There is no-nice-way to say this and I make no apologies for it. Australia is in flames, a consequence of too much dry weather. The environmentalists are clamouring in the streets in protestation at their beleaguered prime minister who is accused of denying climate-change. Scott Morrison once held-up a piece of coal in parliament and scoffed at environmentalists, an act he now regrets. He has capitulated and now accepts the concept of global-warming.
Global-warming and climate-change are one-and-the-same. There are many-fold reasons for the phenomenon. Fossil fuels, pollution from the factories that burn it. Pollution from mineral fuels that transportation uses which leads to carbon deposits too, hence, carbon-footprint. Incidentally, New Year’s revellers might want to consider where the residue from the pointless fireworks display goes after they ”oohed” and ”aahed” in accompaniment to their orgasmic, frivolous escapism.
The environmentalists bang-on about plastics contamination on land and at sea, they moan about transportation, pointing the finger at others. Yet they are as big a culprit as those they demean. I’ve taken a look at them, especially their noble superstar leader, Greta. They mostly wear animal products and consume animals too. Animal agriculture being the biggest contributor to climate-change. Pollution of the land, rivers, oceans. The amount of water and crops it takes to rear the animals and the land used for it is astronomical. I don’t take environmentalists seriously, in fact, they are bigoted tossers.
There they are, on the streets of New South Wales, with their sanctimonious placards and their pious voices with their recyclable banners (hopefully) and wearing hessian underwear (probably) and sporting organic shopping bags (maybe). All wearing some item of animal and cheap-labour manufactured clothing. And what of New South Wales itself? Apparently, according to a researcher -who did a case-study some time ago,- half a billion animals will have perished in the likelihood of such a scenario. This may or may not be fact.
What I will say is, it’s sad to see wildlife and domestic animals killed in such a manner. Australia is a big sheep farming country and I am sure they raise other farm animals too. I have seen images of sheep, mutilated by shearing. I’ve seen images of sheep exported on ships to halal countries. As much as it is sad to know farm animals perished by either smoke inhalation or incineration, I’d much rather that, knowing they are freed from the brutal and tortuous existence of the farm, and freed from the inevitable horror of the hideous and barbaric death inflicted upon them at the hands of the slaughter house psychopathic murderers. Hopefully the animal’s tormentors perished in the fire too. Yes, I did say it!
dedicated carnist cowards is yet another shameful expose of how animals are considered to be commodities, there to be manipulated for titillation by TV executives.
The family in charge of the pigs were within a short-space-of-time showing concerns. The mother and son eschewed pork whilst the father made ‘jokes’ about eating ham and bacon whilst apologising to the pigs outside. The other son stated he would ‘’carry-on eating pork’’. That was until dad read-up on the dangers of eating processed food, a la bacon. He found out that sodium nitrate is a killer, a vital ingredient in processed food. The family had visited a farm prior to short-term adoption of the pigs and saw the pigs in a non-industrial setting. Dad was quick to research via internet to show his son what takes place in intensive farming. ‘’That’s to stop mum crushing her piglets’’ he mentioned to his son. He was viewing how sows are kept caged in the one-position, most of their productive lives, except when they are being raped to reproduce. The ongoing story is continued next week.
The family with the chickens eventually sent them to slaughter claiming that the ‘’chickens would not live very long at a sanctuary’’. One daughter seemed to be affected and the mother made noises about ‘’being put-off chicken’’ yet seemed to do a lot of laughing about being an ‘’ethical carnivore’’! Despite their pseudo cultivated accents, I found them to be quite shallow and virtually bullied the one daughter into accepting the inevitable murder of the chickens. The daughter showed real concerns and could have -given the chance- eschewed chicken. However the parents lied to her over the fate of the chickens and how the chickens have a wonderful free-range life and in future they would buy organic chickens blah blah.
Even when they visited a free-range farm and sampled the dead animals, it seemed to go-over-their-heads that animals are murdered, regardless of their treatment prior to their journey to the slaughter house. The two farmers were quick-to-point-out how their chickens are different to the broilers in the food-chain that are considerably different. Apparently their ‘birds’ have bigger breasts and longer legs, ideal supermodels then! As the family poo-pooed their way around the farm, they eventually sat-down to a chicken dinner. They found it quite yummy and compared the difference to their usual chicken feast. At no stage did it resonate with them that they were eating murdered animals
and as the woman had stated: ‘’ignorance is bliss’’ and that defined her. The farmers’ never explained to them why there were no male chickens and what happens to day-old male chicks. They sat-down to a chicken feast when the three slaughtered chickens that they once cared for were returned to them in cellophane. A score of 0/0 for this odious lot. Consigned to the dustbin.
Channel 4 isn’t showing the harsh facts. The internet shows what really happens on farms and in slaughter houses around this planet. It’s the only place to get the real truth and certainly it won’t be found in makeshift, viewer-friendly, pointless trivia television time-slots that masturbates the minds of the feeble and craven carnist hordes.
Apocalypse Cow was presented by George Moirot. He is an environmentalist. Although I’m sure there was a narrative in which it was said: ‘’I don’t know how they feel about a vegan on their farm’’ (or words to that effect) Mr. Moirot did say to ‘Abbie’ the farmer that he does not eat her produce. Her reaction was to say: ‘’shame on you’’ which as convoluted as it is, explains why farmers believe they are important to our existence on this planet. Crop farmers yes, animal killers, not-so. Mr. Moirot presented a very scientific look at how animal agriculture is poisoning the land and the alternatives to it. He didn’t dwell on the animal’s fate, more on rewilding the land and artificial foods made from thin-air.
Disease can strike any one at any time. By disease, I mean any thing that can debilitate the person, whether it be cancer, arthritis, syphilis or diabetes. Many diseases affect the person at any stage of their life. Some are age-related, some are life-style choice.
We are constantly warned by experts to make changes to our life-style. The doctors and NHS target smokers and warn them of the consequences. At one stage there was a threat of refusing medical treatment to the smoking fraternity. Conversely, they didn’t lecture those that participate in pointless dangerous sports, or ‘adrenalin-junkies.’
There have been many warnings concerning food-stuffs. BSE, E. coli, Listeria, all found within meat, eggs, and dairy. On balance, bacteria also linger in vegetables, notably pre-packed salads. Processed meats were heavily criticised and the warning went out to reduce one’s intake as they were cancer-inducing. The same warning was issued to smokers. By and large, the anti-smoking campaign has worked. Advertising has been eliminated and many people have turned to ‘vaping’.
I don’t have the data for ex-smokers or for those that cut-down on meat. Interestingly, the chance of contracting cancer through meat and dairy is far greater than that from smoking. Smoking contributes to cancer and one either smokes or not. There is the ‘passive smoking’ point too. With meat, it does not end there. It’s not only processed meats that can cause cancer. It’s all meats and the dairy spin-offs from milk.
No doctor will tell you the truth, they are not allowed to. The government would have them barred from practising and so the doctors and the politicians are complicit in ensuring many people will die prematurely and quite painfully. It’s called collateral damage. There are scientists and doctors out there that will confirm the facts; they don’t obviously work for the NHS. The food stuffs industry generates billions in revenue and has considerable economic and political clout, enough to corrupt those that are in power.
No vegan will ever contract cancer from animal products, as opposed to their carnist counterpart. Neither will they suffer diabetes or osteoporosis through milk-based products. Of course you don’t know, it’s hidden from you. Read ‘White Lies’ and be enlightened. Smoking is seen as a habit, a leisure pursuit, hence the demonising. Food is seen as sustenance, a necessity and therefore free from criticism. If I should fall to cancer, I will at least find comfort in the knowledge it wasn’t from eating the remnants of murdered animals or the secretions of those brutally held in death camps. Carnists will never know and that in its self is mental torture. Still, they don’t care about the torture they inflict on their victims so hey, do I care! They are also a burden on the NHS with their vile diet and its deadly diseases.
HYPOCRITES AT WORK
Kevin Pietersen and Jens Hogh are both South African. Pietersen played cricket for England and Hogh is a ‘’Trophy Hunter’’. Pietersen is campaigning to save the ‘Big 5’ and has a pod-cast concerning the poaching of endangered species, hence his appearance on ‘This Morning’. Hogh was brought into the debate to counterpoint Pietersen’s campaign and he (Hogh) explained why hunting is ‘’conservation’’ and without it animals would suffer! Hogh also deplores poaching! Pietersen wasn’t impressed with this argument and suggested that Hogh could give hunting-money directly to conservationist groups rather than kill animals. They both levelled counter arguments that both held truth and farce.
As I watched the sorry debate unfold I thought that it was equivalent to watching a pair of cunts trying to out-cunt each other. Pietersen says ‘’I don’t have a problem with those hunting animals for food’’! Presumably, he does not care about farm animals either. It’s anyone’s guess what Hogh thinks about eating animals. Watching them both argue over the different issues brought me to the conclusion that there is no better illustration of contradictory buffoons trying to intellectualise the reasons for not killing or killing animals, than this ridiculous spectacle. I’m sure had a vegan been party to the debacle and offered the suggestion that rather than debate what animals should or should not be killed, it would be far better to not kill anything. They, Pietersen and Hogh would have scoffed at the idea and labelled the vegan a tererorist, extremist nutter. Such is the mentality of carnist thought processes. I know who the madmen are, those that hypocritically advocate utter shite!
Curiously, the simpering Scholfield and Willoughby made all the right sympathetic oohs and ahhs to show how they agreed with Pietersen and after the interview said: ‘’let’s see what Ken (Hom) has for us’’? On-cue the odious Ken Hom said: ‘’I’m doing a beef marinated in piss’’ and both Schofield and Willoughby said: ‘’ooh, ahh’’ and that is the empathy they give to animals. All of them speciesists and bigoted assholes. I’m sure if these ‘intellectuals’ took a look at what they said and analysed it they’d come to the same conclusion.
Who and what are ‘Extinction Rebellion’? As I understand it, they are well-intentioned people concerned about climate change. They are conscientious advocates of making our planet a better place, blah fucking blah. What they are is a collective bunch of hypocrites and bigots. They are the ones destroying the planet. The only people that have authority to stand and be counted is vegans. As with speciesists and their convoluted thinking, the environmental yobs contribute to global warming.
Animal agriculture is the biggest single contributory factor that is killing this planet. When vegans campaign against animal cruelty, they are scoffed at by the billions of carnist protagonists. Yet, when a cause becomes populist, they are out in their droves, causing mayhem. There they are, sanctimoniously proselytising and offering dull rhetoric, cars, planes, carbon footprint and by the way meat, as an afterthought.
Take a look at them, wearing animal derivatives and after a hard day’s hypocrisy, off to McDonald’s for a hard-earned meal. Quite frankly, I dismiss them as fairweather shitehawks, in for the glory. No vegan should stand on a platform with them. We stand on our platforms and we don’t need to be sullied by these despicable parasites. To join forces with them is to taint our ethics, to sell-out to those we fight against.
Too often we see those that are anti hunting quite happy to defend killing animals for food, or exploitative ventures such as zoos. Too often we see those against experimentation and vivisection quite happy to accept farm animals as food. Too often we see those that want to ‘save the whale, the dolphin, the elephant, rhino,’ et al as cause celebres yet dismiss farm animals as unworthy of their poncey campaigning.
Cars and planes do hurt the planet and they do cause health problems to humans but they don’t scream for their lives and die horrifically in the way farm animals do. There is a bit too much ‘too often’ with the hypocrites in the ‘Extinction Rebellion’ crusade for my liking. All they have done is hijack a vegan mandate and distorted it to suit their agenda.It does not pay to get in bed with the enemy, in the long term, it is detrimental to our cause.
BEWARE THE BEGGAR
At least once a month I have to catch-up with signing petitions. There are many petition sites showing more-or-less the same subject matter. I choose Care2 over the others if only for the fact they give Butterfly Points. ”Ooh,” I hear you cry, ”how lovely”! The ‘Butterfly Points’ translate into gifts of food for whatever cause you support, which seems generous.
There are other sites I support, although on a lesser scale: ‘Lady Freethinker,’ ‘In Defense of Animals’ to name a few. One I steer-clear of is ‘Change.Org‘. It will become clear as this story unravels.
I fully understand that charities have to ask for donations to continue the work they do. Some charities, namely the larger, well-known outfits do nothing and we are pointing the finger at the ‘RSPCA’ who actively support animal cruelty. ‘Peta’ too has come in for criticism over it’s dog euthansising policy. There are lesser known charities struggling to survive and we should support them over the bigger, corporate monoliths.
The ‘RSPCA’ have a turnover annually of around £44 million. It is run by accountants and investment brokers. They will never be short of revenue. Smaller charities are lucky if they get £44 in a month. They are not able to afford costly advertising campaigns and their only recourse is to have a social media profile in order to generate interest. We have to support them, they do what we are unable to do, by offering sanctuary to violated animals.
Petition sites also ask for donations. I’m not sure why, it costs nothing to start a website (depending on the package) and can be run by one person from anywhere. My own site 150billionandrising.com is run from wherever I am at the time. At present I am sitting in a tree observing a cuckoo! The point is, where are the donations going? And so, the ‘Change.org‘ outfit is one for scrutiny. If you want to start a petition on ‘Care2,’ for instance, you formulate it and hit the button. It is up to the individual how you promote it.
At no stage does ‘Care2’ ask for a gratuity to get the petition up and running. Not so with ‘Change’. At the start of a ‘Change’ petition they ask for a donation (of varying amounts) to ”reach out to signatories” to get the petition ”up and running”. I didn’t bother and to-date, I only have 1 signature on a petition started last year. Also, ‘Change’ asks signatories to donate to ”help the petitioner get their petition noticed”. I happen to be a signatory and I have never been paid to sign a petition, so why do ‘Change’ ask the petitioner for a fee and where does the signatories’ donations go to? Certainly not to the petitioner.
There are no costs involved in emailing signatories to sign a petition. I’m sure the website package includes x amount of emails. My opinion is someone is raking it in and it is being done off the backs of animal suffering and the kindness of caring humans. Choose wisely the petition sites you want to support and if you want to start a petition, do not pay. We are not to be exploited by those that would take advantage of our concerns and generosity.
THE ULTIMATE ‘THICK’ CARNIST MUTANT.
I have always maintained that discussing animal cruelty with carnists is futile. They neither want to understand the debate or the components within it. It’s a hard-task and in any case, I have yet to meet any carnist to debunk the premise: killing animals is wrong.
The wider debate, exploiting animals is wrong is also another conundrum for them. They think animals stolen from the wild is acceptable because the animals enjoy performing ‘tricks’ for a gormless bunch of onlookers. It does not occur to them (the gormless) that animals do not dance on two front legs in their natural habitat.
The carnist is so backward in thinking that what seems perfectly ‘normal’ to them is anathema to others, namely, vegans. Curiously, the confused mind of the carnist is open to ridicule. They may deplore fur, dog meat, experimentation, yet accept farm animals, marine, zoos as ‘normal.’
Social media is probably the wrong place to engage a carnist for debate. There are two categories of carnists: the dimwitted, gloating shit-for-brains type and the pseudo-intellectual cod philosopher. Both types are unmitigated, unadulterated parasites that feed on their own blinkered pot of prurience.
I will show you the following dialogue with the odious ‘OrangeDonut’ from Twitter only recently. Briefly, he commented on a vegan post, to deride it. I replied to his comment, I think, fairly. His response was to get shirty. My strategy is to let them lead as they are the person that initiated the comments.
All I do is reply to their comments.. Not always politely, however, whatever they say, I reply to in general. Inevitably, they go off-point and go feral, ad hominem and blatantly abusive. Of course, I retaliate because I know there is no debate per se and it is now personal. The debate has now become infantile and is mud-slinging with no reference to any animals as such.
The tweets are self-explanatory so I don’t have to walk you through them. Ultimately, ‘OrangeDonut’ used his ‘’wife’s’’ illness as a ploy to try and get me to say something derogatory so he could get the sympathy vote. In the same tweet, he maligned animals, gloatingly. I ignored the tweet, having already explained he had lost through time-wasting.
I doubt he has a ‘’dying wife’’ and she certainly didn’t start dying at the end of his tweets that went on for hours. If his point was he can’t be arguing with ‘’silly children’’ then why did he bother when he could have been attending to his ‘’dying wife’’ from the outset? If I had commented on the last tweet I would have asked for medical evidence and in the absence of any, told him his ‘’imaginary dying wife should die an imaginary painful death similar to the animals he mocks and no doubt she eats!’’ Harsh, maybe, nonetheless effective.
AS WE WATCH, THEY ARE DYING
‘IT’S SUCH A PERFECT DAY’ A SHORT STORY.
During March of an undisclosed year, seven individuals set off from an undisclosed location in a nondescript camper van. Taking the country roads so as to avoid CCTV, they arrived at an undisclosed destination. Six people emerged from the camper van, having taken everything from their pockets and leaving the items in the custody of the remaining person. They wore one-piece disposable coveralls, slip on shoes, disposable gloves and each carried a carrier bag filled with items. They removed from the van three Katana motorbikes. They donned crash helmets and set-off to an unknown destination. The time was 06:30 AM.
At 08:30 AM, the local hunt at an unknown location met in the car park and recycling collection point of a small hamlet. They had hot refreshments and were quite chirpy about the day’s forthcoming event. The Sunday morning peace was broken by the excited chatter of the fifteen individuals with horses and hounds plus two sets of terrier men on quads making ready to exit the slumbering village. The group, at a canter, made their way out of the car park towards the bridle path that would lead them to a wooded area. The time was 09:00 AM.
At 06:45 AM the group on motorcycles arrived at the undisclosed venue and concealed their transport in the hedgerow. They moved swiftly to the wooded area and positioned themselves in trees previously identified as vantage-points. They had no means of communication with each other and only referred to each other by hand gestures. They had rehearsed this scenario many times in the preceding months and each knew the part they had to play. They had timed to within an ‘nth’ of a millisecond their roles and allowed for no mishaps. At 09:20 AM, they heard the distant sound of riders.
The hunt entered the woods, hoping to pick up a scent of a fox or any animal that would interest the hounds and give cause for the chase. They rode briskly but without too much noise, the hounds not yet baying for blood. They approached an area where the ground led down towards a river bed, long dried up, and was a copse in its own right. Here, they would travel single file for several hundred yards until emerging into an opening where they could regroup. As they passed the trees bordering the gully and prior to their exit up the slope to the clearing, two figures in trees either side of the riverbed removed several items. The time was 09:55 AM.
With hand gestures, the two figures lit flash-bangs and threw them into the back-door riders. As the startled riders turned to look for the source of the explosives, two other figures threw flash-bangs from the front, causing the riders to wheel-around looking for the other source. The hounds were in the clearing whilst the horses and riders were trapped in the gully. Horses were rearing and fretting while the riders, deafened by the noise were disoriented and shouting in panic. The four individuals then removed repeater fireworks from their bags and lit them. When held, these would fire out explosive charges and work similar to mortars. The impact upon the riders was devastating. They were trapped. The time was now 10:05 AM.
The terrier-men having been in the woods as a rear-guard and back-up heard the commotion and went full-paced towards the source of the noise. At one hundred metres from the kill-zone, the terrier-men passed two figures that had descended from the trees and lain in wait. As they threw flash-bangs at the men on the quads, the vehicles overturned in an effort to avoid the explosions. They were then attacked with repeaters and lay moaning and injured, suffering burns and injuries from their vehicles crashing. One of the two individuals moved towards the groaning, incapacitated men and took a large knife from his person. He moved between the casualties, beheading each one with a skill that suggested a medical background. The time was now 10:15 AM.
The two individuals that dealt with the terrier-men moved swiftly to the main group and met with their colleagues who had contained the seriously injured group. Riders had suffered life-threatening injuries, burns, trauma injuries from being crushed by the horses and indeed, some horses suffered injuries. Through a series of hand-gestures, the master of the hunt and his two lieutenants were identified. The individual responsible for beheading the terrier men took a .38 revolver from his person and despatched the three identified individuals. The group of six then quickly moved from the copse to their vehicles and rode the several miles to their rendezvous. They arrived at 10:30 AM.
Carefully removing their coveralls, shoes and gloves, they put the bikes into the van and left calmly and at a sedate pace. En route, the clothing was burned in a wood burner and the weapons secreted on-board. At various points on the journey, and a good distance away from the killing fields, riders and pillions were sporadically dropped off to ride the rest of the way, taking care to vary their routes and avoiding CCTV. The van driver also took preventive measures and made their way to an unknown destination where they would all meet for a debriefing at a later time. The time was now 11:00 AM.
In the coming weeks, despite condemnation in both The Commons and The Lords, the police, the hunting fraternity, the CPS, and the media, no one was arrested. The police had no forensic evidence, The explosives were generic, untraceable to any individual’s hallmark. The bullets had to be matched to a gun, feared to have been long disposed of. No DNA was found at the scene. More importantly, although suspected to be the work of hunt sabs, there was no clear proof of a motive. There was some support though. It was pointed out that the government was complicit by default in not preventing the hunts from killing animals in contravention of the 2004 Wildlife Act.
It was said by activist groups that for too long the government colluded with the privileged elite in turning a blind eye to their heinous activities. The police and CPS were also accused of being in cahoots with the hunts by preferring to harass hunt sabs who were trying to uphold the law, rather than arrest those breaking the law. The resulting furore brought about a debate that saw the law changed to ban drag and trail hunting and hefty penalties for anyone riding with hounds. A year on since the incident that left seven dead, three blinded and others disfigured has discouraged hunts from venturing out, even to exercise the hounds and horses. Meanwhile, somewhere in an undisclosed location, a camper-van waits patiently, having been regularly serviced and cleaned to perfection.
This is a work of fiction and should be seen as such. Anyone using it as a blueprint for enactment will have to pay me due copyright fees. Thank you.
HOW SANE ARE YOU? PT 1
WHY I CAN’T STAND FELLOW MAN-KIND
Despite my best-efforts in conversations with friends and acquaintances, I find I am talking to ignorant cunts. I use that terminology because they know exactly what their actions are doing to innocent animals, yet they won’t change their ways even though they accept the points I make. I listen to their (stupid) justifications for inflicting barbaric torture upon animals, rebut them, and watch them become irritable. How dare I humiliate them by explaining that their ‘intelligent’ replies to my explanations are flawed, insipid nonsense.
So, one conversation recently with a female was such. ”I am a meat-eater and that’s my choice.” But it’s not a choice is it, if the animal does not have a choice? If you are going to inflict harm, pain, and suffering on a living being (animal or human) and you do not have the consent of that being (i.e. giving a choice not to be hurt) then choice is not the word. Decision is the word to be used, choice is subjectively onerous when used in the wrong context. The other fallacious reasoning was: ”we will need more land to grow crops in order to feed everyone.” Not so! If we stop feeding 70% of crops to animals and feed the people with those crops, the nee or more land is nil. It takes approximately 10 kilos of grain to produce 1 kilo of meat, depending on which animal.
Equally, concerns over those animals should be raised. Farm animals are intensively bred. Stop intensive-breeding, the animals will eventually die naturally (not overnight) and we can begin to feed-the-world and alleviate the starvation of millions. Of course, getting the selfish, uncaring, dim carnists to cooperate is a major obstacle. Gentle persuasion does not seem to resonate with them, their taste-buds get in the way of any train-of-thought their low intelligence can evaluate. Effectively, they can’t be bothered, completely uninterested, hence the many paltry excuses they offer as justification for their stubbornness.
The other excuse offered to me was: ”we were put on this earth (by who?) as predators.” So I asked ‘are you a wild animal?’ The other factor is this: if killing animals for any reason is justifiable by the claim that we are predators, then it’s a dangerous road to travel. Supporting predation or at least using it as an excuse would mean any predator of any species upon any species is the rule. How is the predatory theory going to work when rapists predate upon men, women, and children? But of course, the carnist only means upon animals, unless one is a carnist rapist, then, well, work it out! Today, a sweet old lady told me of her disgust at Japan’s whaling policy. She was moved to sign a petition! I asked her about the fish she eats, Cod in particular. ”Ah, but it is line caught” she chirped. And that makes a difference does it, I replied. ”But whales are endangered” she said. All animals are endangered if we decimate them, I answered and in any case, it’s not about endangered species, it’s about killing animals!
I know people mean well with their acts of kindness, but the hypocrisy of it makes me view them as very backward in thinking. There is a disconnect in their brain, it’s called cognitive dissonance. Here’s the Wikipedia version: ”
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a belief of a person clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.
In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.”
In my view, that aptly sums up the blatant ignorance of carnists. The information is put before them both verbal and graphic (although they won’t watch filmed brutality, citing its horror but quite happy to consume it!) and even though the evidence far outweighs their feeble excuses, they still seek to make stupid representations to justify their cruelty. I find that incredibly selfish and uncaring and an insight into the bigoted values of those that would ask that I take them seriously and not view them as sub-humans. Where is their conscience? Why do they put the importance of taste-buds over the brutal torture and murder of billions of animals? Simply, they do not care and frankly, I don’t care about carnists.
11 revisions Unified