On Morality: Why Not Use Speciesist -And Other Kinds Of- Oppressive Language?

 Confused (1)

Our language is a window into the way we think.

The way we think about nonhumans informs the way we speak about them, and the way we speak about them influences the way others think about them. And finally, that influences how they act towards them. So we can see that our language is vital in taking not just the first but many important steps towards ceasing to harm them.

Carefully choosing the words we use is incredibly important. If you’ve ever had someone make a completely inadvertently insensitive remark in your presence and you’ve been offended, or even if you’ve been blatantly insulted on purpose, you know exactly what I mean. And yet, pretty much every one of us has made a slip like the former at one time or another, and most of us have intentionally done the latter. The hallmark of a truly wise person is how they learn and grow from their mistakes. Criticism -the constructive kind, naturally- is a valuable tool in helping us learn and grow.

Part 1: The Vocabulary Of Speciesism

Part 1a: Establishing Our Moral Agreement
The first part of this post is about how we refer to nonhuman animals in our daily language. But before I get into examples, I’d like to pose a question: Do you think animals matter morally? I’m going to assume for the sake of argument that you’ve already read at least one of my pieces on our moral obligation to live Vegan and stop our “physical” (as opposed to what we would call “verbal”) violence towards nonhumans. If not, please read something here, here or here and then come back to finish this essay. If you need a definition of speciesism, the gist is when a human animal places a different moral value on a member or group of members of one species than we do on another species because of their species membership. This includes thinking that the human species is morally superior to any nonhuman species (“anthropo-centrism” aka “human supremacy”), and also that any nonhuman species is morally superior to any other nonhuman species. To understand why this is problematic from a moral perspective, go ahead and read one of the above linked items.

If you do think that nonhumans have moral status of any kind, then you should want the intentional suffering and death inflicted on them by humans to decrease, shouldn’t you? And if you want that to happen, as a way of effecting that, you should want others to feel that way as well, shouldn’t you? And if you want that, then it only makes sense for you to think and talk as though nonhumans have moral status. Which is why using the correct words in referring to them only makes sense, right? In other words, we don’t want to give other people the wrong impression, and so cause them to get the wrong idea, which they would then logically act on by committing wrongs on sentient beings.

Part 1b: Pronouns And Other Such Problems
I’ve seen a lot of people in our current speciesist, morally confused societal paradigm use extremely problematic words to refer to nonhumans. And I’m even talking about people who “rescue” animals and claim they have moral concern for animals; even some people who call themselves Vegans. Words like “it,” “that,” “thing,” “where,” etc. As in, “I saw a pig, it was running across the street,” “I saw a cute pig that was running across the street,” or “We should respect the rights of every living thing that feels pain, even pigs that are running across a busy street,” or “Where did this meat come from? Did it come from the pig that was killed while running across the street?” etc.

If we think that nonhumans matter morally (and so we want others to consider them as beings who are morally worthy of not having their rights violated) we should recognize that, in any discussion that refers to others who we consider worthy of moral concern (aka “moral discussion”), beings who can feel pain (which is what we mean by “sentient beings“) are completely different from insentient objects, that can’t. Words like “it,” “that,” and “thing” are used to refer to insentient objects, such as rocks, metal, plastic, and trees. These are objects –whether they are “living” or not- that cannot be proven to feel pain and therefore are not owed any moral weight by us, as opposed to subjects, who we do owe our moral concern. Before anyone reading this is tempted to argue that plants are sentient beings, read this or this, and understand that I’m not interested in that debate at all.

In regards to moral discussions, nonhuman animals are considered sentient beings and so should be referred to as “she,” “he,” “her,” “him,” “they,” “them,” “who,” and “being,” etc. As in “I saw a pig, they were running across the street,” “I saw a cute pig who was running across the street,” “we should respect the rights of every living being who feels pain, even pigs who are running across a busy street” or “who did that oink come from? Did it come from the pig who was running across the street?”

The fact that we use the same pronouns for nonhuman animals as we do for inanimate objects and that we would not use for human animals under the same circumstances shows a profound lack of respect for nonhumans.

Note: Some people have criticized this word choice by claiming that it makes no sense to use the pronoun “they” when the singular subject’s gender is in doubt. Really, it makes all the sense in the world. It may be awkward in our mouths when unpracticed, but it works  for us to use it every day for humans who are oppressed -when their gender is in doubt- and so it should work for us. People have criticized this choice of wording by saying that using “they” is confusing because it implies plurality, as in more than one human or nonhuman. This is patently false in any case where it’s already been established how many beings are the subject of a sentence. When we’ve already established that we’re only talking about someone, and not more than one someones, there is no problem there.

Plus, we already do use it in that way. Think about it: If we were referring to humans, we wouldn’t say “I saw a cloaked and hooded person walk down the street, and then I lost sight of it when it turned into an alleyway.” No, we would say “I saw a cloaked and hooded person walk down the street, and then I lost sight of them when they turned into an alleyway” because the being in question is a “person,” but we have no idea which gender that person is.

Humans are sentient beings, so we usually consider it disrespectful to refer to a “human person” as “it.” But when it comes to nonhuman persons, our speciesist society refuses to grant them the same consideration. This is the way we frame things in our minds so we can turn sentient beings into objects, which is the only way we can reconcile what we know, if we really examine them, to be massive atrocities our society commits daily on those innocents.

Some further criticize our anti-speciesist word choice by giving the example that we commonly refer to human babies as “it.” As in “Mary just had a baby, I wonder which sex it is?” I don’t think this proves that the word “it” should also be used for humans, however. Rather it betrays a lack of respect for children on the part of the speaker. It should become common practice for us to say “I wonder which sex they are?” or even better “I wonder what their sex is?” instead.

It may feel strange when we try to retrain ourselves to use non-speciesist terminology in the matter, but that is purely a result of the speciesist conditioning that our society puts us through, not whether it’s “wrong” to use the non-speciesist term.

Part 1c: The Euphemism, or “A Great Way To Distract You From The Truth”
The second point I’d like to make is about how we talk about the nonhumans who we humans use for our interests. Or more specifically, I’d like to talk about them as well as their flesh and secretions. If we’re going to talk about nonhumans and their rights, let’s be perfectly clear: The term “meat” is really a euphemism meant to divert attention from the real issue, which is that we’re talking about the flesh of a being who is easily provable, using only fact and logic, to be morally equal to any human. An innocent being who could feel pain, fear and other sensations, just as much as humans can. A being who had an interest in their own survival and freedoms just as much as you and I do. The reality is that it’s impossible to obtain the flesh of those beings for us to consume without inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on them. Every nonhuman whose flesh or secretions we consume was forced into existence, exploited, and then slaughtered using violence, and it was completely unnecessary.

Using nonhuman animals for their flesh is also not morally distinguishable from using any sentient being merely as a replaceable resource for any other human purpose either. All forms of exploitation of any animal, nonhuman or human, are equally morally wrong. Furthermore, to distinguish morally between different kinds of exploitation ensures that the people observing our arguments will inflict even more unnecessary suffering and death on nonhumans (and humans) than before.

So we can understand that using the term “meat” to refer to animal flesh is highly problematic from a rights perspective. It creates and reinforces the notion in others that who we’re consuming is merely an inanimate object, completely divorced from the breathing, sentient being who was unnecessarily harmed in order to obtain it. Similarly, words like “pork,” “beef,” “bacon,” “mutton,” “veal,” “leather,” “wool,” “down,” etc. are equally problematic.

Coats are not made of “leather,” they’re made of the skin of sentient beings who were killed for completely unnecessary reasons. Sweaters are not “wool,” they’re the hair of sentient beings who have immense suffering inflicted on them and then are killed for their flesh when they can’t produce enough hair to be profitable anymore. Pillows aren’t filled with “down,” they’re filled with the feathers of sentient beings who are fully capable of desiring not to be used as resources or killed, and who have been proven to care about their families as much as we human animals care about ours.

When you think about it, the very existence of “cheese” is completely messed up, let alone the word itself. Do we see any other species enslaving other animals so that they can use the milk that rightfully belongs to them and their babies to make “cheese?” Using that word in reference to animal dairy is adding insult (and by extension, further injury) to an already grave injury. These are the lives and secretions of sentient beings; we have a responsibility to the nonhumans who lived and died in humans’ immoral quest for our own palate pleasure to call these substances what they are: animal flesh and animal secretions at the very least, products of suffering and death if we want to bring passion to our rhetoric. But never “meat,” “leather,” wool,” “down,” etc.

Part 1d: Possession Is 9 Points Of The Very Speciesist Law
Also very similarly, we should avoid using the term “my,” “mine,” “ours,” etc. when talking about nonhumans. They are not our possessions, in the moral sense. They are not ours to use; their lives, freedoms, family, and suffering are not ours to exploit; they belong to themselves. So, it’s not “my meat,” it’s the flesh of an individual who was immorally exploited and caused to suffer and die for unnecessary reasons. To me, the nonhuman animals I rescue and keep in my home are not “my cats” in the sense of them belonging to me as mere possessions, they are “my family” in the same way that other humans are my family. They certainly have a relationship to me -as does any human I interact with- and this latter usage is the version of the word “my” that we can use and still observe a sense of justice for them. It’s the only non-speciesist way in which we can refer to nonhumans as being “mine.”

Moreover, we don’t think that it’s necessary to use euphemisms when referring to circumstances where humans have been exploited, oppressed, or otherwise harmed. If a human is intentionally killed by another human merely for selfish reasons, we decry that as “murder.” If a nonhuman suffers the same fate, we call it “putting them down,” or even more divorced from the act, “harvesting.” If a human is used as a replaceable resource to perform unconsenting labor of any kind, we call them “a slave,” but if the victims in question are nonhumans, we call them “livestock,” “units” etc. This is purely speciesism in it’s most obvious form. In fact, these are only a small portion of the instances where speciesist language occurs. Pointing out every instance in just the English language alone could fill an entire book.

Part 1e: A Little Pejorative Goes A Long Way
Another way in which we use speciesism to reinforce the idea that nonhumans are our moral inferiors is to use terms that pertain to them as pejoratives. To make but one example, we think absolutely nothing of using the terms “bullshit” or “horseshit” to describe something that we find objectionable or a lie. Let me ask the obvious question: why is a male bovine’s excrement morally worse than that of any other being? If it’s not, then why do we need to point out that the thing we find objectionable is like it? This is only the tip of a very large iceberg when it comes to this particular form of speciesist language.

Some other problematic phrases are “dumb as an ox” (this is both ableist, as it uses a word for not being able to speak as a pejorative, and speciesist, as it implies that all oxen are stupid), “the world is your oyster” (implies that we should own nonhumans and therefore use them as we see fit), “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” (both ableist and speciesist as it implies that all elderly humans or dogs are incapable of something that younger ones are capable of), “use ____ as a guinea pig” (implies that using nonhumans as unconsenting test subjects is justifiable), “hold your horses” (implies that we should own and use nonhumans as we see fit), “pick of the litter” (implies that we should use nonhumans as we see fit), “like shooting fish in a barrel” (should be obvious), “like a bull in a china shop” (implies that all bulls are clumsy and destructive), and these are only a few. Again, there are quite a few more; some of which are also outlined in this excellent essay, which also points out that it’s easy to find alternative phrases:

http://veganvine.blogspot.com/2016/06/speciesist-language-reinforces-animal.html

When we try to liken something we find problematic or objectionable (and it’s often some action that we humans engage in that we can be blamed for, but nonhumans can’t) to nonhuman characteristics or behavior, or just plain present nonhumans as things that are normal for us to own and use, we make obvious our lack of respect for them.

Part 1f: A Note On Miscellaneous Problematic Terms And Ideas
I’ve heard many Vegans say that nonhumans “should have rights.” Regarding pre-legal morality as a concept, nonhumans already do have rights. As a society, we’ve merely been violating their rights all along. We can’t give them moral rights nor take them away. Whether we are going to keep violating their rights -by living non-Vegan- or respect their rights by living Vegan does not change whether they have them or not. If we talk coherently about “giving them rights” this is only in regards to their legal status as property or persons. This is an important distinction to make (in those very words) in our speaking and writing.

Other speciesist phrases that our society sees as normal are ones such as “you’re an animal” in the context of vilifying someone for their negative actions. This is probably because most people are under the mistaken impression that any suffering and death inflicted by nonhumans on other nonhumans is somehow morally blame-worthy. So not only do we -often only subconsciously- excoriate ourselves for treating nonhumans in a way we -rightfully- know to be wrong, but we -often simultaneously- excoriate nonhumans for seemingly not being able to live up to some standard that we set for ourselves (confusedly, since most people don’t really understand morality from an academic standpoint and also aren’t following a consistent moral code in the first place). And throughout all of this, not only do we not realize the arbitrary and even contradictory nature of our mindset, we don’t even realize that all of this suffering we’re intentionally inflicting is completely unnecessary in the first place.

It’s only through Veganism (and by that I mean learning what Abolitionist Veganism means and thereafter practicing it) that we begin to untangle this ridiculous Gordian Knot of irrational, confused moral contradictions and myths that we’ve constructed about nonhumans. Only through recognizing what is unnecessary suffering; why sentient beings have rights and what rights those are, and how many different aspects of human and nonhuman behavior have been mythologized can we then fully realize just how deep our societal programming really extends; and thus, begin to reverse that programming. And one of the most effective tools for that reversal is in recognizing our problematic language and striving to choose our words more carefully at every opportunity.

Part 2: The Vocabulary Of Human Oppressions

Part 2a: Identifying The Underlying Problem
“The vegan movement” is rife with racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and other oppressive actions of all kinds. The first rule in any human rights social justice movement is that you must listen to the members of a marginalized group and believe them when they tell you what is oppressive and offensive to them. When you are not a member of the group in question, you are not the person who decides what is oppressing them and what is not.

All forms of oppression reinforce and sustain every other form of oppression. This is why people who identify as vegan will never achieve the true end goal of the vegan movement as long as they are engaging in any of these forms of oppression. This is also why people who wish to end the injustice of “racism” or any other form of oppression will never achieve their goal while they are still engaging in speciesism or any other form of oppressive action. How can someone know how to help end oppression when they themselves are engaging in the worst forms of oppression? You can literally never eliminate violence being inflicted on one oppressed group by engaging in ableism, genderism, ethnic bigotry, or *any* other oppressive behavior.

When we engage in any form of oppression we are promoting the idea that it’s morally acceptable to dismiss others from our sphere of moral concern based on some sort of physical characteristic that they have that we don’t, or that we have that they lack. With speciesism, that characteristic is their species membership. It makes no sense to discriminate against others morally based on their species membership because if we do so, then that promotes the idea that others should be able to get away with discriminating against you based on your physical characteristics, such as your sex, gender, ethnic membership, sexual orientation, etc. This also works the opposite way, which is why it makes no sense to say that it’s morally wrong to use nonhumans as mere replaceable resources for our interests but then turn around and show the same lack of moral concern for other humans based on some physical trait.

And it isn’t just a case of men discriminating against women, white against black, etc. Promoting the use of animals is just as effective in encouraging P.O.C. to harm each other, white people, etc. and women to discriminate against others, and so on. Promoting violence encourages violence in all its forms.

Part 2b: Identifying Each Problematic Term And Why It’s Wrong
When we use a word that was created to mean a disability -such as “dumb” means can’t speak, and “lame” means has trouble walking- as a pejorative (a negative connotation towards a thing or person we find morally wrong or objectionable) we cause the person with the disability to fell as if they are being vilified as a person. Even if the thing or person we’re using the term against has nothing to do with the disabled person. Just like saying “that’s gay” makes a gay person feel vilified. Or “that’s retarded” vilifies intellectually underdeveloped persons.

You may think that it’s not abelism to use “innocuous” terms like “dumb,” “lame,” “moron,” “idiot,” etc., but you are not the one with the disability being vilified! You using terms like “dumb” when *you* are not a speech-impaired person is abelism. You are not the oppressed, but you are being the oppressor. You have the privilege of being able to speak! Or being able to walk or get around without inconvenience or pain! Or you have a higher IQ than some people. You are not mentally impaired.

Problematic terms to use as pejoratives include, but are not limited to: “retard” or “retarded,” “idiot” and “moron” (vilifies the intellectually underdeveloped), “dumb” (vilifies people who can’t speak), “lame” (vilifies those with mobility problems), “gay” (vilifies those who are of a different sexual orientation than “straight” people), “bitch” (this term is both sexist and speciesist, as it not only vilifies women -comparing them to female dogs as a negative- but also vilifies female dogs as being somehow objectionable), “dick” (vilifies those who have a penis or who identify as male), and “pussy” or “cunt” (vilifies those who have a vagina or identify as female). It’s also problematic to use sex-negative terms like “cocksucker” as a pejorative because you’re vilifying both women and non-straight men.

Part 2c: How We Defend Our Problematic Behavior
I constantly see those who are unwilling to consider the problematic nature of their speech making the claim “That term isn’t oppressive because _____ .”

If you’re not the one who is offended by the remarks, then chances are you’re not one of the people who has the trait that’s being vilified. Ergo, you have no standing to make any claim as to whether the remarks constitute oppression or not. Telling people who are being oppressed that they are not experiencing oppression is oppression! It’s marginalization through silencing dissent.

Also, the argument that “most people don’t use that term to mean _____ anymore, but now they use it to mean this non-oppressive thing instead” is not a valid argument. The argument I’m making has nothing to do with whether the person remarking is intentionally trying to hurt the person offended by  the remark or “aiming” it at that person, it has to do with whether any observer is offended or not. If I, as a “white” person, went up to someone and attempted to insult them by calling them a “nigger” and a P.O.C. was nearby and was offended, would it make sense for me to say to the P.O.C. “I wasn’t using that term to mean you, I was using it to mean this other thing or person I meant?” No. The term was created to mean something offensive. If we use it as a pejorative in regards to something not connected to the original pejorative it was coined to mean, we can’t expect the person who belongs to a group whose members were the target of the original pejorative to not be offended.

“That isn’t as bad as _____ (something someone else is doing) so it’s ok.”

“I’m doing a lot of good for _____ (whatever group) so you should overlook it when I do this much smaller wrong thing.”

Neither one of these arguments is valid when it pertains to any problematic behavior such as slavery, rape, torture or murder, and so it’s not valid in the case of any problematic behavior. For instance, we don’t expect a claim such as “There will always be people who murder other people, so me beating my spouse or children is morally justifiable” to be taken seriously, likewise with a claim such as “I contribute a lot of money to/support organizations that fight child poverty and hunger, so it’s morally justifiable for me to kill other humans merely for my own interests occasionally.”

In the same way, it’s unreasonable to claim that just because someone else commits moral harms that you perceive as “worse” than merely using speciesist, racist, sexist, ableist, etc. terms, that it morally excuses us to do that. And the same can be said of claiming that just because we engage in some form of morally positive action that this excuses us from any blame for using various forms of problematic language either. In all cases, our moral responsibility is to not only refrain from committing the morally “worse” actions, but all morally problematic actions that we can refrain from.

Yet another argument that I see people trying to use to justify their oppressive language is “I have a friend(s) who are ______ (insert characteristic the person just got through using as a pejorative) and they told me that they aren’t offended when I say ______ (insert oppressive term).” In other words, these are people who will claim that they have black friends who give them a pass for using racist terms, gay friends who give them a pass for using the term “that’s gay,” friends who are disabled who don’t care if they use terms like “lame” or “dumb,” etc.

This argument is not valid in this context, however. The argument against using oppressive terms hinges on the people who are offended by those terms, not the people who aren’t. Morality is about causing the least amount of harm, not seeing how much we can get away with before we’re called out on our behavior. In order to cause the least amount of harm we need to live by the precautionary principle. Which means that if an action is unnecessary (meaning that it’s not something we need to do to thrive) and we know that there is a chance that any others could suffer because of that action, even if we don’t have direct knowledge of who those people are and where they are in relation to us, then we have a moral responsibility to err on the side of caution, which means not engaging in that action. So if there are 100,000 people of a marginalized group in existence, and you only know 10 of them personally -and those 10 people tell you that it’s ok to use any term you want around them, regardless of what it is- that doesn’t mean that the other 99,990 people of that grouping would agree with that. Which means that you going out into public and openly using those terms is going to oppress someone from those groups, which is the only criteria necessary to make doing so morally wrong.

Conclusions I’ve drawn from the last few years of Vegan advocacy
If we really wanted to insult others (although that is morally a bad idea, and just about the farthest thing from what we should be sticking to, which is peaceful Vegan education) there are plenty of much more egalitarian insults we could use. I am not going to teach these to people, since as I stated, I think that insults are one thing we should be decreasing in our society.

In any moral discussion, the best way to react when someone brings up the idea that we’re doing something wrong is to carefully consider their words and ask ourselves if there is any way that we can make positive changes to our behavior. If we want to ask respectful questions to see if the person we’re talking to has any further information for us or suggestions as to how we can do this, that’s a great second step as well. The worst thing we can do is become defensive and angry at the messenger, as this keeps us from thinking clearly and hence, blocks us from any positive change.

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Advertisements

Re-blog: Something Other Than They Are

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, cis-sexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.


An incredibly powerful and useful perspective on the evil of domestication.

 

metaevolutionary

Recently I was involved in a discussion on another forum initiated by a hopeful vegan person asking if there was a humane source for animal based food for carnivorous pets.  My response was that there is not.  Though with great populations of domesticated carnivorous animals who are dependent on humans for food, we are, so far, fraught with choosing the life of one animal over another.

Plant stuffs can be formulated to meet the health and nutritional needs of some obligate carnivore species, namely domesticated cats.  And omnivorous ones, such as dogs, generally cruise easily on vegan diets.   However, should this option fail a particular animal, Gary Francione, esteemed promoter of the grassroots Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights,  explains that in our responsibility to all domesticated species who are already in existence we may succumb to a morally excusable use of one animal for the food of another however morally…

View original post 1,225 more words

What DxE Doesn’t Understand (or doesn’t want to) About “Baselines”

grave-six-feet-under

There’s been a lot of talk recently from “DxE” (Direct Action Everywhere) supporters about how “activism” -and not Veganism- is “the moral baseline.”

You can read a great article about this whole phenomenon here. What I want to address with this piece is the fact that this stance by DxE betrays a fundamental lack of understanding on their part of what “a moral baseline” actually means. I’ve previously written something on what a moral baseline is -and why that baseline is Veganism- but this time I’m going to use a different analogy to attempt to get people’s thinking back on a logical track regarding this issue.

Let’s say that you’re standing flat on the ground, on bare dirt. Someone hands you a shovel. You begin to dig. You want to go higher, but -since all you have is a shovel and soft earth- you start digging. You dig down to about 10 feet below ground level. As you dig, you slowly realize that you also have the ability to use your mind to make yourself hover above the ground. So you stop digging, and you start hovering. And you go up to about 6-10 feet or so -for example, not necessarily exactly that- above the original ground level that you started from.

So, when you were standing on the ground -without digging- you were at the lowest point you could be without digging. You were also at the highest point you could be without hovering. With me so far? If not, please see the man in the shorts in the image below.

Now, imagine that standing on the ground without digging or hovering is “moral neutrality.” In other words, it means that we are not doing anything morally negative, such as intentionally inflicting unnecessary suffering or death on beings who can feel pain. But we are also not doing anything morally positive, such as trying to go out of our way to support the affirmative interests of those beings either (feeding them, helping them to heal from sickness or injury, etc.).

Now further imagine that engaging in any action that means intentionally inflicting unnecessary suffering -for any reason, be it food, clothing, research or entertainment- is the equivalent of digging down into the ground. In this instance -in the image below- we would be at the position of the man in the suit. Conversely, trying to engage in some action to positively support the interests of these pain-capable beings -feeding them, helping them to heal from sickness or injury, etc.- is the equivalent to hovering upward from the ground. Still with me? In this latter case, we would be hovering above the head of the man in the shorts.

Standing on the ground without digging or hovering is the base position you start from, before you could start either digging or hovering. It’s standing on a horizontal line, and it’s the base position that you start from in beginning your actions of going either up or down away from that line. It’s the base, and it’s a line. Base-line. Get it? This is why we call “moral neutrality” the “baseline for morality.”

Now, Veganism is by definition the attempt to do the least amount of intentional unnecessary harm we can. In other words, it’s not doing anything morally positive. It’s not a diet either, but it’s the moral stance against doing any intentional harm that our society is already (erroneously) telling us is morally acceptable. It’s not the act of doing even more than just refraining from harm, but it’s just “do no harm.” In other words, “don’t do anything morally negative, even if you’re not going to do anything morally positive.” Being Vegan doesn’t mean that we must intentionally refrain from doing anything morally positive, it just means that we must intentionally refrain from doing anything morally negative.

The Baseline 01

The reason that it makes sense to call Veganism “The Moral Baseline” is because refraining from intentionally doing any unnecessary harm is the least that we can do if we claim that animals have moral valueBeing Vegan doesn’t mean that we’re doing the most that we can do for animals. That would be an added action that we can do once we’ve gone Vegan, however. So, this means that “activism” could be called a “moral opportunity” rather than a “moral baseline” or “moral obligation.” We don’t have a moral responsibility to engage in “activism,” while we do have a moral responsibility to refrain from engaging in morally negative actions.

One reason we can’t make The Moral Baseline “doing the most that we can do” for animals is because no 2 people can do exactly the same positive actions -or the same amount of positive actions- for animals (in other words, positive actions above and beyond simply doing no harmful ones). To try to tell someone that a baseline for that person is to do more than just refrain from causing harm would be to put an unfair strain on those people who can’t do more. It also muddies the waters regarding the way people think about morality (see the above explanation about the difference between a “moral obligation” and a “moral opportunity”), at a time when we need for others -and ourselves- to be perfectly clear and consistent on this issue.

Human society at large is already engaging in massive morally negative actions towards nonhumans. This is due to a phenomenon called “speciesism” that you can read more about here and here. Due to speciesism and the myth of human moral supremacy, we are currently breeding -against their will and without their consent- many, many billions of nonhumans per year, who we use merely as replaceable resources. Then, when they’re of more use to us dead than alive, we slaughter them -which is impossible to do without using violence- and we use their bodies and secretions whenever and however we wish. We are also engaged in intentional actions that harm many other nonhumans who do not fall into the category of animals who we use for food. These actions are all completely unnecessary for us, and are all massive violations of the inherent rights of those nonhumans to their lives and freedoms.

In essence, society at large is already engaged in digging a massive hole of morally negative actions when it comes to animals. Veganism is not an attempt to metaphorically “hover above the ground” in regards to our moral stance. It’s merely an attempt to rise back up to ground level in regards to that stance, since -before going Vegan- almost all of us were inarguably participating in various intentional morally negative actions. Veganism is an attempt to climb out of that speciesist hole, by recognizing the rights of nonhumans and therefore acting in a morally responsible and morally consistent manner towards them.

When we educate others about Veganism, that would be considered “hovering.” In other words, a morally positive action that goes beyond just standing on the baseline (the figurative “ground” in our analogy). Nonhuman animal rescue, adoption, foster, etc. –when done in a way that doesn’t encourage animal exploitation (which is considered peaceful Direct Action)- is another powerful way of “hovering.” In fact, these are the only 2 forms of action on behalf of animals that can easily be done without encouraging speciesism, and can also be combined.

So, we can see that -since society is engaged in all of the speciesist, morally negative actions- there are many people who erroneously believe that we don’t need to live Vegan, but that we can still “do good for animals.” In other words, for instance, we have people who engage in “animal rescue” who are not Vegan. They eat, wear, and otherwise use some animals, while trying to save some other animals from being intentionally harmed, or harmed through neglect. Any Vegan worthy of calling themselves Vegan knows that this is an enormously speciesist stance and indicative of massive moral confusion on the part of the “rescuer.”

Welfare reform campaigns and other single-issue campaigns –as well as militant direct actionare counter-productive, and therefore harmful, ways of attempting to advocate for animals. These counter-productive actions are made to seem by our speciesist, morally confused society like they are ways to hover, but are actually causing the hole we’re digging to get deeper instead. Even many people who self-identify as vegans fall prey to the idea that we don’t need to stop engaging in morally negative actions to do good for animals. I’ve seen countless instances of “vegans” online saying that we can engage in welfare reforms -for instance- and help animals, even though welfare reforms are proven to increase harm to animals, not help them. If you view, read or listen to more than one of the hyperlinks embedded in the paragraph you just got through reading, you’ll understand exactly why this is. Also worth noting: DxE’s stance on the “animal organizations” who promote these welfare reforms and other speciesist campaigns the hardest is that we must not criticize them for this at all.

Likewise, all of the people who are trying to save wild animal species from harm or extinction -but are having barbecues and other such animal-exploitative events in order to raise money, or simply awareness (almost always money though)- are suffering from the same moral confusion. This doesn’t mean that they’re “bad people” by any means, simply that they’re confused about morality, and need to be educated on that subject or to educate themselves. Indeed, almost all of them obviously have their hearts in the right place; but that has never stopped people from committing a harmful action in regards to any other issue.

There is massive confusion among “animal people” as to what moral consistency regarding animals is. Society keeps on trying to dig the hole regarding animals deeper, and “animal people” in general are -ostensibly- trying to learn how to hover (read: help animals). All the while they are also -for some as-of-yet-unexplained (and probably inexplicable) reason- using those shovels right alongside everyone else. And some of them think that they’re hovering, but not everyone thinks that hovering at the same height is the moral baseline, etc. etc., ad nauseam. In this way, DxE is just another organization that is promoting the same confused, speciesist stance in regards to animals that society in general has been following for all of recorded history. They are nothing radical nor revolutionary, in a time when a radical, revolutionary idea on peaceful ways to shift the non-Vegan paradigm to a Vegan one is the only thing that animals really need.

And this is the crucial point: How can hovering 5 feet above the ground be the “baseline,” when the ground itself was already “a baseline?” If your idea that “doing something beyond Veganism” -which in your opinion is hovering at 5 feet up (or whatever it is)- is the baseline, then what about the non-Vegan who says that you must do something even more -while still being non-Vegan- to be at “the baseline?” Why is their idea of hovering 100 feet off the ground -while still being non-Vegan- not the baseline? Why is being in a pit 10 feet below the surface not the baseline? What makes your arbitrary “do something beyond Veganism” more valid as the moral baseline than anyone else’s arbitrary “do _____ or _____ for animals?” And this is why DxE’s position on “activism” being the moral baseline makes no sense. It’s really nothing more than an attempt to contradict an already rationally sound premise in order to somehow score some sort of points; to try to show the public that DxE is somehow different and “knows their stuff” more than the people who are involved in the only real movement that’s making any significant headway in the struggle to end animal oppression.

You see, if we make the baseline something other than moral neutrality, the term “baseline” becomes open to interpretation as anything -by anyone- and so becomes totally meaningless. And this is the whole point of making “moral neutrality,” which is -inarguably- living Vegan, as the only rational moral baseline. Because, do anything else, and we’re just digging our hole deeper. And morally speaking, none of us wants that for the animals. It means that we’re burying them right alongside us.

69a26e0db6482177992054ee784e6100488a57ec

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s incredible for the animals, easy and great for you, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, cissexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Guest Blog: Gee Krupke’s Take On The A.L.F.

The ALF 01

The following item was posted on Facebook by Gee Krupke:

Why I don’t support Animal Liberation Front:

1. They increase the amount of suffering due to taking one suffering individual to have them replaced by another individual who will suffer.

2. It’s a poor use of time and resources towards something that will never change until people reject the use of animals, i.e. accepting veganism. They should use their limited time and resources to educate [everyone], because that is only when the widespread use of animals will end.

3. They engage in and encourage criminal acts which paints the movement as being about violent extremism. That pushes people away and makes the job of education that much harder.

With that said, I, of course, support rescuing but not when it increases demand for individuals to be birthed into bondage: adopt at a shelter or any place outside the forces of objectification. They need our help too, and it doesn’t conflict with justness, like the activities of ALF.

A question posed to this argument:

“What if you were the suffering, sentient being that was being held & tortured, wouldn’t you want someone to do something illegal to get you out?”

Not at the expense of others. And with that argument, it would happen in perpetuity, if all were given the option (due to the issue of supply and demand). A more concrete example: I would not want to be rescued from a concentration camp if it was on the condition of another person being born or captured to take my place. So it seems to me an argument that is based on tokenism, not equality, that results in condemning one individual to suffering while aiding another (who will very often succumb to a really miserable end anyways, due to their unhealthy breeding and conditions they were kept in). On top of that, we have the option of rescuing others who are in need and without increasing suffering that necessarily occurs while animal use is demanded. It’s not an issue of illegality here but of wrongness in further compounding the problem.

In response to the position that “every movement needs radicals”:

What’s truly radical, meaning going to the root, is challenging the notion of animals as property by advocating for their right not to be used. That is what undermines the system in a fundamental way; people no longer taking part in the use of animals. I want nothing more than non-humans to be safe and free, like all vegans, but we must do it in a reasonable way that, at the very least, doesn’t increase the body count.

And as a finale, a recapitulation of the argument in the form of a question:

If you could rescue a dog/cat/parrot (or any other animal that when rescued would not result in someone being bred or captured to take their place) or a chicken/cow/mink (or any other animal that when rescued would result in another individual being bred or captured to take their place) which would you choose? And this is the reality. To me it’s a simple equation of quantitative value.”

L.O.P. – Indeed. Militant Direct Action makes no sense from any standpoint. Forget M.D.A. and start educating people on Veganism as the moral baseline instead. If you want to rescue animals, make sure that you’re not just adding to the problem instead of the solution, and feed them Vegan wherever and whenever possible.

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s incredible for the animals, easy and great for you, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Guest Blog: A Short Overview Of Vegan Cat Ethics – by Peter Csere

887288687_n

The following thoughts were posted in the group Healthy Vegan Cats (you need to join to see the posts but if you have cats in your home, it’s worth it) by my friend Peter Csere. He’s an authority on anything Vegan cat-related and a lot of other things about Veganism to boot:

Feeding farmed animal products to domesticated felines is not a humane or vegan option since we are enslaving + murdering one species to feed another which we find prettier and more preferable for companionship.

Letting cats “roam” and “hunt for themselves” is not a humane, vegan, or environmentally sound option since, according to numerous wildlife studies, human-subsidized domestic felines have a HUGE and disastrous impact on local wildlife populations. Domestic felines have singlehandedly caused the extinction of over 33 island species of mammal, reptile, bird, and amphibian, and the number one threat to many endangered songbird and rodent species is the domestic feline. The domestic feline is not even native to North America yet is the most populous feline predator on the continent, numbering over 150 million in the US alone (according to various estimates of “owned” cats and stray cat populations.)

Another important issue is that domestic felines compete for prey with natural/indigenous predator species such as mountain lions, cougars, panthers, and fisher cats. This food competition reduces the possible population of important natural predator species. Even cats that are fed by humans still kill many animals per instinct.

Feeding domestic cats laboratory-grown meat, organs, and bones modeled after their natural prey (insects and rodents) might be an excellent option for the future when laboratory-grown meat becomes economically feasible and in regular production. However, *this option is not currently available.*

I’ve noticed that some people parrot on and on about lab-grown meat but then seem to think that this constant parroting gives them license to continue purchasing real meat to feed to their domesticated cats in the meantime. By all means, donate to lab-grown meat entrepreneurial initiatives, tell your friends, advertise, get the word out and the projects started. But in the meantime, the other arguments regarding humans killing one animal to feed to another animal which they find preferable, still apply.

(Editor’s note: Feeding cats “In Vitro Meat” is a good solution when we’re dealing with the small portion of cats who physically can’t or won’t eat Vegan, this is not meant to endorse In Vitro Meat being fed to *all* cats. I also personally don’t support encouraging In Vitro Meat projects for human consumption whatsoever.)

Feeding cats a plant-based diet which has a sufficient nutritional profile to keep them healthy and happy for a similar lifespan to a domestic cat on a meat-based diet, could be presented as not humane or vegan, since technically it is not “natural” for the cat – but still, *it is the most humane and ethical of all currently available options.*

All these options are side-stepping the real issue, which is that humans are continually unnaturally subsidizing, in-breeding, domesticating, and enslaving an artificial species (the domestic feline) at the cost of much suffering to the cats, the local ecosystems that their inflated population affects, and the animals that they inbreed and enslave to feed the cats. As long as the domestic cat population continues to rise, feeding them vegan diets will help but still will only slow the suffering that results to all involved.

Humans need to learn that when they take an animal with desirable characteristics, and force it to only have sex with another animal with desirable characteristics, and do this generation after generation producing a species with inbred genetic health problems and dependency on humans, much suffering will result. Long-term solutions may or may not include a number of strategies, such as: slowly re-wilding and introducing wild genes back into the domestic cat species, relocating them to their natural habitat, wide-scale spaying and neutering, etc, among others, some of which may be controversial and some not so much.

None of these options can really be considered 100% ethical and humane, but a complete hands-off approach also results in much suffering, so in the meantime, while we struggle to find solutions that best meet the needs of all involved, to this ridiculous problem that only humans are stupid enough to create – we can feed properly-formulated plant foods to domesticated cats and stop enslaving other animals or decimating local ecosystems i.e. making a bad problem worse.

Hope this provides some insight ~ Peter Csere

Here are some more excellent resources on the solutions to the problem of being Vegan and keeping nonhumans in our homes:

https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/nonhuman-refugees

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

The Nonhuman Refugees Of Domestication

887288687_n

I’m making separate posts on individual issues related to Veganism, so that anyone who wants a handy reference guide to each issue won’t have to go through my entire link list to find it. The links included in each individual post may not be updated regularly, so the Master List will be the only place to find complete updates. These posts will be comprehensive enough to cover most or all questions related to each issue however.

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

This section is meant to shed some light on some of the problems that are inherent in humans keeping domesticated nonhumans as companions.

Sub-Section 1B14:
Our Nonhuman Family Members:

Sub-Section 1B14a:
Moral Theory (primarily):

” ‘Pets’: The Inherent Problems of Domestication”:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-of-domestication

“Commentary #2: ‘Pets’ ” On The Abolitionist Approach:

Commentary #2: “Pets”

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/podcast/20090812-araa-commentary-2.mp3

“Commentary #4: Follow-Up to “Pets” Commentary: Non-Vegan Cats” On The Abolitionist Approach:

Commentary #4: Follow-Up to “Pets” Commentary: Non-Vegan Cats

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/podcast/20090817-araa-commentary-4.mp3

“Should We Keep Pets?” On The Abolitionist Approach:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p163/the-institution.pdf

“Animal Care and Control: The Sad Failure of New York City’s Municipal Shelter System” On The Abolitionist Approach:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-care-and-control-the-sad-failure-of-new-york-citys-municipal-shelter-system

“VegPets”:
http://yourcybercourt.info/arveg/vegpets.html

“Evaluation of cats fed vegetarian diets and attitudes of their caregivers”:
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.229.1.70

“Obligate Carnivore: Cats, Dogs, and What it Really Means to be Vegan”:
http://www.amazon.com/Obligate-Carnivore-Really-Means-Vegan/dp/0974218006

“Vegan Diets for Dogs and Cats” by Armaiti May, DVM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIMBX3jdYM0

“Dr. Andrew Knight introduces himself and his work with cats and dogs”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m_liQppxQ

“Vegan Cat Ethics”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYA1kTJCl1Y

“Quack Veterinarians Who Feed Cats a Vegan Diet”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9_hEbvlqM

“Metabolic Misconceptions”:

_

Sub-Section 1B14b:
How To Feed Our Nonhuman Family Members Vegan (primarily):

“What’s Really in Pet Food”:
http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1

Something I posted about feeding companion animals Vegan:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/the-truth-about-pet-food

“Is it ‘unnatural’ to feed dogs a vegan diet?”:
http://thevegantruth.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/is-it-unnatural-to-feed-dogs-vegan-diet.html
http://thevegantruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/v-dog-100-vegan-dog-food-owned-and.html

“Vegetarian Diets Can Be Healthy for Dogs”:
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/vegan_dogs

“Making Your Own Vegan Dog Food”:
http://www.vegan-heartland.com/2012/06/making-your-own-vegan-dog-food.html?m=1

“Dog Health Survey”:
http://www.pkdiet.com/pdf/diet/Dog_Health_Survey.pdf

“Vegan Dog Food Products – Europe, U.S., Australia, N.Z.”:
http://thevegantruth.blogspot.com/2013/09/vegan-dog-food-products-europe-us.html

“The Vegan Feline: Can my feline companion be a vegan?” by Laurie Jeffreys DVM:
http://www.farmedanimalfriends.org/1/post/2013/05/the-vegan-feline-can-my-feline-companion-be-a-vegan-by-laurie-jeffreys-dvm.html

Vegan Cat Food Companies and Distributors:
Harbingers of a New Age (US, most other countries):
http://www.vegepet.com/
(They provide homemade recipes to use with the VegeCat supplement; they also provide the Vegecat Phi supplement that is pH adjusted for cats that are prone to urinary stones)
http://www.vegepet.com/international_distribution.html

Ami Cat (Italy, also available in the US and other countries):
http://www.v-pets.com
http://www.amipetfood.com
http://www.amipetfood.com/en/our-partners (Some distributors)
http://www.greenleafvegandist.com/where-to-buy.html (Distributes Ami in Canada)

VeganPet (Australia & New Zealand):
http://www.veganpet.com.au
http://veganpet.com.au/articles/?page_id=12 (distributors)

Benevo (Europe, South Africa, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan):
http://www.benevo.com
http://www.benevo.com/distributors
http://www.tiendanimal.es/ (Spain, distributor of Benevo and possibly others)

VegePet (Taiwan, not the same as the American company):
http://www.vegepet.com.tw

FeliGourmet (Germany):
http://www.veganversand.at/vegetarischetiernahrung/katzennahrung/index.php
(Also sells Benevo and Ami Cat)

VeganCats.com:
http://www.vegancats.com
Distributor of Ami, VegeCat in USA. They do ship internationally, but your country’s customs may reject the shipment.

The Mail Order Catalog for Healthy Eating:
http://www.healthy-eating.com
(I believe this company sells TVP that is made from non-GMO soy. You can use this for the VegePet recipes that require TVP if you are making those.)

Kitty Litter that tests urinary pH (check it a few months after transitioning, then once every few months thereafter. If pH becomes too alkaline, you should use the VegePet.com recipes with the “Vegecat Phi” supplement that is adjusted for cats that are prone to urinary stones.):

Health Meter Cat Litter:
http://healthmeter.blogspot.com

Ultra Monthly Monitor (Ultra Pet):
http://ultrapetcatlitter.com/products/ultra-monthly-monitor

Perfect Litter:
http://www.perfectlitter.com

Pet Ecology PerfectLitter:
http://www.perfectlitteralert.com

“Veggie Cats: Why should you test urinary pH?”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6waDDYO8J18

“Cats with Allergies on a Plant-based Diet”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHFT1B0_H_Y

_

Facebook Pages On Vegan Cats And Dogs:
“Vegan Cats”:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/669599113104942

“Vegan Dogs Thriving”:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vegan-Dogs-Thriving/544580732238947

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info