breakfast #vegan (Taken with instagram)

soft serve #vegan (Taken with instagram)

have I died and gone to heaven? #vegan (Taken with Instagram at Blackbird Pizzeria)

pizzaholic #vegan (Taken with Instagram at Brick Oven Pizza (BOP))

#vegan snicker doodles for tomorrows potluck! 😊 (Taken with Instagram at buckmaster palace )

lazy late dinner / fresh peaches and cereal #vegan (Taken with Instagram at buckmaster palace )

chocolate orange cupcakes with a vanilla icing w/orange zest #vegan (Taken with instagram)

whole wheat mac&cheez w/ veggies and a hint of lemon (Taken with Instagram at buckmaster palace )

The fact that a “feminist”, especially one that is running a “social justice blog”, would try to claim that someone forcing their hand into someone’s rectum and inserting a large metal object into her vagina in order to artificially inseminate her without her consent doesn’t “fall under the category” of rape is so fucking ridiculous it blows my mind.

Someone seriously needs to check their human privilege if they think that only humans can be raped.

Ps. If this ask didn’t make your blood boil enough, go on down to their Animal Welfare Blog.

Just for clarification, I didn’t send this ask but I did send a similar ask recently to FuckYeahFeminists which I received no reply.

I am the lamest person ever / crying while watching this / the turkeys make the cutest happy sounds. i can’t stand it.

Anonymous asked: I think it might be you who has missed the point, and deduced things that were certainly not said. "There is no reason why anyone should continue to eat animal products and contribute to the suffering of non-humans when there is a viable alternative. This act is wrong. It is ethically unjustifiable and it is unacceptable." Well first of all, ethics and morality is not objective, and second of all there is hunting, which is the only way any human should ever be carnivorous. Not grocery stores.

On top of that, I want to ask you - do you believe in free speech? I bet you’d like to think you’re pretty liberal. What goes with liberal territory is the “freedom of speech unless you’re not with us” hypocrisy. Telling somebody that an entire concept is “wrong” is not accepting the fact that there may be many different perspectives to your undoubtedly under-informed understanding of a situation. Veganism is no more universally “right” as carnivory is “wrong”.

If you care about the life of the planet, which I can say that I do too - perhaps you and others shouldn’t be so quick to write off an entire human concept, such as omnivory (as it has and will exist in primitive, sustainable, and beneficial ways for centuries). Instead, look for its benefits and potential. Especially when you all contribute to human destruction, enslavement and exploitation with Apple products, brand new clothes, alcohol, cigarettes, and vehicles. Don’t those affect the Earth?

I do not think I have missed any of your points but now that you have abandoned the majority of them in order to bring up new points I guess it doesn’t matter. Although some argue that ethics are not objective, when speaking about veganism I am not pointing to idea that everyone shares the same ethical guidelines, what I am pointing to is the general schizophrenia that characterizes most people’s ethics.

At the baseline of this moral schizophrenia is sentience and what rights sentience affords to those of the human species. Most people believe that regardless of race, gender, intelligence and ability humans deserve basic rights. Even humans who do not have the mental capacity to understand what it means to have these rights, like infants, are protected because they are sentient and they have the ability to feel pain, to suffer. Non-humans are also sentient. However, they are not afforded these same rights. When examined in the context of nearly universal ethical guidelines, the fact that we afford rights to humans based on sentience yet exclude non-humans is illogical and extremely hypocritical. The only reason that non-humans are excluded from human’s ethical community is because they are non-human. This is called speciesism.

Although you did little to explain your point about hunting or why you believe it is ethically superior to agriculture let me just get it out of the way and tell you now, it is not. If sentience is the marker we use to dictate who is afforded the right to not be murdered than non-humans should also be afforded that right.

Although your point about free speech is also irrelevant I will address it. I believe in free speech. What I do not believe in is the exploitation of non-humans. You can spew hate for non-humans every day of the week and although I definitely do not agree with this type of behavior, until it actually infringes upon the rights of others, like when you put a bullet into a non-human, there is little I can say besides you are an asshole.

Your point about environmentalism is also irrelevant. Although the environment is important, just as you wouldn’t bring up environmentalism in a conversation about sexism, there is no reason to bring up the health of the environment in a conversation about specieism and the oppression of non-humans. Since we are on the subject though it is important for you to know that switching to a plant based diet (which is not the entirety of veganism but is a part of it) can be extremely beneficial to the environment. Plant-based foods are less energy intensive than animal-based ones. (source) Not to mention “producing the world’s beef and pork intake creates more greenhouse gases than all of the planet’s cars, planes and boats combined” (source). Considering that took me maybe 30 seconds to google, if I were you, I would do a little bit more research before attempting to claim that vegans aren’t inadvertently doing their part as environmentalists.

 Good day.

 Ps. Just for clarification, humans are not carnivores.