Things To Consider First

​

Empathy for non-humans, by in large, has been conditioned out of us, especially for cows, pigs, and chickens, through the enculturation of animal consumption. This enculturation is maintained by greed.

​

I believe that, within this culture, people with greedy hopes are attributing their own lack of empathy for other animals unto other animals actually feeling less and then using an instrumental value even though animals matter unto themselves and therefore have an inherent value.

​

To assume that the amount of empathetic feeling one has for an animal equates to the quality of experience an animal has of his/her life would just be flawed, but to assume that because someone has a "lower quality" consciousness means that they matter less [or not at all in comparison to oneself] would be greed. That said though, one would think that evolution would have selected for a high quality consciousness in all animals, so as to be able to defend oneself against predators [survival of the fittest applies].

​

More or less feelings situated within oneself for other animals, shouldn't be the deciding factors when it comes to the decision of whether or not one should harm non-human animals, because more or less empathetic feelings for non-humans doesn't indicate how much non-humans matter unto themselves. But when there are any empathetic feelings with non-humans, it means that there is a natural recognition of non-humans' inherent dignity. It is this recognition of of non-humans and logic (a logic consistent with love) that should be the deciding factors when it comes to the decision of whether or not to harm other animals.

​

Non-humans naturally, in most cases, don't value humans, but value their own kind, usually, as they associate with them. One would think that humans could rise above personal affections when making value judgements about others and instead use logic and reason, guided by the golden rule. but it turns out that they are usually and currently, acting just like the non-humans on this matter. Unlike most non-humans though, most humans recognize (have empathy for) other species (humans have empathy for non-humans). But instead of acknowledging this fact, most deny the fact of recognition in favor of personal gain (greed). But, of course, this is a "prescription" with the side effect cognitive dissonance.

​

The prevailing myth that greed uses to try to justify its evil deeds is that humans matter above all others (non-humans) and that non-humans have the value that humans afford them according to their usefulness unto humans. But that would mean that non-humans have no value unto themselves, and we know through empathy (a recognition of another) that that is not true. Non-human animals matter unto themselves and they have an experiential welfare that fairs better or worse for them. I recommend watching this video, HERE

​

When valuing individuals, to say that humans are superior to other animals, or that some humans are superior to other humans, is to use an instrumental value, that of which is used when discriminating between non-conscious material things as opposed to an inherent value, that of which is consciousness, a value that has value in and of itself and matters unto itself. To use an instrumental value, in this way, with consciousnesses (individuals), is to discriminate based on irrelevant criteria (differences) when there is only one value relevant here, consciousness (in order to be non-discriminatory and ethical). Consciousness is where we are all equal. And in need of the basic moral principle of respect (the golden rule applies). But to say that one is superior, is to say that the other has the value of a thing (non-conscious), and that therefore, one can do as they please without concern for respect.

​

Greed interprets this myth into the Bible as with dominion, but dominion just means control. Just because we have the ability to kill (control), does that mean, that we should? No one, decent, ever gave a commandment to unnecessarily kill non-humans. If one's religion says that it's fine to harm another animal when it is avoidable, I would recommend not doing so, and instead going by what's moral and ethical. And if one's religion should say, so to speak, that one should, then, I would recommend finding one that doesn't. Or just don't have one.

​

If you were participating in a much loved but unnecessary tradition but it would take an animal's life from them, would you continue to participate in it? If you are a decent human being, I think that your answer should be, no. To murder someone for the sake of one's own pleasure (loved tradition) is wrong. No amount of HUMAN PLEASURE is more important than a non-human's, we exist as individual beings, consciousnesses that require the basic moral principle of respect.

​

Consciousness, evolutionarily speaking, is a means to an end, anyone who is conscious wants to stay alive and well. And respect helps this. The golden rule applies. Respect is a method we use within morality in order to be fair, so as to be able to preserve a consciousness, a life, maintain survival, and be just. Animal advocates advocate for respect, fairness and justice for non-humans and humans, as well as basic humanity for humans.

​

Doing what one CAN do in order to avoid harm and still survive, I believe, is still a grotesque sin, so to speak, because we live on a crowded planet where there are large and small individuals, and so, one cannot avoid accidents, by doing anything, practically, one would be choosing one's own life over others' lives, most likely small and tiny individuals. That said though, I think that this is where some grounds for legal protections may be, as the raising, breeding and killing of non-humans for human consumption, CLEARLY, can be avoided.

​

if humans are to play God and do what's best for mother earth, NOT bringing extra animals into existence in order to kill them for pleasure (TAST OR SPORT) is in everyone's best interest. This is again, CLEARLY avoidable.

 

You may have had someone give you things you didn't use that became things you use, or you've heard an add many times before you actually listened to it or became aware of it. This is how I'm convinced that it can work, sometimes, with animal advocacy, such as when someone is invested in greed (to any degree) or is ignorant. This is because people want to do the right thing even when tempted by greed. It can take many times before someone listens and takes action, depending upon their degree of investment in greed and/or ignorance/misinformation received. And this makes it easy for someone to assume that animal advocacy isn't working even when it is and that some people will never listen and take action even when they are listening and will take action eventually. This doesn't negate the need for strategy, in fact it implies prospectives for strategies:

• give gifts, information, ways to receive information etc.

​​

I've heard it said that it takes a hundred clicks to for someone become vegan ethical, but I say that it can take one to one million clicks to become an ethical minded individual. People need to consciously decide to not value greedy/inconsiderate motivations and think of others (other animals) first because it's too easy to think of oneself, they need to have their value system's primary importance be other animals before themselves (be ethical minded), whatever it takes in order for one to practice the golden rule (be fair).

 

I've heard it said that there's a revolving door when it comes to animal advocates and I believe that the assumption that some people will never listen and take action is, in large part, responsible for it. Another thing that may be partly responsible for it is the unexpected meetings of greedy responses from prospective individuals by advocates. Greed doesn't like to hear information that threatens it. Greed can give rise to unpleasantries when one's trying to advocate to an individual. This is one reason why it is important to go under the radar of greed by strictly advocating for humanity/animals. Superman goes to the most unpleasant people in order to advocate to them for them to summon their own humanity. For an animal advocate to do the same by advocating for animals would be like a true superman or superwoman.

​

Another thing that I've heard is that a large portion of "vegans" go back to their old ways, but, of course, majority doesn't make right and neither do norms. People want to do what's right but are taking actions that are wrong. This is either because of ignorance or greed. In the case of ignorance, I believe, because the facts are out there, that ignorance is being maintained, in large part, because of greedy interests. And I suspect that at least some people are going back to their old ways for social acceptance. To be inconsiderate towards non-humans because of a FEAR of losing social acceptance is the epidemy of extreme selfishness. One's value system needs to be towards the other citizens of the planet (other animals/non-humans), not on selfish interests (social acceptance). Though, social acceptance in social circles is fine as long as the ethical treatment of animals is in agreement and humanity when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals is upheld. The investment in greed is prevalent, and therefore greed is likely to try, I believe, to take hold with groupthink in social circles. One should never go with the direction of greed when it comes to other animals and should stay focused in the direction of the value of other animals and if one should get led off course, then one should return to the topic of other animals and the ethical treatment of them.

​

People who have been taken over by greed, will look for a flaw in the messenger, so that they can say something to the effect as, "hey look he stumbled, therefore he's a flawed human being, and that means that everything that he says must be flawed", essentially, looking for an excuse to not have to listen to (hear) the messages that the messenger presents. He may be successful in fooling himself in order to dismiss the facts/message, but facts are facts and truth is truth, and they should be headed. When someone points out a flaw or perceived flaw with you as an advocate, one should point out what they're doing to them and the flaw in what they're doing, call them out for it. All humans are flawed.

​

People like to talk about things that they FEAR (or in this case a greedy mind fears) and going under the radar of greed (staying focused on the value of animals), would also help prevent groupthink and greed supporting greed. The unnecessary word vegan makes it easy for greed to fear its end, have enemy images, groupthink, and for greed to support greed. This creates a polarization that shouldn't exist. To not harm animals is a universal human value but it's not a value of greed.

​

Naming the enculturation of animal consumption "Carnism", I think, makes animal consumption look legit as it implies a belief system, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a true "belief" system, people THINK all kinds of things and people do all kinds of things that they don't mean, and this is what happens when people are conflicted with and possessed by greed instead of practicing humanity. To unnecessarily harm an animal is not part of humanity. Also, with the word Carnist, people could form an identity to try to defend, this, I believe, would be counterproductive.

​

Naming, with the word veganism/vegan, on the other hand, I think, delegitimizes its actual intended purpose, to define truly ethical behavior. Ethical, as the ethical treatment of animals, is ethical already, it doesn't need to be separated out, so to speak, and then named, why would it? This should be a revealing question to ask oneself. People could also form an identity with the word vegan to try to defend, this would be counterproductive. Greed as opposed to humanity and true human ethics exist. One should not use the word(s) carnism/carnist. And the use of the word(s) veganism/vegan can be harmful, depending upon how one responds, and in what context it is used.

​

The definition of veganism is a philosophy (animal rights) and way of living which seeks to exclude animal exploitation (selfish inconsiderate use of non-human animals) as far as is possible and practicable. This selfish inconsiderate use of animals harms animals and is avoidable and so veganism is a criterion for ethical, and what veganism means is ethical, truly ethical. And, because the word exists, the word veganism may sometimes be necessary to define ethical (depending on context) in a culture that practices a harmful status-quo that harms animals unnecessarily and avoidably for reasons such as tradition or conditioned taste etc.; all trivial reasons and all are motives of greed.

 

Non-human animals would be better served using simple language, original words; creating and using new words to define something that existing words should define creates division, discredits and blocks credibility of the new word itself and leaves room for illegitimate (greedy) use of original words such as 'humane' or 'ethical' thus legitimizing illegitimate use of the word. This would bring into existence an evil polarity or keep such a polarity going, instead of defining any true meaning of ethical. Division is not good here. "Humane meat" is not humane or ethical, such is impossible, and it needs to be called out for what it is, WRONG AND UNETHICAL, for the same reasons as any other "meat". Basic decency doesn't need a name, indecency does!

 

Because of widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of veganism, if the term veganism is used, one should clarify the definition of, and ethical status of the meaning of veganism as a criterion for ethical. Similarly, if someone should refer to or ask you if you are a vegan, you should clarify such and tell them that you are vegan-ethical, as the term vegan refers to an ethical criterion and nothing else. As such there is only one reason for being vegan but there are many plant-based diets.

​

There needs to be an advocate on every corner of the planet earth to bring an awareness to people's misdeeds (unnecessary harms to other animals), especially animal consumption, as it contributes the majority of unnecessary harms to non-humans.

​

• Advocacy suggestion: Ask the question; Do you believe that it is wrong to harm an animal when it is avoidable? And if they say yes or no answer, be assertive, suggest that, if so, that they go plant-based. Don't try to be evasive, people sense that. People don't want to harm animals and there is nothing wrong with suggesting something. I believe that this question is of a universal ethical belief and is the bedrock inquiry that I use for advocacy, along with a suggestion [if so, go plant-based] designed to help to invoke an awareness and initiate right action.

​

Human beings are susceptible to enculturalization, which is one reason why we've had such a culture of animal consumption. That of which I believe got started out of desperation (survival). But then unnecessarily kept in practice by an insidious enculturalization, the inherent thoughtlessness of habit and greed.

​

There have always been some people who have been plant-based in terms of diet. Even since ancient times. Certain Neanderthals that were in what is now Spain, evidence suggests that they were plant-based. Also, there have been humans throughout the ages that have been plant-based.

​

Though, modern day practice of a plant-based diet proves its healthful status and renders animal consumption therefore, proven unnecessary.

​

I believe that people want to do the right thing but in the presence of selfish desires one must refer to the golden rule to know right action. ---W.M.

​

• People already know that other animals matter and deserve respect, but people are also highly invested in greed. And so, it can be tricky when it comes to figuring out what to say and in what context to do so, so as to make it least likely to provoke greed as opposed to an empathetic response. When someone comes to a realization (especially a non-status-quo/unconventional realization) about something and wants to give that realization to another, they usually dismissively "forget" about the process that it took to get to that realization in favor of the realization itself, and so start with the "prized" realization, but that almost never works out. The realization is almost never accepted by the other who hasn't gone through the process of getting there. This, I believe, has likely been a fault of advocates in the past. Starting with the process, I believe, will help to cause people to awaken, fight for other animals, the respect of our values, and our dignity.​

 

•  Mailing suggestion: Send the same postcard three times if unacknowledged, allowing enough time to forget the previous postcard mailings; it's an awareness trick.

​​

 

• I used Libre Office to create a document or slide, turned it into a jpeg file and then uploaded it to vistaprint.com and then used their QR code generator to add QR code links to the advocacy materials.

 

• PRINT ONE OFF YOURSELF AT HOME and then send to a family member or a friend.

​

RECOMMENDED LINKS FOR ADVOCACY MATERIALS:

• Why Seventh-Day Adventists Live So Long (Dan Buettner Interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w68M6FsMmBA

• Why Vegan? - Lecture on Animal Rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiJKbXZrgts&list=PLelm-TF5YbFvYbxYTLuBxk2QIld_6Rr0F&index=2

• The SCARIEST Halloween Horror Movie You Will Ever See... PERIOD!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THTbLABaDEI&t=161s