The Disconnect of Ricky Gervais

Today, I got this in an e-mail from the League Against Cruel Sports:

Ricky Gervais, anti-bullfighting? Good man! However, something was bothering me.

"Bulls should not be used to fight for our entertainment"

"... tens of thousands of bulls are still being maimed, tortured and killed for 'entertainment' each year"

"It's crazy that our money has any part in sustaining this cruelty"

All this coming from the man who said:

"The roast dinner is the king of dinners. And the king of roast dinners is the Christmas dinner. There'll be organic, free-range roast turkey. There will be little cocktail sausages wrapped in bacon, there's no doubt about it. Roast potatoes. I will have one Brussels sprout, and eat it like a good boy. And peas. And really caramelised cooked parsnips and turnips so they're like crisps and really thick …"

This duality stikes me as somewhat perverse. One moment he is asking me to help alleviate the suffering of 'tens of thousands' of animals that are killed unnecessarily for entertainment, sport and pleasure and the next moment he's claiming that a good animal roast is the king of dinners. So it's not OK to kill an animal for sporting entertainment but it is OK to kill an animal because you enjoy chomping down on it's corpse? However, to be fair to the man he does recognise the disconnect. Sort of. He admits to a sqeamishness about animal flesh that means he is only comfortable eating food that doesn't have a close resemblance to the animal it once was. He makes exceptions for poultry and 'disguised' meats (so, sausages wrapped in bacon?) that don't look as though they could jump up and gambol around his table. One gets the impression that vegetarianism has a serious allure for him, if only he could bring himself to give up on animal flesh. So why hasn't he? It seems as though, contrary to his insistence that it is wrong to kill animals for entertainment (and one presumes that extends to other pleasures, otherwise it's a deeply arbitrary distinction), he doesn't have a problem with animals killed for the pleasure of eating them. What he does insist, apparently, is that the animals lived a good, free-range life and were killed humanely.

I'm sorry, Ricky, but there is nothing humane about animal exploitation. You can't breed, fatten and kill with kindness. Using animals for food necessitates devaluing them to commodities, to products. They are bought, traded, owned and sold with the profit of the vendor and the pleasure of the consumer in mind. It may be true that the animals don't know what their fate will be and can live a relatively 'good life' in sunlit pastures (if 'happy meat' propaganda is to be believed) but this isn't some humane idyl of happy animals and caring consumers, this is simply exploiting the fact that the animals are not aware of their coerced future to justify exploiting them in other ways. It's OK, because the animals are happy while they are alive, don't know they're going to die and will be killed quickly? I presume this kindly sentiment doesn't extend to humans. I can only imagine the shock and outrage that would be caused if some farmer stated he was using humans as commodities, to be sold as slaves and killed for food. Would this be justified as long as the people in question didn't know of their fate and felt their living conditions were adequate for their needs? What if they were just too stupid or brainwashed to realise they were not free? Or maybe it would be OK if they just didn't care about being free, preferring to stay where they would be warm and well-fed?

Whether you are comfortable with the idea of humans being compared to non-humans, the point remains that we don't grant our fellow humans basic rights and freedoms simply because they are intelligent or philosophical or able to express their preferences in a language we understand. We grant them rights, the most basic of which is not to be used as a thing or a commodity, because they are individuals who are aware of their world and able to form preferences (however basic) for what happens to them. They are someones and it doesn't matter if they are stupid, ignorant, unattractive or disliked. They are someones, not somethings and we (should) treat them as such.

Surely, surely this extends to animals as well?

Ricky, I hate bullfighting as well. I hate the idea of an animal being used as a mere thing for pleasure or entertainment. And that is why I am a vegan. It is not enough to require humane standards of care or to campaign vocally on a few instances of animal abuse that are rather divorced from our everyday lives. If you are serious about animal rights, please respect them and that means starting with the most basic right any sentient being can have - the right to be seen as a someone and not a something, an individual and not a tool, a free being and not a commodity.

Please, Ricky. Go vegan.

Dietary Classifications

Today I saw someone claim to be a "vegetarian who eats some fish". Really? What tree do fish grow on? Or maybe they come out of the ground, kinda like potatoes?

Bullshit. Might as well claim to be celibate because you only get laid once a month.

So we thought we'd follow in the footsteps of vegans who are far older and wiser, and give you a list of dietary classifications:

Vegan - avoids anything made with animals, tested on animals or that otherwise exploits animals. It goes beyond a diet and impacts upon all sorts of lifestyle and consumer decisions. And you know what? It's awesome.

Raw foodist - eats a very high percentage of uncooked food. It is believed to preserve the nutritional value of the food. Usually vegan.
Fruitarian - only eats raw fruits, seeds and nuts that can be gathered without killing the plant. Some only eat foods that have already fallen from the parent plant and that must be gathered from the ground. Some only eat fruits, omitting nuts and seeds. 
 
Strict vegetarian - does not eat any animal flesh or foods made with other animal products, but may still use non-vegan household products or cosmetics, as well as wear animal skins, silk or wool. Essentially, the diet side of veganism without the animal rights side.
Vegetarian - does not eat animal flesh but consume products that come from animals such as dairy and eggs. Should probably read this and this.
Ovo-lacto-vegetarian - a vegetarian who does consume eggs and dairy. See above.
Ovo-vegetarian - a vegetarian who does not consume dairy but does consume eggs. See above.
Lacto-vegetarian - a vegetarian who does not consume eggs but does consume dairy. See above.

Pescetarian - someone who avoids eating animals except for fish. Sometimes wrongly referred to as a kind of vegetarian diet, which is rather mysterious as being vegetarian entails not eating animal flesh.
Pollotarian - someone who avoids eating animals except for birds (usually chicken). See above.
Pesce-pollotarian - someone who eats fish and birds, but no mammalian flesh. See above.
Flexitarian - someone who sticks to a largely plant based diet but who occassionaly 'indulges' on flesh. See above.

Inspired by VegBlog

Azrayel's Journey to Veganism - Part One

I used to love meat. Dead animal on my plate? Nothing better. I even referred to myself as a carnivore because I really disliked vegetables. They were an annoyance, a chore. A box I had to tick. Roasts, steak, burgers, fish 'n' chips. That was where my heart lied. A meal wasn't complete without some tasty, tasty flesh.

I didn't really think about my food, at least not for a long time. Meat was food, meat came from animals, animals were food. That's just how it was. It was so common, so unremarkable, so obviously natural that I did not question it. I felt no guilt, no doubt. By the time I was in a position to really consider my actions and establish my own preferences, I was so firmly conditioned to view animals as food that the very concept of not eating animals was just bizzare and incomprehensible.