HOME | DD

Description
Another collab with George Martin from Carnism Debunked.

Art

"IT'S THE FOOD CHAIN"
This is easily refuted by responding to the person arguing it with a simple question, which is: Are you a part of this food chain?
If they answer "yes":
Then by their own logic, there would be nothing morally wrong with someone killing and eating them, and then justifying it by using their argument of "It's the food chain". After all, if they're a part of this system, they don't get to be exempt from the rules—doesn't work that way. They can't just be part of a system which they're not even willing to comply with. And if they're off-limits, then the animals are off-limits too. If their argument is, "Yeah but that's cannibalism": other species regularly cannibalise each other as part of the food chain, e.g. black widows—so a human killing and eating them is behaving no differently from other members of the very system they claim to be part of. And appeals to legality (e.g. "But that's illegal") are not sufficient either—the laws of the food chain are the laws of nature, not the laws we abide by in human society. Also, excusing themselves from these rules by saying "But I'm top of the food chain" is what's know as a 'might makes right' fallacy , i.e. "I am in a position of power over the victim; therefore, it is okay for me to do what I want to them"—this is no different from a domestic abuser arguing that it is okay to beat his wife because men have evolved to be stronger than women.
If they answered "no":
Then their argument of "It's the food chain" is not relevant, and it begs the question as to why they even bothered using this justification in the first place.

"IT'S NATURAL TO EAT ANIMALS"
As with the "animals eat other animals" justification, people only ever seem to be interested in justifying something on the basis that it's 'natural' when it comes to murdering animals. Rather conveniently, no one seems to be interested in ditching their smartphone, squatting over a hole in the ground to go to the toilet (as opposed to using unnatural man-made sewage systems), allowing their partner to abstain from showering and brushing their teeth, and so on. The truth is that humans utterly despise 'natural', and why wouldn't they—natural is often horrible!
In any case, there is nothing at all 'natural' about eating animal products in this day and age anyway, as the definition of 'natural' means something that is not man-made. Given that the animals we eat are a.) forcefully and systematically bred into existence, b.) domesticated and not wild animals (so essentially are a human creation), and c.) are routinely fed antibiotics and other completely unnatural things, it makes absolutely no sense that anyone could say that eating meat or animal products now is natural at all.

"BUT WE'RE OMNIVORES / WE HAVE CANINE TEETH"
Having body parts that are simply capable of doing something does not mean that we should do it. To use an analogy, imagine if a man sexually assaulted someone, and then to justify his actions, pointed at his penis. Yes, humans can digest animal products, but why does that mean we should? Vegans are living proof that humans can live long, healthy lives without eating any animal products whatsoever, and they have the same biological makeup (teeth, etc.) of any non-vegan person, thus it is unnecessary to harm animals when there are alternatives.
With regards to the teeth, it turns out that our teeth are in no way carnivorous/omnivorous anyway. Humans have flat, blunt teeth, with a jaw capable of moving side to side, just like any herbivore. With regards specifically to our 2 pointy little teeth, these are commonplace in various species of herbivores, such as fruit bats, rhinos, hippos, gorillas, and musk deer (aka the sabre tooth deer), all of which have far larger, sharper canines than our 2 pathetic little apple-crunchers that are completely incapable of even tearing through a pillow, let alone someone's flesh and bone.
If humans even had a single omnivorous instinct, the animal rights movement wouldn't even exist because we'd be too busy drooling over slaughterhouse footage to even care. Rather, when we see slaughter footage, we are repulsed by it. A true omnivore or carnivore would salivate or get hungry.
See Milton R MIlls MD's graph here from his paper, 'The Comparative Anatomy of Eating' and decide for yourself how closely humans resemble bears, pigs, foxes, and other omnivores.

"ANIMALS EAT OTHER ANIMALS"
While it is of course true that animals do eat other animals all the time in nature, basing our own ethics, as humans, on the actions of animals, can lead us to all sorts of problems. If we can justify something solely on the basis that animals do it, then we can justify the following: urinating in people's front gardens (dogs do it); sexually penetrating females without their consent (lions do it); smothering our babies to death (lions also do it); vomiting on people's food (flies do it); and so on. People only seem to be interested in justifying human behaviour on one thing that animals do, and that's eating animals.

"THOSE ANIMALS ARE BRED FOR THAT PURPOSE"
Bringing someone into existence for the sole purpose of harming them cannot be justifiable under any circumstances. What's more, no one applies this argument for the animals we don't eat, e.g. dogs bred for dog fighting, and so on (apart from dog fighting racket owners themselves, who of course would use this argument).
Whether an animal is bred for food or not, it is not in the animal's interest to slit their throat and eat them. So this argument, as per all the arguments used for exploiting animals, fails to address things from the victim's perspective. An animal does not care what they are bred for—they just want to live. And it is not our right to dictate a purpose for someone else's life.

"IT'S SURVIVAL"
This is a complete lie, and anyone who uses this argument, deep down, knows it. Vegans are living proof that we do not eat animal products for survival purposes. People eat meat, cheese, milk, eggs, and fish because they enjoy the taste. Mars Bars, KFC, Ben & Jerry's cookie dough ice cream, maple-glazed bacon, donuts, and cheesy puffs are not survival foods and never have been. We can survive and thrive without all these foods (all of which, by the way, there are vegan versions of), and thus we are morally obliged to do so.

"IT'S THE CIRCLE OF LIFE"
You'll have to point me to where the 'circle of life' is in all these slaughterhouse videos, because all I see is torture, abuse, pain, suffering, and misery, for the sole purpose of someone enjoying a 5-minute snack for their own personal pleasure.
What non-vegans call the 'circle of life' is actually a bastardised version of the symbiotic workings of the ecosystem and how it provides fruit for us, as described here by Paul Bashir.
And isn't it yet again convenient how the people who use the 'circle of life' excuse, just like 'the food chain', seem to want to exempt themselves and their own species from the very rules of this system they allegedly abide by, as perfectly articulated by Gary Yourofsky in his video 'Circle of Life Hypocrites '.

"HUMANS ARE SUPERIOR TO ANIMALS / WE ARE THE DOMINANT SPECIES"
Actually, the opposite is true—humans are the only species on earth whose complete removal would benefit absolutely everything (the air, the oceans, the animals, the forests, the soil, etc.). So the idea that a species whose very existence is detrimental to everything is superior to the existence of those species who actually play a role in the ecosystem, is absurd. The idea that one's own kind is superior to another's own kind is the root of all the oppressions throughout history—hardly something we should be aspiring to.
With regards to being the dominant species, and justifying our exploitation of animals on that basis, this is yet another might makes right fallacy . And if we are in a dominant position, why would we even want to rule with violence and cruelty? Why rule with an iron fist when we can rule with love and compassion? Our role as the most powerful species on this earth should be to protect our planet and its creatures, not destroy it and enslave them.
- George Martin

Description
Another collab with George Martin from Carnism Debunked.

Art

"IT'S THE FOOD CHAIN"
This is easily refuted by responding to the person arguing it with a simple question, which is: Are you a part of this food chain?
If they answer "yes":
Then by their own logic, there would be nothing morally wrong with someone killing and eating them, and then justifying it by using their argument of "It's the food chain". After all, if they're a part of this system, they don't get to be exempt from the rules—doesn't work that way. They can't just be part of a system which they're not even willing to comply with. And if they're off-limits, then the animals are off-limits too. If their argument is, "Yeah but that's cannibalism": other species regularly cannibalise each other as part of the food chain, e.g. black widows—so a human killing and eating them is behaving no differently from other members of the very system they claim to be part of. And appeals to legality (e.g. "But that's illegal") are not sufficient either—the laws of the food chain are the laws of nature, not the laws we abide by in human society. Also, excusing themselves from these rules by saying "But I'm top of the food chain" is what's know as a 'might makes right' fallacy , i.e. "I am in a position of power over the victim; therefore, it is okay for me to do what I want to them"—this is no different from a domestic abuser arguing that it is okay to beat his wife because men have evolved to be stronger than women.
If they answered "no":
Then their argument of "It's the food chain" is not relevant, and it begs the question as to why they even bothered using this justification in the first place.

"IT'S NATURAL TO EAT ANIMALS"
As with the "animals eat other animals" justification, people only ever seem to be interested in justifying something on the basis that it's 'natural' when it comes to murdering animals. Rather conveniently, no one seems to be interested in ditching their smartphone, squatting over a hole in the ground to go to the toilet (as opposed to using unnatural man-made sewage systems), allowing their partner to abstain from showering and brushing their teeth, and so on. The truth is that humans utterly despise 'natural', and why wouldn't they—natural is often horrible!
In any case, there is nothing at all 'natural' about eating animal products in this day and age anyway, as the definition of 'natural' means something that is not man-made. Given that the animals we eat are a.) forcefully and systematically bred into existence, b.) domesticated and not wild animals (so essentially are a human creation), and c.) are routinely fed antibiotics and other completely unnatural things, it makes absolutely no sense that anyone could say that eating meat or animal products now is natural at all.

"BUT WE'RE OMNIVORES / WE HAVE CANINE TEETH"
Having body parts that are simply capable of doing something does not mean that we should do it. To use an analogy, imagine if a man sexually assaulted someone, and then to justify his actions, pointed at his penis. Yes, humans can digest animal products, but why does that mean we should? Vegans are living proof that humans can live long, healthy lives without eating any animal products whatsoever, and they have the same biological makeup (teeth, etc.) of any non-vegan person, thus it is unnecessary to harm animals when there are alternatives.
With regards to the teeth, it turns out that our teeth are in no way carnivorous/omnivorous anyway. Humans have flat, blunt teeth, with a jaw capable of moving side to side, just like any herbivore. With regards specifically to our 2 pointy little teeth, these are commonplace in various species of herbivores, such as fruit bats, rhinos, hippos, gorillas, and musk deer (aka the sabre tooth deer), all of which have far larger, sharper canines than our 2 pathetic little apple-crunchers that are completely incapable of even tearing through a pillow, let alone someone's flesh and bone.
If humans even had a single omnivorous instinct, the animal rights movement wouldn't even exist because we'd be too busy drooling over slaughterhouse footage to even care. Rather, when we see slaughter footage, we are repulsed by it. A true omnivore or carnivore would salivate or get hungry.
See Milton R MIlls MD's graph here from his paper, 'The Comparative Anatomy of Eating' and decide for yourself how closely humans resemble bears, pigs, foxes, and other omnivores.

"ANIMALS EAT OTHER ANIMALS"
While it is of course true that animals do eat other animals all the time in nature, basing our own ethics, as humans, on the actions of animals, can lead us to all sorts of problems. If we can justify something solely on the basis that animals do it, then we can justify the following: urinating in people's front gardens (dogs do it); sexually penetrating females without their consent (lions do it); smothering our babies to death (lions also do it); vomiting on people's food (flies do it); and so on. People only seem to be interested in justifying human behaviour on one thing that animals do, and that's eating animals.

"THOSE ANIMALS ARE BRED FOR THAT PURPOSE"
Bringing someone into existence for the sole purpose of harming them cannot be justifiable under any circumstances. What's more, no one applies this argument for the animals we don't eat, e.g. dogs bred for dog fighting, and so on (apart from dog fighting racket owners themselves, who of course would use this argument).
Whether an animal is bred for food or not, it is not in the animal's interest to slit their throat and eat them. So this argument, as per all the arguments used for exploiting animals, fails to address things from the victim's perspective. An animal does not care what they are bred for—they just want to live. And it is not our right to dictate a purpose for someone else's life.

"IT'S SURVIVAL"
This is a complete lie, and anyone who uses this argument, deep down, knows it. Vegans are living proof that we do not eat animal products for survival purposes. People eat meat, cheese, milk, eggs, and fish because they enjoy the taste. Mars Bars, KFC, Ben & Jerry's cookie dough ice cream, maple-glazed bacon, donuts, and cheesy puffs are not survival foods and never have been. We can survive and thrive without all these foods (all of which, by the way, there are vegan versions of), and thus we are morally obliged to do so.

"IT'S THE CIRCLE OF LIFE"
You'll have to point me to where the 'circle of life' is in all these slaughterhouse videos, because all I see is torture, abuse, pain, suffering, and misery, for the sole purpose of someone enjoying a 5-minute snack for their own personal pleasure.
What non-vegans call the 'circle of life' is actually a bastardised version of the symbiotic workings of the ecosystem and how it provides fruit for us, as described here by Paul Bashir.
And isn't it yet again convenient how the people who use the 'circle of life' excuse, just like 'the food chain', seem to want to exempt themselves and their own species from the very rules of this system they allegedly abide by, as perfectly articulated by Gary Yourofsky in his video 'Circle of Life Hypocrites '.

"HUMANS ARE SUPERIOR TO ANIMALS / WE ARE THE DOMINANT SPECIES"
Actually, the opposite is true—humans are the only species on earth whose complete removal would benefit absolutely everything (the air, the oceans, the animals, the forests, the soil, etc.). So the idea that a species whose very existence is detrimental to everything is superior to the existence of those species who actually play a role in the ecosystem, is absurd. The idea that one's own kind is superior to another's own kind is the root of all the oppressions throughout history—hardly something we should be aspiring to.
With regards to being the dominant species, and justifying our exploitation of animals on that basis, this is yet another might makes right fallacy . And if we are in a dominant position, why would we even want to rule with violence and cruelty? Why rule with an iron fist when we can rule with love and compassion? Our role as the most powerful species on this earth should be to protect our planet and its creatures, not destroy it and enslave them.
- George Martin