All-nighter Wood Stove Company

horrors of animal rights activists, are not alone ...

Often people who love animals and is passionate in defending their rights feel alone. It does not matter to be enrolled in several different associations, not mind having contact with other animals and volunteers. In everyday life, in fact, we find ourselves - like it or not - to have to do with a majority of people that respect for animal life (in all its forms) it understands little or nothing - and that probably will not be subject to deeper 'argument.
result is the discomfort, the unpleasant feeling of being isolated one drop of pure empathy in a sea of \u200b\u200bindifference.

I tried it often, this sad helplessness during the my life.
is why the mail from Rita few days ago (sent, she says, after discovering Natividad surfing the Web) has welcomed me and showed me great pleasure.

In today's post, I just want to share with you some steps in this long and beautiful letter - of course after seeking the consent of its author ...

The objection that I have been asked most often is one that appeals to an alleged "naturalness" of the act of killing the animals because "even animals kill each other." I always reply by saying that then we should also mate indiscriminately with all those who pass on the street and that we find attractive because it is the way it works in animals. What I mean by that? That the human species is evolutionarily differentiated [...] because it is able to suppress, through culture, education, law, etc.. - Basically everything you need to set up a social system as such - those that are considered primitive instincts. We as a species, we still have some instincts, but culturally we have been taught to keep them under control. Those who are unable to do so is considered punishable by law, or sick and therefore in need of care. In modern societies, everything is very little natural and cultural construction.

The "naturalness" we use only when it suits us: in the case of the killing of animals for food, for example. In that case, it is often called in case the "naturalness" of killing some beings from other living beings.

LAV The poster for the 2008 campaign on vegetarianism.

Getting

then simply say that some animals are born to be eaten while others do not seem to say the least, untenable. E 'statement that just can not have any validity, which can not be supported by any argument. And who, pray, would decide which animals born to be eaten, killed, exploited, while others do not? By what criteria?
Some say so: According to intelligence. Well, then, who has an IQ below average deserves to be deleted? Indeed, the discourse of speciesism is dangerous because, in its most extreme consequences of reasoning leads us straight to the death camps.

Moreover, if the policy was "intelligence" (definition by no means unambiguous and unique), then animals like horses and pigs should be spared: their slaughter, however, as we know, continues unabated. And then there

also the discussion of what I call "schizophrenia", that is moved to the cinema for the little fish Nemo and then exit go straight ahead to get a nice grilled fish. But is the company that we get used to this dissociation, there is nothing natural about it! Because the meat wrapped in advertisements always put the picture or drawing of the lamb grazing peacefully, or Mucchetti laughing, or pig bouncing happy instead of showing the reality of the horror that is behind it? It 'obvious that the buyer must be removed, disassociated from the true reality, otherwise it would buy more. I am also convinced that many carnivores if they cease to be themselves, with their own hands, killing and skinning and butchering those poor helpless little creatures.

In fact, many people just do not have the opportunity to learn about cruelty to animals in the name of our well-being, tend to approach with great "natural" (this time is to be said!) To vegetarianism, thus refusing the system vile lager farms and slaughterhouses.

Rita's comments, in addition to being widely shared, respond promptly to the main arguments by the "non-vegetarians" who opted for a diet veg *: find the most important of these objections listed in this post, thanks to a letter sent to me long ago by another reader, Mark Trucillo.

The same determination of "non-vegetarian" to appear critical of an alternative and potentially revolutionary as the vegetarian / vegan is somewhat suspect and knows little of conscience clean and seems to hide a formidable guilty conscience. In fact, most of the time critics of animal rights, vegans and vegetarians shows - more detailed analysis - they have very little knowledge on the subject. Moreover, in our society of appearances and deception, is not always necessary to know what you're talking about: just open your mouth and give breath ...