What I mean is that I see a tendency in America to seek polarizing political and social positions simply in order to establish their identity and look down on others, not to effect genuine change.

This blunted the effectiveness of the anti-war movement, ultimately allowing the dubious war in Iraq. Ultimately, as long as we were against it, it didn't matter if we changed anything. The war could go on, because it simply placed us further up on the moral high ground, even at the price of thousands of lives.

Even earlier, in 2000, when a vote for Nader was consciously a vote for Bush, many still voted Green. Why? Because they would rather smugly say "I told you so" after a disastrous Bush pr...

What I mean is that I see a tendency in America to seek polarizing political and social positions simply in order to establish their identity and look down on others, not to effect genuine change.

This blunted the effectiveness of the anti-war movement, ultimately allowing the dubious war in Iraq. Ultimately, as long as we were against it, it didn't matter if we changed anything. The war could go on, because it simply placed us further up on the moral high ground, even at the price of thousands of lives.

Even earlier, in 2000, when a vote for Nader was consciously a vote for Bush, many still voted Green. Why? Because they would rather smugly say "I told you so" after a disastrous Bush presidency than be part of the mainstream Al Gore's America. (Interestingly, Gore is now a green hero to many of the people who were too proud to vote for him in 2000)

Vegetarians have existed since the dawn of time, and since the dawn of time, vegetarians have failed to change anything about the conditions of animals that we have domesticated to provide us with labor and sustenance. Why? Because, more often than not, its not about the animals. Its about feeling better about yourself by looking down on others.

This egotistical mania has poisoned American politics in so many ways, but the most stinging barb is that it is often done in the name of "morals," "values," and "compassion." (Three words that vegetarian liberals have in common with reactionary arch-conservative Bush!)

Funny isn't it? I thought about that too. After all, I'm just tearing down the poseur holier-than-thou vegetarians the same way I accuse them of tearing down non-vegetarians.

The difference is: I don't care. I'm not trying to form a movement or confirm my identity. When I want to do that, I go shout at siege-style mountaineers for fixing ropes on clean rock faces. (Admittedly, that's my weakness. Steve House is my hero.)

But in this case, I'm dishing out plain and pure un-adulterated criticism. How do i define pure criticism as opposed to disingenuous gad-fly-ism? Simple: tangible results. My goal is to reduce the amount of polarization in society, and produce constructive dialog. (And ...

Funny isn't it? I thought about that too. After all, I'm just tearing down the poseur holier-than-thou vegetarians the same way I accuse them of tearing down non-vegetarians.

The difference is: I don't care. I'm not trying to form a movement or confirm my identity. When I want to do that, I go shout at siege-style mountaineers for fixing ropes on clean rock faces. (Admittedly, that's my weakness. Steve House is my hero.)

But in this case, I'm dishing out plain and pure un-adulterated criticism. How do i define pure criticism as opposed to disingenuous gad-fly-ism? Simple: tangible results. My goal is to reduce the amount of polarization in society, and produce constructive dialog. (And I've done it before!) I plan to achieve this goal by convincing them to stop doing something that I believe inhibits this goal. As soon as they stop, my goal will be achieved.

On the other hand, vegetarianism has no tangible goals. They say that they want to stop the slaughter of animals, but if I become a vegetarian (and I have before) the goal remains unachieved. The cow that I would have eaten today is still slaughtered, and fed to somebody else. I have never met a vegetarian who expects to achieve global vegetarianism on anything less than a geologic timescale. In all likelihood, the human race will go extinct before they succeed, and most will concede this point.

Thus, the practice of vegetarianism is not an effective means of achieving the goal of animal liberation. And by devoting significant time and energy to pursuing a strategy that will not achieve their goal, this is actually counter productive.

Otherwise, the vegetarian activists may say they are not so much interested in ending animal bondage but improving the animal's quality of life. However, this is not any better. The quality of an animal's life is a radically subjective judgment, probably a product of delusional anthropomorphism (like talking to your cats) and utterly unknowable.

Yo. 'Activism' may conjure up image of extremism, yet an individual who actively folllows a vegetarian diet for whatever reason is an activist. You can't assume that all vegetarians are vegetarians for the same reason. You can't assume that people who voluntarily use public transport or avoid certain shops expect that in so doing they will have an effect on others. Many people of the world live on a traditionally vegetarian diet because they must. Some vegetarians question the efficiency of the meat industry in providing for the world and conclude that being vegetarian is a straightforward way of maximising the world's nutrition. Some vegetarianism is interwined with an ethical;religious bel...

Yo. 'Activism' may conjure up image of extremism, yet an individual who actively folllows a vegetarian diet for whatever reason is an activist. You can't assume that all vegetarians are vegetarians for the same reason. You can't assume that people who voluntarily use public transport or avoid certain shops expect that in so doing they will have an effect on others. Many people of the world live on a traditionally vegetarian diet because they must. Some vegetarians question the efficiency of the meat industry in providing for the world and conclude that being vegetarian is a straightforward way of maximising the world's nutrition. Some vegetarianism is interwined with an ethical;religious belief system. Some vegetarians are health conscious. Food is a central semiological marker of our individuality, like clothing. Some use personality markers to elevate themselves above the wicked, it is true. Some are not aware of their semiological markers (self advertisements, if you like), but I think you may agree that some of the meat-eating crowd use their diatribes against vegetarians as a psychological flesh to assert their 'normalcy' against deviance. Think Barthes, red wine and steaks. In language, consumption of meat is normalised, most people feel the need to be normal/natural/healthy ('healthy' is a moral word here); most vegetarians understand that arguing against this is counterproductive since persons constructed by dominant ideology react to deviance by entrenchment.
Miaow!

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm against anti-vegetarians as well. My criticism is of polemic vegetarians who appear more interested in their sense of moral superiority.

When people start using words like "carcasses" and discriminating against meat-eaters, that's just as bad as meat-eaters discriminating against vegetarians. I also feel it is a component of a wider social trend.

One of my best friends describes himself as a vegetarian because he thinks meat is gross and he likes animals better than humans. I can totally respect that, because he's not asserting that he is normal and the other is deviant, which is the real problem.

Obviously, it would be equally wrong if I said I couldn't stand ...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm against anti-vegetarians as well. My criticism is of polemic vegetarians who appear more interested in their sense of moral superiority.

When people start using words like "carcasses" and discriminating against meat-eaters, that's just as bad as meat-eaters discriminating against vegetarians. I also feel it is a component of a wider social trend.

One of my best friends describes himself as a vegetarian because he thinks meat is gross and he likes animals better than humans. I can totally respect that, because he's not asserting that he is normal and the other is deviant, which is the real problem.

Obviously, it would be equally wrong if I said I couldn't stand being near a vegetarian. What really concerns me is that the vegansexuals not only deem others abnormal to make themselves feel normal, but they deem others immoral to make themselves feel moral.