Welcome to Stupid Vegan comments.
This video series presents some of the amazingly
stupid comments by vegans on the internet.
In an effort to be fair, I turn my critical
eye to my vegan community and critique comments
that are less than rational.
Here are this week's top 5 picks
1) Jon Hunter is up first with this comment...
While vegans represent a small proportion
of society, there is a lot of ingroup disagreements
and differing motivations, end goals, and
solutions.
I by no means represent the entire vegan community,
and my views expressed here are my own.
I object to anyone eating the flesh of another
animal unless they have a serious need to
do so.
Nearly all flesh consumed by the human race
is procured from animals that were force bred,
held in captivity, and dispatched in a manner
that would be deemed inhuman if done to our
fellow man.
The large majority of people consuming animals
and their bodily secretions do so out of convience,
tradition, and pallate entertainment, and
not for any bodily requirment for nutrients
that could not be otherwise obtained.
Within this comment from Jon Hunter, i find
to primary objections that I would like to
address.
Firstly, while killing and inflicting of pain
are both serious issues relating to animal
husbandry, so to is animal use.
Irrespective of how the animals we eat are
killed or treated, the moral justification
of use should be the primary objection.
Non-vegans often hate the comparison to human
slavery brought forth by vegans, however the
comparison is helpful to illustrate issues
of morality that once were hotly debated and
now are widely accepted.
Using human slavery in this way is not an
attempt to equate human suffering with non-human
suffering, but rather to draw in similar strains
of irrational justifications that might not
otherwise be apparant.
Slavery was and is an abhorent blight on human
history.
Across centuries and continentants some humans
were treated as property to be sold, traded,
or disgarded by their slave owners.
We all recognize today that while the beatings
and killing of slaves was bad, the primariy
objection to slavery has less to do with treatment,
and more to do with the keeping of humans
as property.
Slave owners who treated their slaves well
were tpreferable over slave owners who beat
their property, but neither types of ownership
is morally acceptable.
While farmers who treat their animal property
well are preferred over farmers who don't
treat their property well, neither is morally
justifiable.
My second objection in the comment is in regards
to purchasing animal products for your guests
or friends.
What kind of message are you giving to the
people in your life if, on one hand, you refuse
to support animal based foods due to the inherent
suffering and death involved, and on the hand
have no reservation for purchasing and and
feeding others the very thing that you would
not purchase for yourself.
Going back to the human slave example, it
would be like being a slavery abolitionist
who purchases a slave for his non-abolitionist
guests.
Does that make any sense in the human context?
Why would it make any more sense in the vegan
movement?
Hypocrisy is one of my biggest pet peeves.
2) Next up we have a comment from Zach2wheelz
who had this 
to say...
While not inherently a stupid comment, it
is an ignorant one in which i wish to clear
up.
I am against all forms of animal ownership
including pet ownership, excluding animal
rescue.
I object to the breeding and purchasing of
pet animals, but am all in favour of people
rescuing animals from shelters.
In regards to animal testing in medical science,
this is the only use of animals that is not
transparently frivolous.
I am by no means a scientist or clinical researcher
and so I can not speak from a position of
authority or knowledge.
What I do know regarding animal experimentation
is that animals are not great predictive models
for humans, and so these painful inhumane
testing is often counterproductive and detrimental
to human health and medical progress.
Frequently, diseases contracted by test animals
have not been contracted by humans, and diseases
contracted by humans have frequently not been
contracted by other animals.
This leads one to question whether the paradigm
of using animals to predict human response
to drugs and disease is valid and necessary.
The second use of animals in experimentation
is known as basic research, which is research
conducted to find out how things work, with
no goal of developing drugs, medical procedures
or benefit human medicine whatsoever.
Scientific inquiry which produces immense
suffering and death of sentient beings, without
any practical application is wholly immoral.
I am all for discovery and expanding our knowledge
database, however not at the ultimate and
final expense of others.
While animal experimentation may seem like
a necessary evil in order to find cures for
human diseases, and the debate is often captioned
as "your child or a rat", reality is rarely
so clear cut.
For a fully educated and articulated explanation
of the issues inherent in animal testing,
please google "Exposing the Bad Science Behind
Animal Testing: An Interview with AFMA's Dr.
Ray Greek" (link is in the description).
I will end my response to this comment addressing
Zach2wheelz need for animal derived protective
clothing for his chosen profession.
We live in a non-vegan world full of products
and industries that use animal based materials
often hidden from the consumer.
Im not a welder, and so i can not give you
specific suggestions on alternative vegan
clothing, if they exist for your line of work,
but if they don't then you need to do what
you need to do in order to survive financially.
If and when vegan alternatives are made available,
then at that time it would be important to
support the new product line by changing over.
Veganism isn't about living a perfect life
devoid of any animal suffering, it is about
making an effort to do one's best given the
available options to reduce and minimize suffering
wherever possible.
As long as veganism represents a small proportion
of the human population, there will be situations
that require us to make do with what options
we have currently available.
Wherever and whenever possible, we ought to
insighte change and progress, and encourage
industries and manufacturers to provide vegan
alternatives.
3) Next we have a comment from Peter Singer,
the supposed father of the animal liberation
movement, and he said...
Peter Singer, for those who may not know,
is considered to be the father of the animal
rights movement.
He is an Australian moral philosopher teaching
out of Princeton University and specializes
in applied ethics through a secular utilitarian
perspective.
His famous 1975 book Animal Liberation is
one of the earliest and foundational books
of the animal liberation movement.
While I do appreciate a lot of the hard work
that Peter Singer has done for the animal
liberation movement, we disagree strongly
on key issues, which I would like to address.
The above excerpt comes from an article entitled
"Chew the Right Thing" found in the Mother
Jones Journalism website from 2006.
The first issue I have with Mr. Singer's above
comment is in regards to his outward support
for vegans who "allow themselves the luxury
of not being vegan" when going out to a fancy
restaurant.
If we take seriously moral issues such as
animal rights, economic inequality, racial
inequality, and gender inequality, we cannot
be allowing for hypocrisy and room for exceptions
so large that the the very social justice
issue comes into question.
Would it be rational and acceptable to be
on hand a supporter of the LGBT community
and defender of their rights, and on the other
hand, allow yourself the luxury of one evening
a month to go out in public and stand at the
street corner and spew out homophobic slurs?
I believe that if we conclude something to
be morally wrong, we have a personal obligation
to live in accordance with our values.
If I say that raping children is wrong, then
it is always wrong, and there is no room for
exceptions.
My second issue with Peter Singer's comments
is in regards to his own representation and
hypocrisy, especially in light of his father
status within the animal liberation movement.
He plainly states that he is happy to consume
dairy and eggs (eat vegetarian) when traveling
or when going over to someone for dinner.
This hypocrisy is breathtaking and damaging
to the animal rights movement.
If a well regarded founding figure cannot
advocate for moral consistency what chance
of success do we have?
People of position have more responsibility
to exude confidence, consistency and a clear
message as they are figures that represent
more than just their own personal set of beliefs.
Mixed and conflicting messages are not only
unhelpful, they are counter productive and
damaging.
4) Next is a comment from animal rights activist
and lecturer Gary Yourofsky who had this 
to say...
Here again I have set my critical attention
to another prominent and public figure of
the animal rights movement, Gary Yourofsky.
While I agree with a lot of he has to say,
and I even have one of his lectures up on
my channel, I have some serious concerns with
some of his positions.
Gary Yourofsky is a vegan activist and lecturer
who has had in the past many run ins with
the law for his direct action brand of activism.
Now onto the points of disagreement and concern
found within his above comment.
Gary Yourofsky is openly supportive of the
principle "eye for an eye" and "by any means
necessary" and radical tactics, which I fundamentally
oppose.
Veganism ought to be concerned with the elimination
of violence, not associated with it.
Violence against animals is not helped when
we advocate for violence against industry
or animal exploiters.
Violence is the problem, not the solution.
The large majority of people who engage in
cruel acts of violence and suffering, deemed
acceptable due to social conventions, are
not bad people deserving of punishment.
Your mother, father, brother, sister, neighbours
and friends who may not be vegan are not deserving
of punishment.
I absolutely abhor the use and common treatment
of animals on farms, slaughterhouses, fur
farms, zoos, aquariums and research labs,
but the solution to these is education not
violence.
Without a doubt there are people within animal
industries that are sick sadistic individuals
who enjoy their acts of torture, however these
people should be identified, removed from
their positions, and dealt within the law.
People have become desensitized to the abuses
and suffering of animals because society has
conditioned us to accept it as normal.
This does not make institutional exploiters
and the average meat eater into sadistic monsters,
but rather products of societal pressure and
indoctrination.
I think its awful to think that rapists, murders
and child molesters deserve to be vivisected,
executed and dissected.
I think its disgusting to suggest that furriers
and people who wear fur deserve to be anally
electrocuted for their actions.
This violent extremism is not representative
of the vegan and animal rights community,
and does more to dissuade good, caring, compassionate
meat eaters from contemplating a change.
Veganism is about non-violence.
Veganism is about education.
Veganism is about compassion for all animals,
human and non-human.
5) And Edd Colbert, a vegan and contributing
writer on The Sustainable Food Trust website
is the author of this week's last stupid vegan
comment.
He had this 
to say...
I 
am all for incremental change if the end goal
is the abolition of animal use, however Mr.
Colbert and I have very different ideas on
how to proceed.
Edd believes that while vegans don't need
to start eating meat again to support animal
farmers, we should be advocating for and encouraging
people to consume animal products produced
by supposedly more humane and ethical farmers.
He believes that vegans and vegetarians should
unit and fight for higher animal welfare standards
and encourage meat eaters to reduce, but not
necessarily eliminate their animal consumption.
Here are my thoughts on these points.
1) The central issue that ought to be the
focus of veganism and the animal rights movement
is USE, and not treatment.
Irrespective of how well or poorly farmers
may treat their animal property, the question
of whether we collectively have the moral
right to use animals for our needs needs to
be front and centre.
2) I believe that due to the property status
of livestock, and the financial imperative
of farmers to reduce costs to maximize profits,
their will never be a economically viable
method of breeding, raising and slaughtering
animals that could be considered "good" or
"humane".
The rights and interests of the property owner
will always trump any need of the property.
As long as cows, pigs, chickens and all other
domesticated animals are considered chattel
property, the level of care will be less than
the animals deserve.
3) Our lives are short and precious, and we
do not have a moment to waste advocating for
changes we ourselves would not accept.
If you as a vegan would not consume supposedly
more humane forms of animal body parts and
secretions, why would you encourage others?
This leads me to believe that some vegans
hold arrogant views in which they feel that
only the strong willed and highly compassionate
are capable of being vegans, while everyone
else who doesn't have what it takes should
half measures.
Everyone is capable of being vegan, and while
some people may never choose to go vegan,
we shouldn't encourage practices that we ultimately
do not believe in.
4) Vegans and vegetarians, while often grouped
together under the umbrella of Animal rights,
are not fully compatible and hold different
goals.
While vegetarians typically abstain from animal
flesh, they do support the consumption and
use of dairy, eggs, honey, wool, leather,
fur, and silk.
Many vegetarians work towards improving the
lives of animals, but have no aspiration to
end using animals.
Vegans on the other hand try and avoid all
animal derived ingredients and materials,
and typically strive to abolish human use
of animals.
These two movements differ in their application
and motivations and are not compatible.
As vegans, we ought to live and teach by example,
and not encourage half measures that we ourselves
are not willing to undertake.
The world will not change overnight, and Im
not suggesting that we abandon measures that
will incrementally lead to a vegan world,
but encourage people to consume happy meat
is counter productive and in direct opposition
to what veganism is all about.
People will take whatever half measure they
feel they need, and we should not suggest
that supposedly humane flesh and secretions
are sufficient to alleviate our moral responsibilities.
POLL:
There you have it.
5 stupid comments from 5 different vegans.
Which comment would you vote to win the Dumbass
Comment of the week award?
Would it be:
1) Jon Hunter who has no issue with buying
animal products for his non-vegan friends,
even though he does not support the killing
and infliction of pain associated with those
products.
2) Zach2wheelz who is concerned that without
animal testing, human health and well-being
would suffer
3) Peter Singer who thinks its okay for vegans
to allow themselves the luxury of not being
vegan when going out to fancy restaurants.
4) Gary Yourofsky believes that we should
follow a philosophy of an "eye for an eye",
"by any means necessary", in our animal rights
advocacy
or
5) Edd Colbert who believes that vegans should
encourage supposedly humanely procured flesh
and animal secretions.
To vote, leave your choice in the comment
section below.
Choose only 1 winner.
Results will be available on my Facebook page
and google + page One week from today on Friday
March 14th.
Check back to see who won!
If you enjoyed this video remember to press
the like button and share with everyone!
If you would like to submit a video or audio
reading of an upcoming stupid comment, send
me an email to veganatheist@hotmail.com
Want to say hello?
Have a comment or question?
Why not leave me a voicemail on my new Skype
account.
Its easy and free.
All you have to do is log onto your account,
Click onto Dial Pad, type in "TheVeganAtheist",
wait 8 rings and leave your message.
Your voicemail may be used on a future video.
Hope to hear from you soon!
Thanks for watching.
Want to see more?
CLICK subscribe and keep an eye out for the
next Stupid Comments video coming out next
friday.
Follow me on my Facebook, twitter and google
+ pages (links are in the description).
Lastly, head over to my channel and check
out all the debates, presentations and videos.
