Deconstructing Spencer's Comment

As much as I don't like responding to comments that are hostile, they also demonstrate a lack of understanding/education/knowledge on the part of the commenter that perhaps, if remedied, might result in a different opinion.

Such is the case with Spencer R's comment from my brief post recommending The Botany of Desire. Spencer R writes:

Vegans sound exactly like religious fundamentalists. You can't pull the god card to claim superiority over the rest of us so you demonize the consumption of animal products. It's an absurd point of view that really has no logical backing whatsoever. Trying to convince people to go vegan is like trying to convince people to only reproduce once. Sure it would help the planet, but there is no way in hell it's ever going to happen.

It's an especially ridiculous concept because the vegans in modern western society would not be able to maintain their living standards without the exploitation of dirt-poor humans in third world countries across the globe. You purposefully choose to ignore facts like that though when citing the "cruelty and injustice" involved in the rearing and slaughter of animals. You're hypocrites essentially, and the worst kind in my opinion. Loud preaching hypocrites utterly convinced of their infallability.

There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, it's called realism and (most) vegans have absolutely zero concept of what that is or how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles.

A few patient individuals chose to respond to Spencer R, and I'd like to deconstruct his comment and add my own response because what he writes isn't uncommon in its tone or its content.

• The first three sentences, unpacked, are: Vegans are like religious fundamentalists who act superior and demonize of the consumption of animals. Our beliefs and the way they are manifested are absurd and not logical.

We are people who believe that using animals when we don't need to, and certainly killing them when we don't need to, isn't right. It simply cannot be justified. Logically, it is a perfectly sound position.

• As for a world of vegans being improbable, I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we are not vegans because we necessarily think we're going to succeed in worldwide veganization. We are vegans because it's the right thing to do if we claim to believe that sentient nonhumans are not here to satisfy our wants, desires and profit motives. Should we all wage war because it's unlikely that there will ever be peace on Planet Earth? 
• Saying, "sure, it will help the planet," says that the planet isn't important enough to try to help, particularly if everyone's not going to do it (in the context of that paragraph). Who's not logical?
• The second paragraph, frankly, is a bit confusing to me. I'm not sure what being a vegan has to do with exploiting poor people in third world countries. Perhaps Spencer R would like to look into Eric Schlosser's work, such as Fast Food Nation, and also the recent "Food Inc.," not to mention read more writing by actual vegans. We are not ignorant of the exploitation of humans that often goes hand-in-hand with the exploitation of nonhumans. And we are also not ignorant of the fact that though slaughterhouses often employ unskilled and illegal immigrants, so do tomato farms and other fruit and vegetable farms, particularly right here in the Sunshine State (here's one of my favorite organizations that does great work). As for being convinced we are infallible, the great equalizer in the vegan journey is that no one who lives in mainstream American society can be 100% vegan. We avoid harm and exploitation as much as we can, at least for me with regard to people, the planet, and nonhuman animals. But to claim perfection or infallability--now that would be "absurd."
• Though this comment is riddled with hyperbole and judgment, the final sentence is the probably the worst offender. To say that people whom you do not know have "absolutely zero concept" of "realism" (and I'm assuming that means "reality") and "how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles," after calling us ridiculous, illogical, absurd, and hypocritical, is a strange way to make your point. So strange that I'm not sure what your point is.

Spencer R, here is a suggestion: Without calling me names, and without insulting me, tell me of this "realism." Explain it to me and please include how it needs to be applied to my daily lifestyle. And please don't include the tired argument about what is "natural." Is cooking food "natural"? Is marinating flesh "natural"? Is bread "natural"? Is people flying in planes "natural"? Are condoms "natural"? What does natural mean and what are the benefits of "natural"? And if you haven't, you might want to explore some sites that detail comparative anatomy and demonstrate how much more we are like herbivores than carnivores.

Thanks. You are welcome here any time, but not simply to rant. If you have something intelligent to say, we all welcome it.

Comments

[Mesiu]

This made me chuckle a bit. Can't wait for Spencer now.

[Ana]

People like Spencer throw the plight of the Third World in people's faces to silence dissension. They use guilt as emotional blackmail. Only those who are truly pure can ever say anything in criticism. It's the same with people who say "you must have served in the military to earn the right to criticize it" or "you can't criticize animal research unless you've never taken a drug in your life." Very clever, very emotional, very much blackmail.

Moreover, not all vegans are living the high life. And second, I'd like to know to which development group Spencer donates his disposable income.

[Kristen]

Spencer R. -

I can't speak for other vegans but I in no way feel a sense of superiority - in actuality becoming vegan has made me realize how horrible I, as a human, am. I in no way feel superior, especially in comparison to animals. You don’t see non-human animals enslave, torture, and commit unspeakable atrocities on not only members of their own species but those of others. I do feel that I am enlightened and it does get frustrating to see other people “still in the dark” but superior I am not. I feel that some religious people feel the same way; they feel enlightened, not superior. Again I can’t speak for all people and all religions, but you can’t generalize an entire group of people.