Sometimes quitting isn't a good thing…

“New York Now” host, Susan Arbetter, says she’s a failed vegan.  She cracked her molar on an olive pit and now, that’s her excuse to return to exploiting animals.  Personally, I don’t see a correlation to cracking your tooth and going back to eating animals, but that’s just me.  What’s worse, to me anyway, is that she goes on to say:

“My conversion to Veganism was completely suspended on January 4, 2007 when my need comfort food laden with dairy, sugar and chocolate overwhelmed any desire I might have had to make a social impact in the brutal world of Big Agribusiness.”

Obviously Susan doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  There are so many plant based alternatives to her “comfort food laden with dairy, sugar and chocolate”.  Looking for butter?  Try Earth Balance.  Looking for sugar?  Try Florida Crystals brand.  Hell, even Pillsbury offers a non-bone char powdered sugar.  Looking for chocolate?  Can’t go wrong with Dagoba or Terra Nostra brand.  Just because you choose not to exploit animals doesn’t mean you have to give up comfort foods.  And further, this woman writes for an online publication.  Can she not use Google to search for vegan products?

See, it’s that type of pure disregard for sentient life that just pisses me off.  She admits that Big Agribusiness is “brutal” yet does nothing.  It’s pure selfishness.  Actually, it’s more like laziness.  It’s too inconvenient to read labels and research what you are stuffing into your mouth.

I’m not sure, but I think the point of her article (I thought it was to showcase her lack of compassion but I was wrong) is to promote her friend’s vegan blog.  I just love how she says “Nicole is not judgmental and she loves to eat.”  Because, if you take a stand for other sentient beings being slaughtered and exploited, you are “judgmental”.  Oh, I suppose I’ll have to agree since it’s technically right.  But here’s the thing.  Everyone is judgmental.  Isn’t Susan?  She judged the vegan diet to be inconvenient.  What Susan meant to say is that “vegans pass judgment onto me and I don’t like it because I don’t want any responsibility when I eat”.  And the epiphany that her friend “loves to eat” is brilliant.  I mean, doesn’t everyone love to eat?

Her friend, Nicole, seems to have fared way better than Susan in her veganism, except for a noticeable error in her post, “Vegan 101“:

“A Vegan (VEE-gun) is someone who chooses not to consume animal products, including: meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy, eggs, honey, gelatin. Most vegans also choose not to buy or wear animal products such as leather, wool, fur, down or cosmetics or other products that are animal tested or contain animal products. It is a philosophy, diet and lifestyle.”

I am drawn to her “Most vegans also choose…” quote.  See, veganism is not a diet.  Vegans choose not to exploit animals for any reason.  Millions of animals suffer and die every year for clothing, cosmetics, household chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.  And I think that Nicole gets that, but her explanation leaves us with the impression that vegans pick and choose what part of the animals they exploit.  Some may use the flesh (in the form of food), others may just use the hides (to wear) or even the bones (in makeup, sugar, alcohol).  And that is simply not true.  If you use animal products, including wearing animals, then you aren’t really vegan.

Let’s look at the origins of veganism:

The word vegan was originally derived from “vegetarian” in 1944 when Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, frustrated that the term “vegetarianism” had come to include the eating of dairy products, founded the UK Vegan Society.  They combined the first three and last two letters of vegetarian to form “vegan,” which they saw as “the beginning and end of vegetarian.”  The Vegan Society defines veganism in this way:

“Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

I think that pretty much says it all.

via timesunion.com and capitalregionvegan.blogspot.com