Vegetarianism is the OPPOSITE of veganism.
They’re NOT similar.
They’re NOT anywhere near the same thing.
If this statement sounds crazy to you, it’s
because you’ve been swindled into seeing
vegetarianism as some kind of benevolent thing,
some kind of “middle ground” between flesh
eating and veganism, when actually, vegetarianism
and flesh eating are as distant from veganism
as each other.
I like to think of vegetarianism as a sleazy
salesman: it presents itself to the buyer
as an act of altruism and kindness, when the
reality is that the buyer, high on feelings
of positivity as they make the transaction,
will be paying for exactly the same evil and
cruel acts they were paying for before.
In fact, the smokescreen of vegetarianism
as ethical or even semi-ethical is so strong
that, I bet many of you who are VEGAN who
are watching this video, disagree with me
vehemently already when I say that vegetarianism
is actually the opposite of veganism.
I’m gonna now prove to you just how effective
this sleazy sales trick has been with a simple
experiment.
If I say “shredding male chicks alive in
a macerator is the opposite of veganism”,
I’m pretty sure 100% of people watching
this video would say, “well, obviously”.
If I say, “bludgeoning calves to death with
pick axes is the opposite of veganism”,
once again, I’d bet my house that every
single person watching this video would be
in complete agreement.
If I say, “hacking lambs’ tails off and
sending them on ships for live export in the
wool industry is the opposite of veganism”,
once again, any rational person watching would
just agree with me.
Yet whenever I say “vegetarianism is the
opposite of veganism”, as is the title of
this video, this is met with disagreement
and controversy--EVEN THOUGH vegetarianism
funds ALL THOSE THINGS.
So, how on earth is it possible that any of
those things ALONE can be the opposite of
veganism, yet somehow when we combine them
and just give it a word like “vegetarianism”,
it now magically becomes similar to veganism?
It makes no sense.
So, just to be clear:
In the egg industry, male chicks are shredded
alive because they can’t lay eggs.
Vegetarians pay for this.
In the dairy industry, cows are sexually violated,
branded with hot irons, have their calves
stolen from them, and the male ones are murdered
while the female ones grow up as slaves for
their lactations and are eventually slaughtered.
Vegetarians pay for this.
In the wool industry, lambs unfit for wool
production are bludgeoned to death by being
slammed against a wall or floor, while ones
fit for wool production have their tails hacked
off, have tags put in their ears, are shorn,
often very roughly, being beaten and cut during
the process, and are eventually murdered,
often after being exported to other countries
on hellishly long journeys via boat.
Vegetarians pay for this.
Now, what about quantity then?
You’ll find that many apologists for vegetarianism
argue that “a vegetarian massively reduces
their impact in comparison to a meat eater”
and “kills way fewer animals”, and you
know what, maybe in many cases that’s true,
but guess what: you can’t just make blanket
statements like that.
In fact, if absolutely is possible for a vegetarian
to cause as much or MORE harm than a flesh
eater.
For example, a vegetarian who eats shit loads
of eggs and eats animal foods every single
day, causes WAY MORE harm than, say, a flesh
eater who maybe has an egg or dairy allergy
who eats bacon once or twice a week and has
the odd cheeseless pizza every now and then.
The amount of male chicks macerated, and indeed
female chicks bred into existence to lay eggs
for them and suffer various abuses throughout
their lives until being murdered, is astronomical.
Then you have to factor in that veganism goes
way beyond food.
You might get a flesh eater who only buys
second hand clothing, for example, while a
vegetarian is an absolute fast fashion queen
and is buying the skin, wool and fur of murdered
animals on a weekly basis.
Then you have people who might live in rural
parts of their country and mostly hunt and
forage for their own food, for example: they
might murder a wild hog or rabbit every week
or so, and the flesh is used to sustain a
family for however long.
The average vegetarian living in a developed
country is likely going to be causing WAY
MORE animal murder than they are.
In fact, I’ve found that vegetarians are
often the biggest addicts to these products
there are.
They absolutely fill their shopping trolleys
to the brim with cheese, eggs, and so on.
It just strikes me as incredibly naive to
make these statements like saying that vegetarians
cause “less harm” than flesh eaters do.
WHICH ONES?!
So, what about when people say that vegetarianism
is a “stepping stone” and thus some kind
of “middle ground” between Carnism and
veganism, and that it helps many people “transition”?
The problem with this argument is that it
arbitrarily assigns flesh as having some kind
of magical halfway transitional property,
and ignores the others, and this is the problem
with the concept of “vegetarianism”--it
treats meat as “special” in comparison
to the other animal products.
For example, we don’t have a word for someone
who eats flesh, honey, and dairy every single
day, but does not eat eggs.
The truth is that someone who matches this
description is actually as much of a so-called
“vegetarian” as someone who does NOT eat
flesh but does eat eggs.
They are the SAME distance from veganism as
each other.
Why then, do we have this word and concept
of “vegetarianism” when flesh is just
one tiny product in a whole world of torture.
When we go into a supermarket, we are SURROUNDED
by the products of abuse, rape, slavery and
murder, yet the people who boycott just ONE
of these products gets a special word for
them.
Why?
And this is why vegetarianism is such a dangerous
concept: it upholds steak and chicken wings
as the epitome of all evil, while glossing
over the very products that fund the same
industries those 2 products are a part of.
I’ve argued with so many vegans who take
particular offence to what I’m saying and
tell me things like “I was a vegetarian
for 31 years before I became vegan--I just
didn’t know”.
The funny thing about stories like that are--they
just go to PROVE my point about just how dangerous
vegetarianism is, and WHY you should hate
its very existence.
If you were a vegetarian for many years before
you were vegan, that means you were funding
the most evil and brutal acts of violence
on the planet while THINKING you were doing
the right thing.
I mean fuck, you should be even MORE angry
about vegetarianism than ME!
You should be attacking vegetarianism MORE
THAN I AM!
You were conned!
Remember that sleazy salesman analogy I made
earlier?
You got absolutely scammed, and wasted DECADES
of your life in some cases, funding animal
abuse when you could’ve been doing the right
thing.
Don’t get angry at me for pointing this
out: get angry at vegetarianism!
Another problem with vegetarianism is that
its very EXISTENCE paints veganism as “extreme”,
or a “step too far”.
When vegans in any way condone vegetarianism,
all they’re doing is solidifying this Carnist
idea that eating flesh is the norm, vegetarianism
is “a little weird but OK”, and then veganism
is just this radical, crazy, out there thing
that’s just “taking it too far”.
In fact, when you first went vegan, I’ll
bet my bottom dollar that you even heard people
say to you, “why not just become a vegetarian
instead”?
What we need to be doing as vegans is hammering
home the position that vegetarianism isn’t
some kind of “alternative” to Carnism--IT
IS Carnism.
You’re either a vegan or a Carnist--that’s
it.
There’s no inbetween, there’s no middle
ground.
You either support animal slavery or you don’t.
Veganism is a stance AGAINST the exploitation
and murder of animals.
Vegetarianism, however, REVOLVES AROUND the
exploitation and murder of animals.
Vegetarianism is the opposite of veganism.
Thanks very much for watching, everyone.
Please like this video and share it far and
wide, hit the subscribe button, and if you
like my content, consider supporting me on
Patreon.
Thanks everybody.
