Kaplanisms"The judgement of vegetarians (by vegans) creates no vegans, but prevents vegetarians. The demonization of vegetarianism offers no advantages whatsoever, but it does massive harm. The deciding factor is, as I said, the moral motivation. Therefore, all those with the honest intention to abstain from up meat, those who are already on the vegan path, and all those "in between" should pull together – rather than excluding one another and thereby harming animals." (Helmut F. Kaplan, "Vegetarian or vegan? Necessary comments on an unnecessary debate")
It should now be clear that this is as morally unacceptable as it is strategically counterproductive. Indeed, this sentence alone does enormous damage to animal rights, as practice shows, as it is time and again – verbatim or paraphrased – used by vegetarians as a defence against pertinent and necessary criticism of their deadly dietary habits, as a pretext to continue to kill and mistreat animals, rather than going vegan. It is grotesque that the offenders are hereby trying to put the blame for their actions upon those that criticise them.
The truth is this:
The condemnation of vegans (by vegetarians) because of their criticism does not create a vegetarian, but prevents vegans. The acceptance of vegetarianism offers no advantages whatsoever, but does massive harm. The deciding factor is the ethical motivation alone. Therefore, all those that have an honest intention to help animals should not pull together with those that mistreat and kill animals, by paying others to do this on their behalf – instead of consuming animal products and thereby harming animals.
A further synergy effect arises: if the vegetarians were spared the criticism of their bloody deeds, for what could the corpse-eaters, who, as we well know, invariably "only eat a little meat" and of course, this "ethical meat", be criticised? That they are consuming these corpses? The victims are unlikely to care less whether they are digested, burned, buried, stuffed and hung on the wall, or dropped out of a helicopter after death; it is their life which is key. That they torture and kill a number of additional species, such as pigs, which vegetarians were unable to exploit for milk nor eggs? Even that is likely to offer their actual victims little comfort.
"If the conflict between vegetarians and vegans did not exist, it would probably be invented by the meat industry marketing strategists – and it would be a great idea. Nothing pleases the meat-eaters more than arguing vegetarians and vegans!" (ibid.)
Note the cunning whereby the vegans are blamed, yet again. Well, the conflict is easy to resolve: that is to say, the vegetarians can go vegan, thereby spoiling the fun for the "meat industry" (and more besides). Instead, Kaplan asks that we back down, and tolerate the massacres for which vegetarians are responsible. The question is, as it happens, why does Helmut Kaplan state correctly on the one hand, that: "The criticism given by the vegans to the vegetarians is correct in terms of ethics and fact." but he continues: "The criticism given by the vegans to the vegetarians is completely wrong in terms of politically strategy" (ibid.) This is easy to answer: he is so obviously defending criticism from his own ethically reprehensible actions, for he himself is at best a pseudo-vegetarian: "If my son comes to visit, we will order pizza margherita or I 'cook' ready-noodles. And: My 80 year old mother would not be able to adapt to vegan cooking, so if I am at hers, I will, for example, eat breadcrumbs (on wheat protein) which have been contaminated with eggs." (letter from 21 March 2001)
(next: Violators of animal rights)
July 19, 2010