The Case for Loosening the Rules of Veganism (aka, omnis desperately need credit for being “vegan” while sleeping …)

I’m going to add that the Faunalytics study that zillions of morally outraged antivegans exploit to – somehow – validate THEIR choice to commit animal cruelty, was dietary in nature, it was not based on veganism, but rather on plant-based diets: in other words, 84% of people on a diet, went off a diet, including – what was the number? – ah yes, 183 people who consumed only plants. 183. Imagine exploiting a study from years ago where 183 people who identified as plant-based dieters but went back to not being plant-based dieters, somehow validates the selfish, greedy, bloody habits of people TODAY who CHOOSE to consume animals, requiring animals’ violent exploitation. And don’t forget that, of the 1313 total participants who identified as having a former of current DIET of plants, that leaves 1130 VEGETARIANS – aka – OMNIVORES.

Prior to Ed’s video above, I never looked at the numbers, I always just demonstrated to people how it wasn’t about veganism at all but rather diets, which in and of itself, invalidates antivegan presumptions that veganism is “impossible/a trend/a fad/unsustainable/unhealthy/blahblahblah” versus a justice movement rejecting speciesism. But, now that I know the numbers, it’s even more pathetic that antivegans cheer the fact that 8 years ago 183 nonvegans resumed maximum animal cruelty as did 1130 other nonvegans.

(And if you’re one of “those people” who claim to have been vegan for 5 minutes in the ’80s but resumed consuming animals because your arms fell off, you were NEVER vegan; plant-based diets have been consistently proven to be more beneficial to health than eating flesh and pathogens from decomp, and to openly promote animal suffering vs say, NOT, means you had zero concern for animals. Ever. Especially since these people never talk about the vegan/cruelty-free items they still use and how their wardrobe doesn’t include leather or fur and how they actively reject animal entertainment.)

This is what antivegans desperately base their arguments on? What a bold look.

As for “redefining” veganism to include animal suffering so it’s not so “strict”, there already is a definition for that: omnivorism, for weak and indecent animal abusers indignant because vegans exist to remind them that the ACTUAL victims are the animals they effortlessly violate and violently kill. I mean, according to these antivegan intellectual giants, even prevegan I was “vegan” while sleeping and while not consuming flesh since I never really liked much of it.

(And for sure, to the whiny indignants whose tears are saturated with feigned victimization, you abuse animals because humans didn’t ask nicely enough for you to NOT abuse animals? Really? Who do you normally blame when convenient vegan scapegoats aren’t around?)

Get over it: if you’re convinced that reducing flesh consumption by some arbitrary percentage is “good” then try to convince the animals you DO kill that their violent destruction is therefore somehow “good” as well – ??? – . If you can reduce – and you know you can – you can eliminate, no animal volunteers to die because you “do enough”. Nobody praises mass murderers for killing 20 and not 30 beings; to acknowledge not killing 10 is good, then NOT killing ANY establishes what is “ethical”. Antivegans always pretend that third option doesn’t exist.

Oh, and even if you DON’T agree rejecting animal exploitation is good; or if you don’t agree that animals deserve moral consideration; or if you don’t agree human decency inherently requires antispeciesism, I honestly am 100% indifferent to you being “forced” to NOT abuse animals: your OPINION invalidating the sentience of others because you’re incapable of decency doesn’t give you permission to commit it. I don’t maintain that animals deserve moral consideration just because some humans believe they do; I maintain that, even if humans dgaf, which is usually the case, animals STILL deserve a nonexploitative existence separate from human beliefs and characterizations. SL

Source Earthling Ed YouTube

In today’s video I look at an article that addresses the Eric Adams ‘Fishgate’ situation by advocating for the rules of veganism to become loosened so that veganism is less strict. I analyse the author’s arguments and provide my own commentary on whether or not I agree with the proposed idea.

If you find my work at universities valuable, you can become a regular supporter or make a one-off contribution through the following links (thank you!): Earthling Ed Support & Earthling Ed Patreon

Order my best-selling book This is Vegan Propaganda (& Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You) here: Earthling Ed Book

Organise a speech or presentation at your company/education establishment: Earthling Ed Contact

Download Your FREE Vegan PDF HERE

Order a FREE vegan kit HERE

Dairy-Free Info HERE

Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE

Click HERE for more Dairy-Free

Fish alternatives can be found HERE

Learn about eggs HERE

Find bacon alternatives HERE and HERE

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE

Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more?
Click HERE to search.

Free PDF of Vegan & Cruelty-Free Products/Companies HERE

Click HERE to find out How to Wear Vegan!

Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend:

PETA HERE

Vegan Outreach HERE

Get your FREE Activist Kit from PETA, including stickers, leaflets, and guide HERE

Have questions? Click HERE

Treat all others as you wish to be treated or you are no more than an expletive, deleted

Karen Lyons Kalmenson