Pollan has freely acknowledged he does not feel for, or with, cows, pigs or chickens. Singer claims he is vegan when alone but "free-range" in social situations. In an article a couple years ago he and the journalist interviewing him discussed how much easier it is to get real "free-range" eggs in Australia than in the U.S.
Activist-strategist Patty Mark in Australia, founder of the Open Rescue concept in the early 1990s, said this was nonsense. Things are the same for farmed animals in all countries. Desire for convenience and conformity added to a deficit of empathy with (other) animals work together against ending the needless harm we inflict. If slaughter-free meat could permanently reduce (best of all eliminate) the number of animals born to be nothing but human "mouthpieces," we would be remiss not to support it.
Karen Davis, PhD, President, United Poultry Concerns. www.upc-online.org
Totally agree with you Karen. It's odd that Peter Singer wrote a book (and is coming out with an updated version) called Animal Liberation, yet he doesn't actually in fact support animal liberation because he acts like some animal exploitation is not so bad and that consuming what comes from "factory farming" occasionally isn't so bad either. I don't get why it's so hard to get people on the side of let's just leave animals alone already.
it's bad enough when individuals like this man do it but it's even worse when the large animal "welfare" corporations do it too but the goal is the same-profit off the suffering and death of non-human animals. as but one of many examples, years ago h$u$ had a $1.00 off coupon for pig flesh (bacon) on it's website. you can't make this stuff up.
i am reminded of the old meme of the two booths-one with a line of people as far as the eye can see while the other one has no one waiting at it. the former booth has a sign saying "comforting lies" and the empty booth's sign says "harsh truths".
I've seen that meme as well, it's a classic. Had no idea HSUS ever had coupons for discounts on pig flesh, that only promotes MORE consumption. Geez that's absurd, but I'm really not one bit surprised. I'd be shocked if PETA did that, but not HSUS.
h$u$ has 250 million in the bank yet only focuses on fund raising instead of helping animals so they are basically a corporate charity. just imagine what a good org could do with a fraction of their wealth but of course, 95% of their members are not vegan so it's not too surprising. PETA would never do anything like that and very often include a strong vegan message in their single issue campaigns. i think their worst transgression was signing the "humane" product letter to whole foods years ago.
Another solid read. It's quite fascinating seeing the mental gymnastics that exploiter exhibited. In one breath he says everyone should see how an animal is killed which he followed up with denying the very people who he thinks should witness the killing (those who consume animals) access to said killing. If a regular person off the street wanted to see that shit, he'd 100% deny them, guaranteed. The sicko knows that if people saw the animal being murdered they'd have a much harder time consuming animals. I say much harder rather than completely stopping because humans are totally fucked and I think even seeing that shit, many people could look past it after some serious cognitive dissonance kicked in.
Thank you and totally, if everyone saw how animals get turned into meat a lot of people wouldn't enjoy seeing the process, but most would still happily continue on consuming animals despite the fact that there exists a choice not to.
Brian is a grifter who makes money off the suffering and death of non-human animals so of course veganism is a threat to his business model of telling people what they wish to hear-i.e. you can love animals and be kind to them even if you pay to have them tortured & killed. his fallacous logic shows why considering veganism as a dietary choice instead of a moral imperative is so problematic.
i can't help but wonder if he takes the same position about other forms of violence such as "hitting my wife is bad so i cut back to doing it only every other day". of course, doing less harm is always preferable to doing more harm but that never justifies choosing to do harm in the first place.
in addition, Kateman also presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that veganism is invalid because it is impossible to be 100% vegan. in other words he claims that eliminating the 95% of the harm which we have control over is not good enough due to the other 5% that we have no control over. it's like claiming that since some people will certainly die due to auto accidents it's OK to intentionally run over pedestrians. what is certain is that if he were a helpless victim himself instead of a willing perpetrator of violence & exploitation, what is right and what is wrong would suddenly become crystal clear.
This comment is perfection. You nailed it. He is 100% grifting and appealing to futility. Just because we can't eliminate insect deaths, to him it's perfectly reasonable to consume, wear, and perform research on others. People love to be told good things about their bad habits and he's found a model that exploits that so efficiently. Reducetarian much like flexitarian, vegetarian, pescatarian are meaningless for the animals who's bodies are being consumed. You're either vegan or you're not. It's really that simple.
There are animal "advocates" who do not empathize very much or at all with actual chickens, cows and other nonhuman individuals and species. Their focus is abstract: "reduce suffering," "end factory farming," "support better conditions," etc. A person who can watch a chicken, pig, turkey or cow being slaughtered, and then claim or suggest that it is morally worse to take a walk or drive a car because more insects are likely to be killed that way, is emotionally detached. Brian Kateman is an example. So are Michael Pollan and Peter Singer. Pollan has freely acknowledged he does not feel for, or with, cows, pigs or chickens. Singer claims he is vegan when alone but "free-range" in social situations. In an article a couple years ago he and the journalist interviewing him discussed how much easier it is to get real "free-range" eggs in Australia than in the U.S.
Activist-strategist Patty Mark in Australia, founder of the Open Rescue concept in the early 1990s, said this was nonsense. Things are the same for farmed animals in all countries. Desire for convenience and conformity added to a deficit of empathy with (other) animals work together against ending the needless harm we inflict. If slaughter-free meat could permanently reduce (best of all eliminate) the number of animals born to be nothing but human "mouthpieces," we would be remiss not to support it.
Karen Davis, PhD, President, United Poultry Concerns. www.upc-online.org
Totally agree with you Karen. It's odd that Peter Singer wrote a book (and is coming out with an updated version) called Animal Liberation, yet he doesn't actually in fact support animal liberation because he acts like some animal exploitation is not so bad and that consuming what comes from "factory farming" occasionally isn't so bad either. I don't get why it's so hard to get people on the side of let's just leave animals alone already.
it's bad enough when individuals like this man do it but it's even worse when the large animal "welfare" corporations do it too but the goal is the same-profit off the suffering and death of non-human animals. as but one of many examples, years ago h$u$ had a $1.00 off coupon for pig flesh (bacon) on it's website. you can't make this stuff up.
i am reminded of the old meme of the two booths-one with a line of people as far as the eye can see while the other one has no one waiting at it. the former booth has a sign saying "comforting lies" and the empty booth's sign says "harsh truths".
I've seen that meme as well, it's a classic. Had no idea HSUS ever had coupons for discounts on pig flesh, that only promotes MORE consumption. Geez that's absurd, but I'm really not one bit surprised. I'd be shocked if PETA did that, but not HSUS.
h$u$ has 250 million in the bank yet only focuses on fund raising instead of helping animals so they are basically a corporate charity. just imagine what a good org could do with a fraction of their wealth but of course, 95% of their members are not vegan so it's not too surprising. PETA would never do anything like that and very often include a strong vegan message in their single issue campaigns. i think their worst transgression was signing the "humane" product letter to whole foods years ago.
Another solid read. It's quite fascinating seeing the mental gymnastics that exploiter exhibited. In one breath he says everyone should see how an animal is killed which he followed up with denying the very people who he thinks should witness the killing (those who consume animals) access to said killing. If a regular person off the street wanted to see that shit, he'd 100% deny them, guaranteed. The sicko knows that if people saw the animal being murdered they'd have a much harder time consuming animals. I say much harder rather than completely stopping because humans are totally fucked and I think even seeing that shit, many people could look past it after some serious cognitive dissonance kicked in.
Thank you and totally, if everyone saw how animals get turned into meat a lot of people wouldn't enjoy seeing the process, but most would still happily continue on consuming animals despite the fact that there exists a choice not to.
A well-written and insightful article.
Thanks so much Kasey.