You just might be a genius if you can you tell the difference between a cow and a carrot……….

What a Texas Court Ruling Could Mean for the Future of Plant-Based Foods

Commentary

I’m going to point out right away that nonvegans often get confused as to why vegans eat food that, according to nonvegans, looks like food vegans oppose, and they ask this question often, using emojis and pictures and a gotcha sense of winning it………………..

But here’s the actual thing: burgers, sausages, deli cuts, etc., etc., etc., made from animal flesh, that nonvegans consume, look NOTHING like the animals from whom they were violently stolen, so the logical question should therefore be, “Why do nonvegans eat flesh from animals that doesn’t look at all like animals?”

Answer: it’s a method of emotional distancing, so people can form soothing attachments to obscure food objects, like tubes and patties and cubes, while ignoring the violent suffering required of animals preceding such.  It’s why you see smiling cows and rollicking lambs on flesh adverts, so you’ll subconciously associate happy, joyful animals to a mindless-yet-comfortable purchase of their violently destroyed lives and stolen flesh.

You wanted to know, right???

I’ve been a vegan activist for many years and I’ve never heard a nonvegan who claimed to be intellectually inferior to non-human animals; indeed, I have often heard nonvegans boast their intellectual superiority to animals to “justify” exploiting animals for food (which is bizarre and unethical in and of itself).  But now those same people are claiming to be not smart enough to understand the difference between animal-based burgers and plant-based burgers?  

Seriously?

Many nonvegans claim to “care” about the animals they consume, so why would they be opposed to veganism and marketed “plant-based sausage/burgers”?  It’s sad, and disturbing, that people who seem “unopposed” to violence against animals associate with “burger” and not “cow”, wanting to save words, yet not save animals.

But ALL animal exploitation, from forced breeding to forced killing, requires pain and suffering, not just the violent destruction of lives, and even though the most vocal nonvegans don’t want to admit such, according to veterinarians, the goal of animal slaughter is to minimize UNneccesary pain and suffering, which means pain and suffering are necessary/inherent in animal slaughter (AVMA).  In other words, even if you ignore the predominant flesh origin of “mass-produced animals”, from factory farms, CAFOs, intensive farms, etc., and highlight the five who are allowed to graze outside, DEATH IS STILL VIOLENT AND ABUSIVE.

So maybe it’s just a measure to, bizarrely, fight against compassion, empathy, and minimizing animal suffering because, as indicated in EU Parliament Votes To Ban Meaty Words On Plant-Based Food Labels, “Some suggest that meaty descriptors may mislead consumers into purchasing alternatives by accident.”

Annnnnnnnnd…………there it is: “purchasing alternatives by accident“.

I mean, what if they like it??????

Animal exploitation is violence, inflicted on the most vulnerable and defenseless beings who possess the capacity for emotion and pain and the desire to not want to die.  It’s not based on animal welfare (animal agriculture being the antithesis of animal welfare) and it’s not humane or kind or necessary.

Nobody exploits animals because they honestly believe that NOT exploiting animals is INhumane.

And by the way, animals are intellectual in manners humans cannot comprehend or refuse to acknowledge, humans just define them as not to validate exploiting them, just like when people anthropomorphically claim that, for example, cows LOVE to be milked (but then pivot and claim cows have zero emotion when they’re being violently slaughtered).  And for sure, intelligence is not a barometer for “the right to live and have freedom from pain and suffering”, especially given the high-IQ qualities of primates and dolphins, both of whom are used for food/entertainment/testing, or the low-IQ nature of antivegan arguments.

Indeed, if animals were incapable of suffering, nobody would TRY. SO. HARD. to euphemistically claim that “animal agriculture” ie., the death industry, is humane and based on animal welfare and that consumers are just too stupid to understand the difference between plant and animal.  

Which is ALL offensive.

(Oh, and as a vegan I have been called many, many names by nonvegans, including stupid, idiot, dense, etc., and if I can tell the difference between a packaged “animal burger” and a plant burger, all my “intellectually superior” nonvegans can, too, so while some mindlessly crusade to possessively save words, leave the animal-saving to those of us with superpower IQs who can heroically tell the difference between a carrot and a cow…..)

SL

See More:

22 sets of twins tried both vegan and meat diets. Here’s how their health fared (spoiler alert: plant-based diets are healthier and can potentially increase your lifespan, not to mention apparently make you smarter, too…)

EAT-Lancet Report: A ‘plant-rich’ diet has the best health and climate outcomes  

New US Dietary Guidelines Prioritise Plant-Based Proteins