Cheap, empty symbolism

"veganism", the mandatory dietary expression of "animal
rights" believers, is a simple rule: "don't consume
animal parts." "vegans" freely admit that it is a
purely symbolic gesture: their refraining from eating
meat for so-called "ethical" reasons makes no
meaningful difference in the fact of meat eating for
the overwhelming majority of people who are in fact
meat eaters. "vegans" are a tiny minority within a
tiny minority: strict vegetarians (no animal products
of any kind) are already a very small minority, no more
than 2% of the U.S. population, and "vegans" - those
who are strictly vegetarian for so-called "ethical"
reasons, as opposed to health reasons, are but a small
minority within that (at most) 2%. "veganism" does not
make a difference.

Then there is the issue of animal collateral deaths in
agriculture. Battered, bloody, kicking and screaming,
"vegans" eventually get around to acknowledging that
CDs are a real phenomenon, and that "vegans" are
causative to them. It is suggested to "vegans" that,
in order to be morally consistent, they should refrain
from consuming *any* produce the production of which
causes consequence-free CDs. They all refuse.

Refraining from CD-causing produce also would be a
purely symbolic gesture. Just as the "vegans'"
abstention from meat produces no detectable impact on
the meat industry, so their abstention from CD-causing
produce would have no meaningful impact on the methods
used to produce vegetables for the overwhelmingly
larger group of omnivores. So, why do "vegans" engage
in one empty, purely symbolic gesture, but not in the
other?

The obvious reason is cost. It would be tremendously
difficult and expensive to find sources of vegetables
that don't cause CDs, while it is absurdly easy and
cheap to abstain from meat.

What we see, then, is that "vegans" are not at all
interested in moral consistency. What interests them
is cheap, convenient, self-flattering symbolism. As
long as there is some low-cost and easy symbolic
gesture in which they can engage that they feel allows
them to look down their noses at those who don't
believe the rubbish they believe, that's good enough.

"veganism" is not an ethical action. It's an empty
pose struck by people who are deeply morally confused.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> As long as there is some low-cost and easy symbolic gesture
> in which they can engage that they feel allows them to look down their
> noses at those who don't believe the rubbish they believe, that's good
> enough.

Why do you have such low self-esteem and such a sense of worthlessness,
jonnie? (Not that it isn't richly deserved -- perhaps you just can't
lie to yourself with as much empty conviction as you lie to others.)

Notice how all these Antis demonstrate their deep sense of inferiority
and guilt. They're all terrified and resentful towards people who
are actually acting on principle, with conviction, and with a sense
of self-worth. The Antis are all quivering creatures, cowering in a
(well-deserved) sense that they are not living up to their obligations
as human beings. They hate ARAs because they THINK ARAs look down on
them. It's projecting: they KNOW they are inferior and morally
bankrupt, they are terriby afraid someone will find them out (we do,
of course) and they lash out in a preemptive strike against those they
see as their betters.

Well, guess what? We ARE your betters. Get used to it.

Rat
<snip>